social security, medicare, the economy, and drunken spending binge

[Kratos]

Social Security and Medicare finances worsen
Recession hurts latest forecast for two biggest benefit programs


WASHINGTON - The financial health of Social Security and Medicare, the government's two biggest benefit programs, have worsened because of the severe recession, and Medicare is now paying out more than it receives.

Trustees of the programs said Tuesday that Social Security will start paying out more in benefits than it collects in taxes in 2016, one year sooner than projected last year, and the giant trust fund will be depleted by 2037, four years sooner.

Medicare is in even worse shape. The trustees said the program for hospital expenses will pay out more in benefits than it collects this year and will be insolvent by 2017, two years earlier than the date projected in last year's report.
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, the head of the trustees group, said the new reports were a reminder that "the longer we wait to address the long-term solvency of Medicare and Social Security, the sooner those challenges will be upon us and the harder the options will be."

Report no surprise
Geithner said that President Barack Obama was committed to working with Congress to find ways to control runaway growth in both public and private health care expenditures, noting the promise Monday by major health care providers to trim costs by $2 trillion over the next decade.

The findings in the trustees report, the annual checkup given the two benefit programs, did not come as a surprise. Private economists had been predicting that the dates the programs would begin to pay out more than they take in and the dates the trust funds would be insolvent would occur sooner given the economic recession.

The deep recession, the worst the country has endured in decades, has resulted in a loss of 5.7 million jobs since it began in December 2007. The unemployment rate hit a 25-year high of 8.9 percent in April.

Fewer people working means less being paid into the trust funds for Social Security and Medicare.

The Congressional Budget Office recently projected that Social Security will collect just $3 billion more in 2010 than it will pay out in benefits. A year ago, the CBO had projected that Social Security would have a much higher $86 billion cash surplus for the 2010 budget year, which begins Oct. 1.

The trustees report projected that Social Security's annual surpluses would "fall sharply this year," then remain at a reduced level in 2010 and be lower in the following years than last year's projections. The report said that the Social Security annual surplus would be eliminated entirely in 2016, reflecting increased demands from the wave of 78 million baby boomers retiring.

That means Social Security will have to turn to its trust fund to make up the difference between Social Security taxes and the benefits being paid out beginning in 2016. The trustees projected the trust fund would be depleted in 2037, four years earlier than the 2041 date in last year's report.

Tapping the trust fund
At that point, the annual Social Security taxes collected would be enough to pay for three-fourths of current benefits through 2083. To tap the trust fund, the government would have to increase borrowing or raise taxes because Social Security bonds exist only as bookkeeping entries.

While the government is obligated to redeem those bonds, it has already spent the excess Social Security collections over the years to fund general government operations, providing the trust funds with IOUs.
While the smaller surpluses that will begin this year will not have any impact on Social Security benefit payments, the government will need to borrow more at a time when the federal deficit is already exploding because of the recession and the billions of dollars being spent to prop up a shaky banking system.

Medicare's condition is more precarious, reflecting the pressures from soaring health care costs as well as the drop in tax collections.

Obama on Monday praised the pledge by the health care industry to achieve $2 trillion in savings on health care costs over the next decade, but it was unclear how much help those pledges would be in achieving Obama's goal of extending coverage to some 50 million uninsured Americans. The administration is pushing Congress to pass legislation in this area this year, preferring to tackle health care before Social Security.

The trustees report is likely to set off renewed debate over Social Security and Medicare. Critics have charged that the Obama administration has failed to tackle the most serious problems in the budget — soaring entitlement spending.

The administration on Monday revised its federal deficit forecasts upward to project an imbalance this year of $1.84 trillion, four times last year's record, and said the deficits will remain above $500 billion every year over the next decade.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30698248

[jfalco]

Easy soulution. Start making the wealthy pay their fair share of taxes.

A statistic I often hear "conservatives" use to support tax cuts for the wealthy is that the top 5% of wealth pays 60% of the taxes. What they never mention is that this same 5% is responsible for 90% of the wealth, so they are actually should be responsible for another 30%. http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesam...er/wealth.html

These numbers are taken from wealth to which the wealthy admit. I'm sure that if all the hiden wealth was included the numbers would be staggering. Yet the poor and middle class has historically been fooled into voting against their own self interest and allowing this shit to go own. What tools do the wealthy use to make this happen?
Religion, racism, and bigotry.

Go ahead and call me a socialist and a malcontent. The poor and middle class of this country are getting screwed. The very same people who need their social security and won't be getting it are the ones who have been fooled into keeping the status quo for the last 30 years.

[jfalco]

Pretty far fetched to blame the current recession for a situation that the entire country has been fully aware of for at least 20 years.

[Kratos]

Easy soulution. Start making the wealthy pay their fair share of taxes.

A statistic I often hear "conservatives" use to support tax cuts for the wealthy is that the top 5% of wealth pays 60% of the taxes. What they never mention is that this same 5% is responsible for 90% of the wealth, so they are actually should be responsible for another 30%. http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesam...er/wealth.html

These numbers are taken from wealth to which the wealthy admit. I'm sure that if all the hiden wealth was included the numbers would be staggering. Yet the poor and middle class has historically been fooled into voting against their own self interest and allowing this shit to go own. What tools do the wealthy use to make this happen?
Religion, racism, and bigotry.

Go ahead and call me a socialist and a malcontent. The poor and middle class of this country are getting screwed. The very same people who need their social security and won't be getting it are the ones who have been fooled into keeping the status quo for the last 30 years.

Strange stance on the whole issue.
So because they have 90% of the wealth does that mean they have 90% of the income...or that they are able to save some money and assets more easily. Should you be taxed on your wealth or on your income...you decide...should I be able to come in and tax you on the money you already have in your bank account and paid income taxes on, and will pay sales taxes on should you decide to spend it...should what you have in your bank account determine your tax rate...is this what you really want?

Social security isn't a tax or a welfare or at least it wasn't ment to be. It's a means for saving for retirement...what you get out is based on what you put in...the problem is it doesn't work.

[Kratos]

Pretty far fetched to blame the current recession for a situation that the entire country has been fully aware of for at least 20 years.

not blaming the recesion on...it's a consequence of
and the fact less dollars are flowing in is making the eventual failure of these programs more expedient pending less injection of additional cash. Cash we will have to borrow, some of which was initially borrow from social security will have to be borrowed again from elsewhere to repay social security. More cost over runs, in the face of a huge deficit. or the alternative, not paying people who paid in to the system and not providing the elderly with medical care.
it's evidence of the financial irresponsibility of our gvmt

[jfalco]

Strange stance on the whole issue.
So because they have 90% of the wealth does that mean they have 90% of the income...or that they are able to save some money and assets more easily. Should you be taxed on your wealth or on your income...you decide...should I be able to come in and tax you on the money you already have in your bank account and paid income taxes on, and will pay sales taxes on should you decide to spend it...should what you have in your bank account determine your tax rate...is this what you really want?

Social security isn't a tax or a welfare or at least it wasn't ment to be. It's a means for saving for retirement...what you get out is based on what you put in...the problem is it doesn't work.

All good points.

Where I stand is that distribution of wealth is so unfair that a tax system based solely on income is not fair.

The wealthy in a large part have built their wealth by exploitation of the poor. I don't really think your tax rate should be based on your total wealth, and I did not say that. What I was trying to say is that the common complaint of the wealthy that a graduated tax is unfair is BS. I think the top end of income should be taxed at a higher percentage that it currently is. Recently Warren Buffett pointed out that he pays about 16% of his income in taxes where as his secretary pays close to 30% of hers. Does that sound fair to you?

I understand that social security is meant to be a savings account of sorts, but in reality it is a tax. If you are 30 or younger you are required to pay into social security, but it is beginning to seem like you will not get a dime back out.

At least we agree that social security doesn't work. I say let the wealthy who have built their wealth on the backs of the poor pay for the poor to retire. This seems fair to me.

[soulstealer]

Our system worked well, government is too big now, and politicians are stealing too much...

[jfalco]

not blaming the recesion on...it's a consequence of
and the fact less dollars are flowing in is making the eventual failure of these programs more expedient pending less injection of additional cash. Cash we will have to borrow, some of which was initially borrow from social security will have to be borrowed again from elsewhere to repay social security. More cost over runs, in the face of a huge deficit. or the alternative, not paying people who paid in to the system and not providing the elderly with medical care.
it's evidence of the financial irresponsibility of our gvmt

The title of the thread certainly seems like blaming. Nothing else in it would suggest that. I agree with you that deficit spending is a problem. My solution is taxing those who can most afford to pay.

Or contiunue with a culture of greed and watch our country crumble.

[Kratos]

Recently Warren Buffett pointed out that he pays about 16% of his income in taxes where as his secretary pays close to 30% of hers. Does that sound fair to you?

Warren Buffett has recently either lost his marbles
or
he thinks he is going to live forever and is looking for public support, as he has become much more of a public figure lately, for political gain. Political gain for an investor is usually helps their wallet...but he may be board with money too and be looking for a new way to entertain himself.

anyway, capitol gains is different from income tax is different from the tax small businesses pay and in the end pass on to their owners is different from corperate tax rate. You can't assume all wealthy people are paying 16% because Warren Buffet says he is.

[jfalco]

Warren Buffett has recently either lost his marbles
or
he thinks he is going to live forever and is looking for public support, as he has become much more of a public figure lately, for political gain. Political gain for an investor is usually helps their wallet...but he may be board with money too and be looking for a new way to entertain himself.

anyway, capitol gains is different from income tax is different from the tax small businesses pay and in the end pass on to their owners is different from corperate tax rate. You can't assume all wealthy people are paying 16% because Warren Buffet says he is.

This was just an example.

I understand that there are different kinds of taxes, but I'm not sure what your point is.

Why do you think Warren Buffet is crazy? Because he gave away the majority of his wealth? As far as I know, he has no political aspirations and he kept more than enough money for his family to live out their natural lives. He gave 1 billion to each of his children and said there is no need for more than this. In fact I think this is a very sane idea. Why keep much more wealth than you need?

Warren Buffet is a very shrewd business man and he made this comment to illustrate that our tax system needs reform and does not function as it should. When he made the comment he was standing next to his tax return which was a stack of paper almost as tall as him. His point, which I'm not sure I agree with, was that a flat tax would actually make wealthy pay more because our tax system is so complicated and has so many loopholes.

[thegodfather]

All good points.

Where I stand is that distribution of wealth is so unfair that a tax system based solely on income is not fair.

The wealthy in a large part have built their wealth by exploitation of the poor. I don't really think your tax rate should be based on your total wealth, and I did not say that. What I was trying to say is that the common complaint of the wealthy that a graduated tax is unfair is BS.

Why? Does a wealthy person somehow use more of a Federally funded highway than a person of middle or lower income? Basing taxes on consumption would be 'fair', for instance excise taxes, which a person has the ability to opt out of. Dont like cigarettes, dont smoke. Gas too expensive, dont want to pollute the environment? Ride your bike. etc,etc.

Income referrs to profit&gains. When you work for them and perform a task, be it physicall or mentally intensive labor, you are performing an EXCHANGE. You give work, in exchange for payment. For the IRS, Federal government, or anyone else, to try and delineate which part of that EXCHANGE is profits&gains is absolutely insane. How do you decide which part of your hour was an exchange, and which part is profit? Its impossible to do and one reason that a tax on a persons income is completely illogical and illegitimate.



I think the top end of income should be taxed at a higher percentage that it currently is. Recently Warren Buffett pointed out that he pays about 16% of his income in taxes where as his secretary pays close to 30% of hers. Does that sound fair to you?

Warren Buffet has a pretty clear political axe to grind. Whether he wants to 'enter' politics or not is irrelevant, his statements make it quite clear that he has an ideology he wants to advance regarding the tax code.

I understand that social security is meant to be a savings account of sorts, but in reality it is a tax. If you are 30 or younger you are required to pay into social security, but it is beginning to seem like you will not get a dime back out.

At least we agree that social security doesn't work. I say let the wealthy who have built their wealth on the backs of the poor pay for the poor to retire. This seems fair to me.
Or the wealthy who have created jobs for millions of people? And the wealthy who have helped grow the GDP and thus the quality of life in this country for millions of people?The wealthy who have helped this country to have the largest middle class of any country in the world? They should be penalized for their success. What kind of message does that send to future hard workers and innovators? One message, that even after paying your taxes you will be taxed even more for the hard work and success you have achieved. Our current system of incentives, and the ability to earn as much as you want, and KEEP it, is what drives innovation, efficiency, and advancement. You want to throw an even bigger wrench into the principles of free market laissez-faire economics which WORKS!

My responses are in bold.

[jfalco]

What clear political ax does Warren Buffet have to grind?

I firmly believe that there is not reason why anyone should have more than they need or could ever use while others live in poverty.

When you say things like laissez-faire economics works, I would have to ask who it works for. If your only concern is increasing GDP, sure laissez-faire economics works.

And just curious Mr. Libertarian, are you wealthy?

[Kratos]

What do you know about poverty? Let me guess you had to hold off until next year to buy a new big screen TV. More efficent economy means there is more for everyone, that's why you don't have to worry about the important stuff, like affording enough rice for dinner.
http://dmiessler.com/blog/warren-buf...a-why-dont-you
Warren Buffet enjoys celb status and plenty of political influence...a billion for each kid may be plenty in his case but we're talking about targeting everyone who makes over 150k...and he may be giving all his money away, but guess who he's not giving it to...the govmt, and he'll avoid every tax he can until he gives it awy, and do you know why?...because they'll waste the shit out of it. Private charity is much more efficent at doing good for the public, like private enterprise.

[jfalco]

You should not make assumptions about me. I will try not to make assumptions about you. You are right that I do not live in poverty. There have been brief periods of my life when I could barely afford to eat, but I have never been anywhere near poverty. But I am not complaining about my own situation. I have seen plenty of poverty and I don't like to see it. You don't have to be a member of a group to be concerned about them. I give to charity every year and have when I was making as little as 24k. I am definitely not talking about targeting folks making 150k a year. These people are not wealthy. I am talking about wealthy people.
Warren Buffet gave his money to the Bill and melinda Gates foundation, because he thought this was the group that would most efficiently use his money to help humanity (not america). I'm sorry I used him as an example. What I was trying to show is that wealthy do not pay their fair share. He just happened to be the only rich guy for whom I knew the percentage of his income which went to taxes.
I agree with you that raising taxes on folks making 150k is a bad idea. I just look at a country with a debt that needs to be paid and I say, let the people who accumulated the most (and I am only talking about people with much more than they need or can use) pay it. I agree 100% that the government is ineficient and corrupt.

[j4ever41]

"Where I stand is that distribution of wealth is so unfair"

Please explain the statement above.

[RA]

And now he wants govt healthcare which is going to end up like medicare...running out of money and puting a price on peoples lives.

[jfalco]

"Where I stand is that distribution of wealth is so unfair"

Please explain the statement above.

Some people have quite a bit of wealth where as others have none and the main determining factor in this distribution is birth.

Before you start giving me examples of people born without money that became wealthy, I know that does happen, but it is unusual. This is just my opinion on what is fair. I understand that you my not agree. I can not prove this statement as it is just an opinion.

[RA]

Any stats on this because I think its just a jealous bs rant. Most of the people I know with money were self made..busting their asses and going the extra mile so people like you could hate them for what they have and want to take it away.

Some people have quite a bit of wealth where as others have none and the main determining factor in this distribution is birth.

Before you start giving me examples of people born without money that became wealthy, I know that does happen, but it is unusual. This is just my opinion on what is fair. I understand that you my not agree. I can not prove this statement as it is just an opinion.

[jfalco]

Any stats on this because I think its just a jealous bs rant. Most of the people I know with money were self made..busting their asses and going the extra mile so people like you could hate them for what they have and want to take it away.

Nope no stats.

I'm not jealous. I have everything I need, more than most. It was just an answer to a question. I was asked what I meant by unfair distribution of wealth, and that was my answer.

I would guess that the people you know with money are not what I would consider wealthy. I don't know you, so this is just a guess. Maybe you know some self made billionairs, but I doubt it. I'm not really talking about people who worked hard and made a good life for themselves. I am talking about the kind of wealth that does not go away.

I don't hate the wealthy for their good fortune any more than I hate the poor for their misfortune. I am neither wealthy nor poor. I just see a problem and a simple solution. We have a very large national debt. It needs to be paid. I think those who are most capable of paying should be the ones who pay.

[Kratos]

Have you ever thought the people with enough money to be what you would think of as wealthy wouldn't be able to make a dent in the national debt. A debt now expanding at more then 4 times the previous record. That maybe we're giving too much of our assets to the less fortunate in this country. Not everyone can be rich in a society, it's just how it goes.

Do you really think the average Joe is ready to run Donald Trump's empire...no, but his kids are, and they're damn hard workers too. More is passed on then money.

Have you ever thought it strange we need to import Mexicans to pick the fruit and clean the bathrooms, but after only a few years in this country, they don't feel like doing it either?

[jfalco]

Have you ever thought the people with enough money to be what you would think of as wealthy wouldn't be able to make a dent in the national debt. A debt now expanding at more then 4 times the previous record. That maybe we're giving too much of our assets to the less fortunate in this country. Not everyone can be rich in a society, it's just how it goes.

Do you really think the average Joe is ready to run Donald Trump's empire...no, but his kids are, and they're damn hard workers too. More is passed on then money.

Have you ever thought it strange we need to import Mexicans to pick the fruit and clean the bathrooms, but after only a few years in this country, they don't feel like doing it either?

Actually I think capitolism is a flawed system that will inevitably lead to the distruction of humanity.

I agree that not everyone can be rich. But everyone can live well. We currently have the technology to solve most of the worlds problems, but it doesn't happen because it isn't profitable. We have known how to supply all of the worlds energy w/o poluting since the 70's but it doesn't happen, because there is no profit in it. We can easily provide the entire population of the world with enough to eat, clean water, and decent living conditions, but it is not profitable. Greed is a powerful motivator, and until huminity finds a better motivation we are doomed.

Maybe we should all clean our own bathrooms and pick our own fruit. Picking fruit isn't really that bad, but the pay sucks.

I agree with you about a lot of what you are saying. I don't think the average jo is ready or wants to run doland trump's empire. I don't think dolald trump's empire should exist.

How's that for a rant.

[Kratos]

profit is only a measure of suplus resources, if you do things that are unprofitable it comes at the expense of something else.

How is capitolism going to end the world?

what technology could supply the world with food and energy? and if not capitolism, what force will bring it to reality?

I didn't mean the bathrooms in our homes, and there are no fruit trees were I live to pick from.

It's a confusing rant at best, I don't understand what you are wanting us to do...I mean the gvmt is already draining the resources of this country and morgaging our future. But, to you business is the enemy and more gvmt sounds like what you want.

[vpchill]

I have many Friends from diff ethnic backgrounds. One thing that two of my older Russian friends seem to tell me is that they enjoyed living under a communist government. (Meanwhile, one will never go back - Nonetheless) As they explain it everyone is equal. The system is flawed (They admit) but no one was better than anyone. then a Big discussion of how the Russian gangsters took over due to lack of solid government when communism was over in Russia.
The point is, They speak very highly of communism and how the ideas are better than most.
Just thought Id throw that out there. I always thought it was interesting, because we are lead to believe communism is so bad.

[jfalco]

There has never been a true communist government.

[vpchill]

As I said, Im just speaking on My Friends. They both tell me Russia was better with that form of government than now. I just always find it interesting how highly they speak and yet One of them will never ever go back.

[jfalco]

profit is only a measure of suplus resources, if you do things that are unprofitable it comes at the expense of something else.

How is capitolism going to end the world?

what technology could supply the world with food and energy? and if not capitolism, what force will bring it to reality?

I didn't mean the bathrooms in our homes, and there are no fruit trees were I live to pick from.

It's a confusing rant at best, I don't understand what you are wanting us to do...I mean the gvmt is already draining the resources of this country and morgaging our future. But, to you business is the enemy and more gvmt sounds like what you want.

Clean enery is available in solar and wind power. Very simple technologies.

Agriculture can provide the entire world with food.

Modern plumbing can give clean water to the entire world.

The problem is there is no profit in helping people for the sake of doing good. There is enough of everything to go around, but it would require people to be motivated by nothing other than the common good. I don't see it happening any time soon, so I think some bad times are in our future.

Profit is not a measure of surplus resources. Profit is the making of gain in a business activity for the benifit of the business owner.

[jfalco]

BTW vpchill, are you calling me a commie? lol.

[vpchill]

Not Yet Bro.. LOL

[jfalco]

I prefer pinko commie bastard when it gets to that point.

[vpchill]

You got it.

[Kratos]

Clean enery is available in solar and wind power. Very simple technologies.

Agriculture can provide the entire world with food.

Modern plumbing can give clean water to the entire world.

The problem is there is no profit in helping people for the sake of doing good. There is enough of everything to go around, but it would require people to be motivated by nothing other than the common good. I don't see it happening any time soon, so I think some bad times are in our future.
.

Don't you have plumbing and food and energy just as about everyone in America does? What you're complaining about is our nation isn't giving it to the rest of the world. Our economy works so well we can afford to give some away. So the problem can't be our economy isn't working efficently, it's that the economy of other counties works so crappily that we have to give them a slice of our resources. And no, there isn't enough to go around...we can't provide an army of plumbers for the world...we can't grow all the food here for the world...It is estimated that if everyone in world ate as US citizens do (deriving about 25% of our calories from meat or animal products), much less than half of the present world population could be fed even on the tremendous woldwide grain harvests of 1985 and 1986. Sorry, there just isn't enough pie in the world for everyone in the world to have as big a slice as present day Americans. We're a nation of a few hundred million in a world of billions, they must provide some for themselves.

alt energy worked poorly in the 70's and has come a long way, but still isn't the total soloution to our energy needs.

[Kratos]

There has never been a true communist government.

because they fall apart and crumble from within with corruption

pure free market eliminates corruption as an inefficency

[thegodfather]

We have known how to supply all of the worlds energy w/o poluting since the 70's but it doesn't happen, because there is no profit in it.

You are completely wrong with that statement. We can provide pollution free energy at a cheaper cost to consmers via nuclear power. The reason we cannot do this however, is because of LIBERAL DEMOCRATS who have embraced the far left environmental movement much in the same way as neo-conservatives have embraced the religious whackos on the bible belt. 500,000 people die every year worldwide from the burning of coal for energy. Nuclear power would eliminate this, but liberal Democrats lobby so heavily against nuclear power that they have not allowed any plants to be built since the 70s. THATS the reason, its purely political, as I assure you there are plenty in private industry who would love to build more nuclear power plants to COMPETE(free market anyone?) with the ones still using more harmful forms of energy production.

[jfalco]

Don't you have plumbing and food and energy just as about everyone in America does? What you're complaining about is our nation isn't giving it to the rest of the world. Our economy works so well we can afford to give some away. So the problem can't be our economy isn't working efficently, it's that the economy of other counties works so crappily that we have to give them a slice of our resources. And no, there isn't enough to go around...we can't provide an army of plumbers for the world...we can't grow all the food here for the world...It is estimated that if everyone in world ate as US citizens do (deriving about 25% of our calories from meat or animal products), much less than half of the present world population could be fed even on the tremendous woldwide grain harvests of 1985 and 1986. Sorry, there just isn't enough pie in the world for everyone in the world to have as big a slice as present day Americans. We're a nation of a few hundred million in a world of billions, they must provide some for themselves.

alt energy worked poorly in the 70's and has come a long way, but still isn't the total soloution to our energy needs.

Clearly I wasn't talking about america.

You don't know what you are talking about on alternate energy sources. The only problem is that there is no profit in producing it. Windmills are very simple technology. You're right about solar energy from the 70's being inefficient, but even with that version of solar, solar panels could provide all the energy needs for a home in a sunny area. People have been living sucessfully off the grid in New Mexico for over 20 years (google earth ships), and the concept has been used sucessfully in almost every climate.

I agree with you that people can't eat like americans. That's why I am a vegetarian. I try to practice what I preach as much, but I admit I am not always succesful.

[jfalco]

because they fall apart and crumble from within with corruption

pure free market eliminates corruption as an inefficency

actually it is because a central concept of communism is that it could only happen in the most advanced societies. It has only been attempted in some of the least advanced societies.

[jfalco]

You are completely wrong with that statement. We can provide pollution free energy at a cheaper cost to consmers via nuclear power. The reason we cannot do this however, is because of LIBERAL DEMOCRATS who have embraced the far left environmental movement much in the same way as neo-conservatives have embraced the religious whackos on the bible belt. 500,000 people die every year worldwide from the burning of coal for energy. Nuclear power would eliminate this, but liberal Democrats lobby so heavily against nuclear power that they have not allowed any plants to be built since the 70s. THATS the reason, its purely political, as I assure you there are plenty in private industry who would love to build more nuclear power plants to COMPETE(free market anyone?) with the ones still using more harmful forms of energy production.

Nuclear is not the only alternate power source. I agree with you that burning coal is assanine. Nuclear is definitely preferable to coal as a power source, but there are better solutions.
The way we live is destroying the world. If you don't believe that, I don't know how to convince you. The changes needed are drastic and I don't really see it happening. So live you life however you choose. I don't see myself living my life out in th U.S. anyway and currently I don't really see fit to bring children into this world, so I don't know why I care. But I do care.

[Kratos]

actually it is because a central concept of communism is that it could only happen in the most advanced societies. It has only been attempted in some of the least advanced societies.

and why is that? Why can't it work and bring advancement to a less advanced society?

[Kratos]

Clearly I wasn't talking about america.

You're right about solar energy from the 70's being inefficient, but even with that version of solar, solar panels could provide all the energy needs for a home in a sunny area. People have been living sucessfully off the grid in New Mexico for over 20 years (google earth ships), and the concept has been used sucessfully in almost every climate.
.

Wind was pretty shitty shit too for providing the amount of power Americans use. Maybe people could get by in New Mexico huddled around a little 12v light bulb, but that isn't how most Americans choose or desire to live. And, it sure wouldn't have provided enough electricity for any type of industry.

Check out the solar system at Fed-ex main distribution center...alt energy is finally becoming an economical option...proof the free market is working when something begins to make sense.

Wind is starting to get attractive, too, but the gvmt should not be involved in pushing the technology before it's ready. Who stands to benifit? Well, GE for one since they make a lot of the turbines...how about T.Boone Pickins who has a multi-billion dollar wind farm under way and threw Obama his thumbs up for the election will get a windfall (shameless pun) of profits you can bet (green dollars, not desire for green energy). Yup, corruption is everywhere when the gvmt gets involved.

[jfalco]

and why is that? Why can't it work and bring advancement to a less advanced society?

Ask Karl Marx. It was his idea not mine.
Basically he said it was the next step in the evolution of society beyond democracy and it could only be sucessful in the most advanced society.

[jfalco]

Wind was pretty shitty shit too for providing the amount of power Americans use. Maybe people could get by in New Mexico huddled around a little 12v light bulb, but that isn't how most Americans choose or desire to live. And, it sure wouldn't have provided enough electricity for any type of industry.

Check out the solar system at Fed-ex main distribution center...alt energy is finally becoming an economical option...proof the free market is working when something begins to make sense.

Wind is starting to get attractive, too, but the gvmt should not be involved in pushing the technology before it's ready. Who stands to benifit? Well, GE for one since they make a lot of the turbines...how about T.Boone Pickins who has a multi-billion dollar wind farm under way and threw Obama his thumbs up for the election will get a windfall (shameless pun) of profits you can bet (green dollars, not desire for green energy). Yup, corruption is everywhere when the gvmt gets involved.

The people you refered to in new mexico do not live huddled around on 12 v light bulb. They enjoy all of the comforts that the averave american enjoys.

Wind technology has been "ready" for quite some time. You could not immagine a simpler technology. It's basically just a bunch of magnets.

You are 100% correct about green dollars driving innovation. I can envision a world where people are motivated by the common good rather than greed. I wish that there were more people who thought like me. On an individual level most people will help someone out if they can. Why can't we behave the same way as a society and just do things because they should be done without concern for personal gain? I believe that a capitalist system prevents this sort of behavior because if you do something without concern for personal gain someone else is probably taking advantage of you and profiting from your hard work. You are left feeling like a chump.

I can't argue with you about the way things work. You seem to understand that very well. What I am saying is it doesn't have to be this way.