How many times will Social Security be . . .

[d-ray657]

A thread topic for the next few years? Robert Samuelson from the WaPO and Economics Professor Peter Kutner each appeared on NPR this morning to discuss the Social Security Fund's solvency and approaches to addressing it's solvency. Samuelson was gloom and doom, suggesting that the government over-promised and now we are in a crisis situation in which the SS fund is facing a crash. He wants to cut benefits and increase the retirement age. In response to concerns that an advanced retirement age would fall particularly harshly on those who have been involved in hard physical labor during their working life, he said that public policy "cannot be based on the concerns of even a significant minority." At the same time, he defended the tax cuts for the top 2%. I wonder if 2% is more than a significant minority.:confused:

Despite his gloom and doom, he acknowledged that SS is fully funded for the next 28 years, and that if wages had kept up with productivity, there would be no problem.

Peter Kutner suggested that a "Social Security Crisis" does not exist. He pointed to Samuelson's necessary acknowledgment that SS is fully funded for 28 more years to demonstrate the lack of any real crisis. Kutner noted that the concern about the impending retirement of the baby boom generation was addressed in '83 by the increased withholdings for social security. About the only thing he agreed with Samuelson is that if wages had kept pace with increases in productivity, there would be no issue with long term funding. Even with the increase in productivity being absorbed by the investment class, Kutner suggested that minor adjustments would further secure future benefits, one of those tweaks being a significant increase in the cap on contributions. Finally, Kutner suggested that the talk of crisis was mostly a smokescreen by those who disagree with social insurance for political reasons.

I know my bias shows through in my summary of their positions, but what is your position of the status and future of Social Security.

Regards,

D-Ray

[noonereal]

excellent post thank you

[BlueStreak]

Oh, ferfuksake. Check the history. The GOP has been out to kill SS since 1935. The damn slavedrivers are afraid someone will stop working and NOT starve to death as a consequence. That's what this is all about. It wouldn't matter if SS was running an eighty trillion surplus, they would still be sneaking around trying to poke holes in the hull.
And everyone here knows it.

"Finally, Kutner suggested that the talk of crisis was mostly a smokescreen by those who disagree with social insurance for political reasons."----BINGO! WE HAVE A WINNER!!!

Dave

[d-ray657]

You are not insinuating that the honorable Congresspersons from the GOP do not have the cajones to attack Social Security head on, are you? Actually, I wish they would - that would most certainly restore a democratic majority.

Regards,

D-Ray

[BlueStreak]

Yes, I am.

Dave

[noonereal]

You are not insinuating that the honorable Congresspersons from the GOP do not have the cajones to attack Social Security head on, are you? Actually, I wish they would - that would most certainly restore a democratic majority.

Regards,

D-Ray

do you really think so?

I don't. Not till they got a check that was smaller.

[whell]

If the current profligate spending habits of our friends inside the beltway do not change, SS doesn't stand a chance. The blue print for hijacking SS funds is being laid out across the pond right now:

http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/The-Adam-Smith-Institute-Blog/2011/0102/European-nations-begin-seizing-private-pensions

Even our friends at the CBO are less than optimistic. From their 2009 report:

"The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that the Social Security trust funds will be exhausted in 2043.1 (Unless otherwise stated, the years referred to in this report are calendar years.) Thus, if the law remains unchanged, CBO projects that 34 years from now, the Social Security Administration (SSA) will not have the legal authority to pay full benefits."

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/104xx/doc10457/08-07-SocialSecurity_Update.pdf

Well paid boomers continue to retire, and corporate gains in "efficiency" suggest that fewer workers are coming in behind to replace the retirees. Sooner or later, the math catches up. The only difference is that when the government does it, its legal. When Bernie Madoff does it, its a crime.

[BlueStreak]

Oh, so the new doomsday is 2043? Wasn't it 2037 about ten years ago? And, I think I saw something a while back that said it was predicted in the late 1930s that SS was unsustainable and wouldn't last past 1970, or something like that.

"Well paid boomers continue to retire, and corporate gains in "efficiency" suggest that fewer workers are coming in behind to replace the retirees."

So, the real problem is that people are overcompensated, live long enough to retire and the corporations are screwing it up with efficiency gains? We should all live like peasants and die before we reach retirement age? Are you suggesting that corporate efficiency gains are a bad thing?

Another old memory just popped into my head. I read an article in a trade magazine years ago about a factory in Japan. It was a glowing article about an injection molding shop that was so highly automated it could literally run itself without any people, for a few days. Then, of course maintenance folks would have to go in and service the machines, and they still needed administrative and managerial types. But, in years prior, it took nearly five times as many people to run the place. What stuck in my mind was a comment left at the end of the article; "When we've finally reached this level of automation and efficiency worldwide, what do we do with all of the low and unskilled people?"

That is an interesting question isn't it?

Look closely at the pictures. They're all unemployed and homeless people in Japan. Tent cities and unemployment lines. And these are current photos.

Dave

[noonereal]

The entire SS discussion is bogus. All we need to do is stop raping it and take off the cap.
Then we will not only not have to have this conversation but we could afford to pay the elderly and disabled substantially more and not keep them hungry and cold.

[noonereal]

The blue print for hijacking SS funds is being laid out across the pond right now:

http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/The-Adam-Smith-Institute-Blog/2011/0102/European-nations-begin-seizing-private-pensions


It's a much different system than here.

[merrylander]

It is all a load of BS, I worked up until 73 yet the Bush administratuion forced me to take my SS payments at 65. So naturally given the salary that I was earning those payements were taxed at the top rate.

All this talk about fewer workers to fill in behind the baby boomers, how so - are they planning on outsourcing every damn job?

[finnbow]

"The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that the Social Security trust funds will be exhausted in 2043.1

I wish the rest of our government outlay programs had an equally rosy future.

[piece-itpete]

Yeah, 2043, on IOUs.

The Dems have a different way of screwing recipients - just never give them a cost of living increase.

Pete

[piece-itpete]

Hey not to be snarky ;)

SS will be a recurring topic because it's about to cost us a LOT.

Pete

[whell]

It's a much different system than here. The government's power, on both sides of the pond, to take control of the funds, or manipulate the system to gain control of those funds, make any differences irrelevant.

[BlueStreak]

It is all a load of BS, I worked up until 73 yet the Bush administratuion forced me to take my SS payments at 65. So naturally given the salary that I was earning those payements were taxed at the top rate.

All this talk about fewer workers to fill in behind the baby boomers, how so - are they planning on outsourcing every damn job?

+1. Bull it is............

Dave

[merrylander]

The government's power, on both sides of the pond, to take control of the funds, or manipulate the system to gain control of those funds, make any differences irrelevant.

The governmment here does not need to sieze private pension funds since non of them are fully funded in any case.:rolleyes:

[noonereal]

The government's power, on both sides of the pond, to take control of the funds, or manipulate the system to gain control of those funds, make any differences irrelevant.

huh?

sorry whell, that made no sense

that's just fear mongering, very GOP of you

[whell]

huh?

sorry whell, that made no sense

that's just fear mongering, very GOP of you

Tell that to the folks in Europe who stand to get screwed in retirement.

[whell]

The governmment here does not need to sieze private pension funds since non of them are fully funded in any case.:rolleyes:

That's only government and union pension funds. :eek:

[BlueStreak]

The governmment here does not need to sieze private pension funds since non of them are fully funded in any case.:rolleyes:

:confused:Private pension funds???????????:confused:

There are private sector employees in this country who still have a "pension"? Anyone under the age of sixty, that is?

Dave

[BlueStreak]

Tell that to the folks in Europe who stand to get screwed in retirement.

At least they have a retirement to GET screwed out of...............

Dave

[BlueStreak]

That's only government and union pension funds. :eek:

Because no one else HAS a pension to lose.

Dave

[noonereal]

At least they have a retirement to GET screwed out of...............

Dave

plus 1

[merrylander]

I am just thankful that mine is from a Canadian company and is fully funded.

[piece-itpete]

The governmment here does not need to sieze private pension funds since non of them are fully funded in any case.:rolleyes:

Lol!

Whell, I disagree with you for once. They aren't angling for control - they had it from the start and spent it already.

Pete

[BlueStreak]

The governmment here does not need to sieze private pension funds since non of them are fully funded in any case.:rolleyes:

Again, It's because few in the private sector here, in the US, even HAVE a pension fund to begin with. Most of that was quietly stripped away a couple or three decades ago, along with the vast majority of unionized private sector jobs.

I can remember having a company funded pension and a 401k in the 1980s. Now, I have to put a much bigger part of my paycheck into my 401k, (10%, at present.), and I fear that it still may not be enough to actually retire on.
I know a whole lot of people who put NOTHING into retirement savings. NOTHING. Because, with wages being what they are, (And, to be honest taxes, at the working class level.), they claim they can't afford it. They are banking on SS and Medicare to save their ass, and then, ironically, voting for Republicans because they think it will get them lower taxes...........Let's see. What was that? .9%? Whew! We can afford that that retirement home in the Bahamas now! Thank ya, Jesus!

So, what is our big plan?

Why cutting, and eventually eliminating SS and Medicare, of course. "But, Dave, then we can give them a tax break and they can save more." No, we never give "them" a substantial tax break. When was the last time THAT happened? No, the only people who get substantial tax cuts in this country ARE THE PEOPLE WHO DON'T NEED THEM! And even if we did, do you think it would go into retirement savings? Oh, hell no. It would go into bigger boats and Chinese made junk.

No. What it will get them in the end is no pension, no savings, no SS and no medical insurance, (At the time they need it the most. Old age.)

But, hey, at least they can have satisfaction of knowing they didn't "steal" any money from the billionaires. They did the "moral" thing........Or maybe they're just a bunch of gullible tools?

Maybe by giving the cuts to the wealthy, they'll invest more and create jobs. Yes they will---elsewhere. Because you are still way more expensive than a Chinaman. "Well, then we'll work even harder for even less, and we'll do away with all of these pesky safety and environmental regulations. That'll make the businessmen happy!"

Where does THAT road lead? And would you really want to pass THAT polluted, low wage shithole of a world on to your kids?

"Oh, you're just a whiney little liberal loser! Ha, ha, ha, ha................."

No, I'm just looking ahead twenty years and trying to put up a sign-post;

"Warning! Disaster ahead!"

Some of us try to look beyond the next (empty) promise of tax cuts and our own self-interest.

Have a nice Day!

Dave

[whell]

Lol!

Whell, I disagree with you for once. They aren't angling for control - they had it from the start and spent it already.

Pete

You're right. My bad.;)

[piece-itpete]

People (myself included!) are suckers.

Pete

[BlueStreak]

P.T. Barnum was right, and Goldwater and Reagan were listening.

Dave

[piece-itpete]

Indeed. Clinton and Obama too, I'd say ;)

Pete

[BlueStreak]

What are they going to go after next, Pete? What are you willing to give up to appease the Gods of Capitalism next time around? 'Cuz, you know it won't stop here. Where do you draw the line? Tell me, what am I going to be "socialist pussy" for expressing concern about next?

"The market will determine...............", as if "the market" is something with a mind of its own, completely beyond anyones control. Bull, pure and utter bull. I'm tired of having my intelligence insulted with that garbage.

Dave

[whell]

What are they going to go after next, Pete? What are you willing to give up to appease the Gods of Capitalism next time around? 'Cuz, you know it won't stop here. Where do you draw the line? Tell me, what am I going to be "socialist pussy" for expressing concern about next?

"The market will determine...............", as if "the market" is something with a mind of its own, completely beyond anyones control. Bull, pure and utter bull. I'm tired of having my intelligence insulted with that garbage.

Dave

Starting with the new deal and accelerating since then, government has been driving social policy through businesses and the workplace. There are some elements of this that may have made sense at one time, some still might. However, I believe we've stretched the boundaries of what makes sense, and when the system starts to fail, we blame "big business". We don't blame "big government", when it was "big government" that mandated, funded, and made promises regarding Social Security, Medicare, Unemployment, Health Care, Family Leave time, etc., or required or assumed that businesses would "always" be able to assume those responsibilities for their employees.

However, rather than ask what we must "give up to the Gods of capitalism", I propose a different question: What responsibility does the employer have to fund the health and retirement needs of their employees, beyond what is agreed to between the employer and the employee at the time of hire? Where does this responsibility flow from? Where has the employer agreed to assume this responsibility other than competing for labor in the marketplace?

For what its worth: pensions - aka defined benefit plans - have receded from the corporate landscape because they have become to expensive to maintain and too expensive to operate. This expense is not limited to the accumulated payment obligations to retirees (though some plans certainly made some dopey actuarial assumptions - no worse than those made by those who set up Social Security back in the day I'd suggest). The funding and administrative expenses have become especially burdensome. Defined contribution plans allow employers to continue funding employee retirement, and provide the flexibility to limit or curtail contributions when business conditions sour: something that defined benefit plans don't allow.

[piece-itpete]

What are they going to go after next, Pete? What are you willing to give up to appease the Gods of Capitalism next time around? 'Cuz, you know it won't stop here. Where do you draw the line? Tell me, what am I going to be "socialist pussy" for expressing concern about next?

"The market will determine...............", as if "the market" is something with a mind of its own, completely beyond anyones control. Bull, pure and utter bull. I'm tired of having my intelligence insulted with that garbage.

Dave

Central control of the economy is the goal of anyone wishing control of the people. The efficiency of a free market has been proven beyond doubt. The failure of central planning has also been proven beyond doubt.

I'd be willing to offer up Obama :)

Excellent post Whell.

Pete

[merrylander]

For what its worth: pensions - aka defined benefit plans - have receded from the corporate landscape because they have become to expensive to maintain and too expensive to operate. This expense is not limited to the accumulated payment obligations to retirees (though some plans certainly made some dopey actuarial assumptions - no worse than those made by those who set up Social Security back in the day I'd suggest). The funding and administrative expenses have become especially burdensome. Defined contribution plans allow employers to continue funding employee retirement, and provide the flexibility to limit or curtail contributions when business conditions sour: something that defined benefit plans don't allow.

Bullshit, my former employer was/is profitable has fully funded its employee retirement plan and I don't doubt but what they will continue to be profitable.

They seem to be able to administer the retirement plan and even provide COLA when warranted.

The problem here is in part based on some idiotic rules such as quarterly reporting whose sole benefit is to profit takers on Wall Street.

Dave is correct in stating that the so called "free market" as some self-regulating sentient being is an insult to any intelligent person. It never has been truly free in any case but has been manipulated from within.

[merrylander]

Central control of the economy is the goal of anyone wishing control of the people. The efficiency of a free market has been proven beyond doubt. Pete

Granted it sure was very efficient in damn near starting another depression.:rolleyes:

[finnbow]

What responsibility does the employer have to fund the health and retirement needs of their employees, beyond what is agreed to between the employer and the employee at the time of hire? Where does this responsibility flow from? Where has the employer agreed to assume this responsibility other than competing for labor in the marketplace?


Thoughtful post, but it seems to me that funding for health insurance or retirement has to come from somewhere. It either comes from the state through general taxation or through the employer through wages and benefits. Pick your poison.

As you are certainly aware, during WWII, wage and price controls were placed upon American employers (rightly or wrongly). To compete for workers, companies begin to offer health benefits, giving rise to the employer-based system. Inertia, along with GOP scare tactics, keeps it that way.

[piece-itpete]

The US economy is far from free. The way it is regulated is often the problem, conveniently laid at capitalism's feet to shed the blame off the demogoges/politicians who screwed it up in the first place.

Pete

[piece-itpete]

Btw the OP does point out the elephant in the room (not the GOP one ;)).

SS has already started cashing IOUs. Time to pay the piper. Again. And his bill is high.

Pete

[finnbow]

The US economy is far from free. The way it is regulated is often the problem, conveniently laid at capitalism's feet to shed the blame off the demogoges/politicians who screwed it up in the first place.

Pete

It's about as free as any in a modern society. I guess we could go back to a barter system.

Like it or not, modern capitalism needs regulation (albeit smart regulation). Enron, WorldCom, Leaman Bros, ... should make that perfectly clear. Like it or not, greed is endemic to the human condition.

[merrylander]

Uh Pete, they repealed Glass-Stegal way back when, exactly what regulation are you talking about?

[piece-itpete]

The regulation that forces companies like mine to have practically a division reporting to the government?

The only thing not regulated is garage sales etc, and just wait.

Pete

[merrylander]

Yet with all this "regulation" the derivative boys still managed to wreck the economy?

[piece-itpete]

There is no doubt that political pressures played their part.

Pete

[finnbow]

There is no doubt that political pressures played their part.

Yes, there is. I'm not convinced that the Titans of Wall Street can be convinced to undertake an investment scheme by Congressional strong-arming.

It's a convenient excuse to blame government instead of the actual jagoffs who caused the problem (while said jagoffs were lining the pockets of politicians to reduce regulations/scrutiny to allow them to make (and lose) their millions).

[piece-itpete]

The whistle was blown as early as Clintons' second term. And the new, open government of Obama still refuses to release freddie/fannies' contribution records.

Pete

[whell]

It's a convenient excuse to blame government instead of the actual jagoffs who caused the problem (while said jagoffs were lining the pockets of politicians to reduce regulations/scrutiny to allow them to make (and lose) their millions).

Depends on what "problem" we're referring to. If the problem is derivatives and obscuring losses in the mortgage market, them we have to start with the "jagoffs". If the issues is the relaxing of underwriting standards in the face of pressure by the feds to write more mortgages that folks couldn't afford so the "have nots" could turn in to "haves", then we need to look inside the beltway.

[whell]

Bullshit, my former employer was/is profitable has fully funded its employee retirement plan and I don't doubt but what they will continue to be profitable.

They seem to be able to administer the retirement plan and even provide COLA when warranted.

The problem here is in part based on some idiotic rules such as quarterly reporting whose sole benefit is to profit takers on Wall Street.

Dave is correct in stating that the so called "free market" as some self-regulating sentient being is an insult to any intelligent person. It never has been truly free in any case but has been manipulated from within.

What part is "BS"? I'm one of the limited few who still works for an employer that offers both 401(k) and pension. So what? Only 17 of the Fortune 100 still offer a defined benefit plan, and that number will likely fall over the ensuing years.

Reporting requirements are a function of the SEC, so you can look to our fearless leaders if you want to complain about that.

Still the question remains: what is the correct role of the employer in all of this, who defines it, and how is it defined?

[whell]

Thoughtful post, but it seems to me that funding for health insurance or retirement has to come from somewhere. It either comes from the state through general taxation or through the employer through wages and benefits. Pick your poison.

As you are certainly aware, during WWII, wage and price controls were placed upon American employers (rightly or wrongly). To compete for workers, companies begin to offer health benefits, giving rise to the employer-based system. Inertia, along with GOP scare tactics, keeps it that way.

Yes, I'm aware that what once was a recruiting tactic has devolved into an expectation/perceived right. Don't quite get the reference to the "GOP scare tactics." Expand please?

[noonereal]

Still the question remains: what is the correct role of the employer in all of this, who defines it, and how is it defined?

the government needs to define it or we have abuse

[finnbow]

Yes, I'm aware that what once was a recruiting tactic has devolved into an expectation/perceived right. Don't quite get the reference to the "GOP scare tactics." Expand please?

GOP scare tactics were responsible, at least in part, for shit-canning of a single-payer system (which would have been a true change to the status quo, something PPACA isn't in terms of employer provided insurance).

[whell]

the government needs to define it or we have abuse

So the government tells the employer what role they must play in funding an employee's retirement and health care? Where does the government derive the power to direct employers in this way?

[noonereal]

GOP scare tactics were responsible, at least in part, for shit-canning of a single-payer system (which would have been a true change to the status quo, something PPACA isn't in terms of employer provided insurance).

I disagree

single-payer system was never on the plate.

this was killed years ago by the power of the buck

[whell]

GOP scare tactics were responsible, at least in part, for shit-canning of a single-payer system (which would have been a true change to the status quo, something PPACA isn't in terms of employer provided insurance).

So, at least under the status quo, employers could shed this responsibility at any time?

By the way, the DEMs never could must the votes within their own caucus for single payer either. It was never going to happen with or without Repub votes.

[whell]

I disagree

single-payer system was never on the plate.

this was killed years ago by the power of the buck

I think it actually was. The Pres is on record as stating that he wants it, and I believe this is still the case. The left wing of the Dem party threatened to kabosh PPACA if they didn't get it, but in the end reality kicked in when the DEM votes for it weren't there.

[noonereal]

So the government tells the employer what role they must play in funding an employee's retirement and health care? Where does the government derive the power to direct employers in this way?

Mike, do you think unbridled capitalism (now corporatism) is good for the masses?
Honest?

[finnbow]

So the government tells the employer what role they must play in funding an employee's retirement and health care? Where does the government derive the power to direct employers in this way?

As for retirement, I think the government should probably help its citizens seek redress when an employer reneges on pension obligations. As for dictating how much, if any, retirement is offered, no.

As for health care, it should no longer be an employer-provided benefit. It should be a right of citizenship, just like primary and secondary education.

[whell]

Mike, do you think unbridled capitalism (now corporatism) is good for the masses?
Honest?

Do you think unbridled state-ism (despotism, socialism, fascism) is good for the masses?

[whell]

As for retirement, I think the government should probably help its citizens seek redress when an employer reneges on pension obligations. As for dictating how much, if any, retirement is offered, no.

As for health care, it should no longer be an employer-provided benefit. It should be a right of citizenship, just like primary and secondary education.

Government insurance for pension defaults already exists. That's the role of the PBGC.

As for health care, if those are the desired terms, then PPACA could never go far enough. A constitutional amendment would be required it would seem.

[finnbow]

Government insurance for pension defaults already exists. That's the role of the PBGC.

As for health care, if those are the desired terms, then PPACA could never go far enough. A constitutional amendment would be required it would seem.

I know about the PBGC, although it seems that they probably need to charge higher premiums to cover their liabilities (unless things have changed in the past several years).

As for an amendment for single payer, government funded health care, why is it the case that the state provides for primary and secondary education without such an amendment? A court case before the Michigan Supreme Court in 1874 found the use of state funds for public education constitutional, setting the stage for public education in other states.

[d-ray657]

Government insurance for pension defaults already exists. That's the role of the PBGC.

As for health care, if those are the desired terms, then PPACA could never go far enough. A constitutional amendment would be required it would seem.

If medicare is constitutional, I can see no reason that single provider health care would be unconstitutional. Indeed, the biggest problem it has had in court is the mandatory coverage provision that requires people to purchase commercial insurance. Of course, the devil would be in the details.

Regards,

D-Ray

[BlueStreak]

Starting with the new deal and accelerating since then, government has been driving social policy through businesses and the workplace. There are some elements of this that may have made sense at one time, some still might. However, I believe we've stretched the boundaries of what makes sense, and when the system starts to fail, we blame "big business". We don't blame "big government", when it was "big government" that mandated, funded, and made promises regarding Social Security, Medicare, Unemployment, Health Care, Family Leave time, etc., or required or assumed that businesses would "always" be able to assume those responsibilities for their employees.

However, rather than ask what we must "give up to the Gods of capitalism", I propose a different question: What responsibility does the employer have to fund the health and retirement needs of their employees, beyond what is agreed to between the employer and the employee at the time of hire? Where does this responsibility flow from? Where has the employer agreed to assume this responsibility other than competing for labor in the marketplace?

For what its worth: pensions - aka defined benefit plans - have receded from the corporate landscape because they have become to expensive to maintain and too expensive to operate. This expense is not limited to the accumulated payment obligations to retirees (though some plans certainly made some dopey actuarial assumptions - no worse than those made by those who set up Social Security back in the day I'd suggest). The funding and administrative expenses have become especially burdensome. Defined contribution plans allow employers to continue funding employee retirement, and provide the flexibility to limit or curtail contributions when business conditions sour: something that defined benefit plans don't allow.

So you just let them continue paring away at whatever they feel is burdensome to them, but they can continue to expect/demand whatever they want from us? Must be nice to be King..........................

Screw that.

Old age and the associated costs do not give a damn about what executives, who apparently expect to have their way all of the time, find "burdensome" or "inflexible". There is no doubt that growing old is "burdensome". There is little to no "flexibility" when it comes time to pay the bills.

Where is it written that the rest of society exists to serve their whims, desires and keep their burden light?
I suppose in the same place that you inquired about.....Nowhere.

If they keep it up, eventually the commonman will find THEM too expensive, burdensome and inflexible to maintain and operate.

It's happened before, it can happen again. (Think I'll go sharpen up the guillotine..............)

Dave

[merrylander]

What part is "BS"? I'm one of the limited few who still works for an employer that offers both 401(k) and pension. So what? Only 17 of the Fortune 100 still offer a defined benefit plan, and that number will likely fall over the ensuing years.



The part where you stated that the expense of having a retirement plan made corporations unprofitable.

[merrylander]

Do you think unbridled state-ism (despotism, socialism, fascism) is good for the masses?

Little chance of that happening here; case in point.

A New York woman fell behind in here mortgage payment, Bank of America foreclosed and gave her a wek to move out. She was out of the house looking for a new place and the bank seized all her belongings and changed the locks. They will not return her posessions (including her late husband's ashes) so where was the DA - this is outright theft. It is very easy to see where the power lies here and it is not the government.

[piece-itpete]

It's through the government. The more power the government has the greater desire to control it.

Pete

[d-ray657]

It's through the government. The more power the government has the greater desire to control it.

Pete

What's it? Do you mean that the greater the power the government has, the greater will be the desire of corporations to control the government?

That might be true, but without the government as a buffer, the powers that be would just as soon be able to control and manipulate the public, without having to depend on the government as its intermediary. Fortunately, the government is not always a reliable middle man for Corporate America.

Regards,

D-ray

[piece-itpete]

It's not? How so. Neither party stopped Enron, the derivatives, etc, onward...

Pete

[finnbow]

"If men were angels, no government would be necessary."

James Madison, Federalist 51

[piece-itpete]

Marx's big fallacy indeed. The founders were a generally wise bunch.

Pete

[merrylander]

Marx's big fallacy indeed. The founders were a generally wise bunch.

Pete

You mean such flashes of brilliance as "Advise and Consent", or the "Electoral College".:rolleyes:

[piece-itpete]

I love the college Rob ;)

Pete

[d-ray657]

It's not? How so. Neither party stopped Enron, the derivatives, etc, onward...

Pete

Pete, I don't think you read all of my post. I do believe that the government too often acts as the middle man for the moneyed few. It's just that every once in a while, the collective cajones of the legislature, administrative branch and judiciary are big enough to go against the wishes of those powers. I am assuming that you were talking about the government's power.

Regards,

D-Ray

[piece-itpete]

Agreed, heck is was a miracle say antitrust was passed at all, but the government keeps growing regardless, and history says it won't stay altrustic or friendly for long.

Btw, if there was no college, we'd all be uneducated. Sorry lol. If there was no college the cities would rule the country. And headquarters of large corps and banks are centered in cities.

Pete

[merrylander]

I love the college Rob ;)

Pete

Then why bother with giving everyone the vote? If the EC was administered consistently it would be another matter. Some States apportion EC votes in the same ratio as the popular vote. In other States it is winner take all so in effect it matters not what the voters want.

As to A&C imagine if you wanted to start a business so you search dilligently and select a management team. Now you must obtain the approval of all other businesses (friends and competitors) before your team can get to work. To top it all off some jug eared idiot from SC can secretly put a hold on one of the team.

This is not a system of government, it's a bleeding farce.:rolleyes:

[merrylander]

Btw, if there was no college, we'd all be uneducated. Sorry lol. If there was no college the cities would rule the country. And headquarters of large corps and banks are centered in cities.

Pete

:confused::confused:

[BlueStreak]

It's not? How so. Neither party stopped Enron, the derivatives, etc, onward...

Pete

Which is why the GOP wishes to ensure thm even more freedom to hatch even more stupid plots such as these? When the theives have stolen nearly everything you own, the answer is to install a bigger door and leave it unlocked, so they can take the bigger items with greater ease? Excellent plan.

I still maintain that the problem isn't that there is regulation, it's that existing regulations are irresponsibly enforced. (Or not enforced at all.) But, I will never agree that the answer is to further deregulate. I see that as the greatest irresponsibility of all.

Dave

[piece-itpete]

Why the GOP? Why the Dems? They've both been up to their necks in it. Tell me what even bigger plots they are hatching.

How much regulation is enough Blue? We could just assign each company a government person, make sure they do what the gov't wants.

Pete

[BlueStreak]

Why the GOP? Why the Dems? They've both been up to their necks in it. Tell me what even bigger plots they are hatching.

How much regulation is enough Blue? We could just assign each company a government person, make sure they do what the gov't wants.

Pete

Time will tell, Pete.

And the fact that "Their both up to their necks in it", is precisely my point. What makes people think anything has really changed of late? A lot of people seem to have bought into the notion that "happy days are here again" after yesterday. How so? This is the same party that had the majority and the Whitehouse just a few years ago. What came of it? (I think this is at the heart of Tea Party angst. But, I'm quite certain that those folks are being wined, dined and corrupted as we speak as well.)

Anyone who thinks less and looser regulation is going to mean less abuses and that these folks are all nice people who are going to do the right thing---simply because it's the "moral" thing to do, is living in a dream world. It's every bit as absurd as thinking passing more unenforced and meaningless regulation is going to solve something.........

Big, unlocked doors, my friend.

Dave

[merrylander]

They deregulated electricity - our rates went up 72% and now BG&E is asking for more.

[piece-itpete]

I assure you, it is a partial deregulation. Regulation didn't work out for CA very well.

Heck, I remember going to visit family in merrie ol England whan I was young, when airlines were heavily regulated. A ticket cost more - in actual unadjusted dollars! - in the 70s than it does now.

Fancier food though. And the second floor of the 747s I flew in was a lounge.

Pete

[merrylander]

. . .and you did not have some a**hole throw his garment bag into your overhead on top of your clean suit jacket, or pour his effing starbucks on you. Somethings are worth the cost.

[piece-itpete]

It was more genteel for sure. My parents would give me to the airline folks, me gran would collect me on the other end. I'm not sure you'd want to do that now.

I'm fairly certain the seats were wider too (hard to tell for sure, I was a lot smaller). But a lot more folks can afford to fly now.

Pete

[merrylander]

You would have to hog tie me to get me on an airliner today, a more uncivilized collection of barbarians may exist but I am not sure where.

[piece-itpete]

Air India catchphrase: 'We treat you like cattle' :D

Pete

[BlueStreak]

I was an aircraft mechanic before deregulation. I still hold a valid Airframe and Powerplant license. You have to be paralyzed from the neck up to think flying is safe these days. I haven't flown since 1996. And until the FAA bears down on their cheap, corner cutting asses again you will not see me step foot on one of those winged coffins.

Dave

[noonereal]

I was an aircraft mechanic before deregulation. I still hold a valid Airframe and Powerplant license. You have to be paralyzed from the neck up to think flying is safe these days. I haven't flown since 1996. And until the FAA bears down on their cheap, corner cutting asses again you will not see me step foot on one of those winged coffins.

Dave


:rolleyes: why am i not surprised?

[Charles]

You would have to hog tie me to get me on an airliner today, a more uncivilized collection of barbarians may exist but I am not sure where.

As I've said before, I'd rather walk uphill in the rain.

Chas

[piece-itpete]

It's still a darn site safer than driving.

Pete

[merrylander]

It's still a darn site safer than driving.

Pete

Yeah maybe, but when I go out to the garage to get in my car nobody feels me up or makes me take my shoes off.:D

[piece-itpete]

ROTFLMAO!

Pete

[JJIII]

Yeah maybe, but when I go out to the garage to get in my car nobody feels me up or makes me take my shoes off.:D

I'm sorry to hear that!:D

[Charles]

Yeah maybe, but when I go out to the garage to get in my car nobody feels me up or makes me take my shoes off.:D

Besides that, you can get a drink at a reasonable price.

Chas

[merrylander]

Besides that, you can get a drink at a reasonable price.

Chas

Not in my car you can't, come on in the house and I'll pour.:D

[mossbacked]

If the current profligate spending habits of our friends inside the beltway do not change, SS doesn't stand a chance. The blue print for hijacking SS funds is being laid out across the pond right now:

http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/The-Adam-Smith-Institute-Blog/2011/0102/European-nations-begin-seizing-private-pensions

Even our friends at the CBO are less than optimistic. From their 2009 report:

"The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that the Social Security trust funds will be exhausted in 2043.1 (Unless otherwise stated, the years referred to in this report are calendar years.) Thus, if the law remains unchanged, CBO projects that 34 years from now, the Social Security Administration (SSA) will not have the legal authority to pay full benefits."

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/104xx/doc10457/08-07-SocialSecurity_Update.pdf

Well paid boomers continue to retire, and corporate gains in "efficiency" suggest that fewer workers are coming in behind to replace the retirees. Sooner or later, the math catches up. The only difference is that when the government does it, its legal. When Bernie Madoff does it, its a crime.

Good summation. And further, even though SS is not to be touched by other than SS spending, for years they have somehow seemed to intermingle SS with the General Fund. They simply cast another vote to increase the debt ceiling and continue on their spending spree. and it been that way for a long, long time and not limited to the spenders there today.

The problem is that the ratio of borrowing to GDP/tax receipts/net worth/productivity/whatever metric you choose continues to worsen. We've never been so close to a tipping point where the capacity (and propensity) to create debt has overwhelmed the capacity to repay in a sensible fashion. And there are no controls in sight. The just vote to borrow more every time it comes up.

[BlueStreak]

Good summation. And further, even though SS is not to be touched by other than SS spending, for years they have somehow seemed to intermingle SS with the General Fund. They simply cast another vote to increase the debt ceiling and continue on their spending spree. and it been that way for a long, long time and not limited to the spenders there today.

The problem is that the ratio of borrowing to GDP/tax receipts/net worth/productivity/whatever metric you choose continues to worsen. We've never been so close to a tipping point where the capacity (and propensity) to create debt has overwhelmed the capacity to repay in a sensible fashion. And there are no controls in sight. The just vote to borrow more every time it comes up.

We could always repay with another tax cut and an expansion of the military budget.

Dave

[noonereal]

for years they have somehow seemed to intermingle SS with the General Fund.

no we have not inter mingled anything we have stolen SS monies

now lets put it back

that would be the military and wealthy primarily

[piece-itpete]

We already paid for it once. At least the private market let me keep half.

Pete

[merrylander]

SS has been fully funded and is fully funded until 2038. The problem is that at the moment the till is full of IOUs from Congress.

[piece-itpete]

I suppose Congress is going to personally pay it back? Shell game, the money's gone.

Pete

[noonereal]

I suppose Congress is going to personally pay it back? Shell game, the money's gone.

Pete

get it back, we know where it went

it went to the military and wealthy

[merrylander]

I suppose Congress is going to personally pay it back? Shell game, the money's gone.

Pete

The IOUs are Treasury Bonds backed by the full faith etc. of the U.S. Gummint. Now someone is going to get taxed to pay those bonds but the past generations wanted a tax holiday - so . . .

[piece-itpete]

Blue, where did the military and the rich get their money from before FDR gave it to them via this horribly regressive tax?

The money's gone, bonds or IOUs on the back of a napkin ;)

The money we already paid! It's sad :(

Pete

[merrylander]

I would not blame it on FDR, he was not the one pissing it down a rathole in the middle east.

[piece-itpete]

It was an elbow in the ribs :) Agreed, not FDRs fault, outside that he didn't think it would happen.

It took future Congresses, with the Executive in quiet collusion... and long before the ME.

Pete

[CarlV]

I have to go with the smokescreen. This year's baby boomer flood turning 65 will have to live to 97 to be a "problem". Not likely imo.
Also, the money ain't going anywhere, we just finance it like everything else.
Does Social Security earn interest?
Sunday, November 22, 2009 5:50 AM
By Stephen Ohlemacher
ASSOCIATED PRESS
Q: How much money does the federal government owe the Social Security trust funds? And how much interest does the federal government pay on the money it has borrowed every year?
- Jim Durham Chillicothe, Mo.
A: The Social Security trust funds have a balance of about $2.5 trillion. Over the years, the federal government has borrowed all of that money to spend on other government programs. In return, the Treasury Department has issued Social Security special bonds - think of them as IOUs, backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government.
Twice a year, the Treasury Department makes interest payments to the trust funds, although it is little more than an accounting exercise. No money changes hands, but the interest payments are added to the balance of the trust funds. In 2008, the trust funds earned $116.3 billion in interest, according to the 2009 annual report by the Social Security trustees.
http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/business/stories/2009/11/22/good-question.html?type=rss&cat=&sid=101
And pay the Chinese 50 billion interest to do so lol. :p
The Chinese own more U.S. government debt than any other nation - about $800 billion worth. And the U.S. pays China $50 billion a year just in interest.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/11/15/eveningnews/main5660868.shtml

[merrylander]

Well the general public needs to accept some of the blame, they want everything except the bill. You can't dine in a fancy steakhouse for MickeyDee prices.

[piece-itpete]

Agreed, the public is ultimately responsible, as it always is in a democracy.

But IOUs to yourself, I'll put an IOU into my mortgage account and I'm fine till I'm 97! :p

Pete

[CarlV]

Hey why not, we borrow from our Chinese friends to give our struggling millionaires some tax relief don't we? :)

Carl

[piece-itpete]

Can I have say a hundred mil? :D

We talk a lot, policies, wars, programs, foreign born muslim Presidents, :), all legit differences with good (and maybe bad) people on both sides, as D would say, freedom of speech in action. But the ss thing, if anything shows how absolutely thick Americans are....

It drives me crazy, it's just embarrassing imo. We should all be ashamed :(

Pete

[merrylander]

Well not about SS but the country in general, my wife, the loyal American, turned to me while watching the news and said "I am becoming ashamed of my country>" Keep it up folks I may yet persuade her to sell out and head for the maritimes. Or maybe south of Orttawa within driving distance of the granddaughters.

[d-ray657]

Pete, I think we agree here. The use of SS funds is a disgrace. The inability of the public and the politicians to understand that we can't have it all and not pay for any of it means that there are plenty to share the blame.

But if the solution to this mess is going to be to cut social security as an "entitlement" because we can't afford to pay the IOU's, the social contract has been broken. Too many politicians and wonks are throwing around the word "entitlement" as if it means the exact opposite - that those who are scheduled to receive the benefits somehow don't deserve them. SS is not a charity program - it is something that we have invested in, that previous generations have invested in and that following generations should continue to invest in.

Where I expect we differ slightly is that I believe the biggest share of this bill should be borne by those who have benefited most by the social contract - those who have accumulated the most wealth.

Regards,

D-Ray

[merrylander]

Pete, I think we agree here. The use of SS funds is a disgrace. The inability of the public and the politicians to understand that we can't have it all and not pay for any of it means that there are plenty to share the blame.

But if the solution to this mess is going to be to cut social security as an "entitlement" because we can't afford to pay the IOU's, the social contract has been broken. Too many politicians and wonks are throwing around the word "entitlement" as if it means the exact opposite - that those who are scheduled to receive the benefits somehow don't deserve them. SS is not a charity program - it is something that we have invested in, that previous generations have invested in and that following generations should continue to invest in.

Where I expect we differ slightly is that I believe the biggest share of this bill should be borne by those who have benefited most by the social contract - those who have accumulated the most wealth.

Regards,

D-Ray

You know if we actually called it what it is - Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) then maybe folks would not get their knickers in a twist. Say you buy fire insurance and your house burns down, would you call the check from the insurance company an entitlement, would you imply that it is charity?

During the depression our parents and grandparent did a better job of maintaining the infrastructure than we have, but we sure as hell took advantage of that infrastructure. Still some loudmouthed politico will insist that looking after those who helped build this country is an unfair burden (well they think it would be if they could not pass the bill to their kids).

Sandy was right - we started circling the bowl when we decided to make money with money instead of making money making things. We let the economists and people like Phil Gramm game the system. I equate an economist with the friendly tea leaf reader at the church social.

As for folks who believe that free markets (not that we have had a free market since 1789) are self regulating, they probably were followers of that Jones chappy.:rolleyes:(Gah, I hate kool aid).

[BlueStreak]

Yeah. What Rob said!

Dave

[d-ray657]

The OP in this thread reflected on misinformation by Robert Samuelson. He's at it again. (http://http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/06/AR2011030602926.html)

Why are conservatives so intent on destroying the middle class? This guy's arrogance makes my skin crawl. :mad: Trying to remain civilized, I have tempered my comments. I wonder if the right is really trying to provoke class warfare?

Regards,

D-Ray

[merrylander]

I guess his eyes were a bit clouded from pulling his head out to quickley. He did not finish his last sentence, it should read; "Shared sacrifice is meaningless if it exclude older Americans , or the upper 5% of wealthy Americans" There, fixed it for you Bobby.

And he is one of the reasons about my earlier comments on the value of economists, Harry Truman had it right.

[merrylander]

A company gets some financial backing and decides to go into the life insurance business. They start selling policies at rates their actuaries calculate will impose the least risk and still generate a profit. Now it is rather obvious that the odds are some policy holders will die before they have paid in anything like the face value of their policy. This is the reason why a startup will need some cash reserve or equivalent investments.

So how is FICA any different, other than the fact that Congress had its hands in the till? Certainly when it first started some people could possibly get out more than they put in but in the long haul, had the congressional actuaries done their homework, and had not the cap been put on earnings, all would be well.

For example, in Canada every resident qualifies for Old Age Security (OAS), currently approx $650 per month. If you have no other source of income there is an approx $635 per month supplement. However, if your total income exceeds a certain level they take all of it back in income tax. This may seem like too mauch paperwork, but it is actaually less because it does away with endless means testing.

Using life insurance as an example brings up an interesting, if disgusting, article in yesterday's WaPo Business section regarding how two large insurance companies are using a loophole in ERISA large enough to drive an eighteen wheeler through to deny claims on spurious grounds. You want tort reform, then look at something like ERISA which denies individuals any recourse to the courts when they are being royally screwed over.

I am sadly reaching the conclusion that all of our laws have been slowly twisted about by a totally clueless Congress, aided and abetted by lobbyists, to deprive the average citizen of any and all protections of the laws. And we so famously (and hypocritaclly) claim to be a country of laws. Well I suppoes that is a true statement as long as you don't go into details about who those laws protect.

[Charles]

The OP in this thread reflected on misinformation by Robert Samuelson. He's at it again. (http://http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/06/AR2011030602926.html)

Why are conservatives so intent on destroying the middle class? This guy's arrogance makes my skin crawl. :mad: Trying to remain civilized, I have tempered my comments. I wonder if the right is really trying to provoke class warfare?

Regards,

D-Ray

Linkie no workie.

So I can't comment on Samuelson's article.

But even if Samuelson came out and said that he wants to eliminate the middle class and have everyone other than the uber rich eating out of a garbage can, I don't see how that makes him a conservative.

Perhaps an elitist in conservative cloths, but not a conservative proper...at least in my estimation.

Besides, everyone knows that those on the right are racists, it's those on the left who promote class warfare!!!

I'd like to advance the argument that we stick with our preconceived notions, it makes everything less complicated. That was, we can get back to disparaging on another without wasting time trying to classify the instigators.

Chas

[JJIII]

I'd like to advance the argument that we stick with our preconceived notions, it makes everything less complicated. That was, we can get back to disparaging on another without wasting time trying to classify the instigators.

Chas

Now there is something I can understand!:D

[Charles]

A company gets some financial backing and decides to go into the life insurance business. They start selling policies at rates their actuaries calculate will impose the least risk and still generate a profit. Now it is rather obvious that the odds are some policy holders will die before they have paid in anything like the face value of their policy. This is the reason why a startup will need some cash reserve or equivalent investments.

So how is FICA any different, other than the fact that Congress had its hands in the till? Certainly when it first started some people could possibly get out more than they put in but in the long haul, had the congressional actuaries done their homework, and had not the cap been put on earnings, all would be well.

For example, in Canada every resident qualifies for Old Age Security (OAS), currently approx $650 per month. If you have no other source of income there is an approx $635 per month supplement. However, if your total income exceeds a certain level they take all of it back in income tax. This may seem like too mauch paperwork, but it is actaually less because it does away with endless means testing.

Using life insurance as an example brings up an interesting, if disgusting, article in yesterday's WaPo Business section regarding how two large insurance companies are using a loophole in ERISA large enough to drive an eighteen wheeler through to deny claims on spurious grounds. You want tort reform, then look at something like ERISA which denies individuals any recourse to the courts when they are being royally screwed over.

I am sadly reaching the conclusion that all of our laws have been slowly twisted about by a totally clueless Congress, aided and abetted by lobbyists, to deprive the average citizen of any and all protections of the laws. And we so famously (and hypocritaclly) claim to be a country of laws. Well I suppoes that is a true statement as long as you don't go into details about who those laws protect.

If you ever read, or are capable of reading, your insurance policy, you will find that the party best protected is the insurance company itself.

After doing some ciphering, I've come to realize that what we spend on insurance alone every year would pay for renting a cabin on Bull Shoals and going fishing every day & expenses...with money to spare.

I'm beginning to question why we do what we do, not to mention that I'm beginning to feel like the dumbest SOB in Bugtussell for continuing to play the game.

Chas

[d-ray657]

See if this link is any better.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/06/AR2011030602926.html

He directly takes the position that social security is welfare.

Regards,

D-Ray

[Charles]

See if this link is any better.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/06/AR2011030602926.html

He directly takes the position that social security is welfare.

Regards,

D-Ray

That he does, and I disagree with him.

If he were to call it a Ponzi scheme, or simply another tax in which not all share equally in contributions and/or benefits, I would be more inclined to agree with him. If he were to point out that the fund has been looted by the politicians, who are busy either wanting to cut benefits or inflating the dollar so the benefits you receive are worthless...either way passing out a good old fashioned screwing, I would be inclined to agree once again.

But I have places to go and things to do, so I'll let it go at that for the present.

Chas

[merrylander]

See if this link is any better.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/06/AR2011030602926.html

He directly takes the position that social security is welfare.

Regards,

D-Ray

The position he really takes is bent over with his head up his arse.:p There is a poster of him somewhere, saw in the window of a poster shop in Salt Lake City.

[CarlV]

Paying that guy anything at all for writing that double spin is welfare.


Carl

[BlueStreak]

The OP in this thread reflected on misinformation by Robert Samuelson. He's at it again. (http://http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/06/AR2011030602926.html)

Why are conservatives so intent on destroying the middle class? This guy's arrogance makes my skin crawl. :mad: Trying to remain civilized, I have tempered my comments. I wonder if the right is really trying to provoke class warfare?

Regards,

D-Ray

Well, because the middle-class only accrued its modest affluence by "stealing" it from the wealthy. And that's immoral and unpatriotic. It's simply not right to screw the rich out of the wealth they gained by screwing us.
It makes them angry. Kind of like robbing a thief. Or beating an con man at his own game. It upsets the natural order of things.

Got it?

Dave

[BlueStreak]

Let's see. I have been contributing, out of wages I have EARNED, to SS since I was eighteen years old. I expect to get that money, or at least some of it, back when I get old.

This is "welfare"??? Money that I have no right to expect when I reach "retirement age"???

See, this is what I'm talking about.

My wages are "exorbitant", my benefits "lavish". Social Security, (And, I'm assuming Medicaid/Medicare as well.) is "welfare". The labor laws that protect things like minimum wage, forty hour workweek, collective bargaining and the workers right to "petition for redress of grievances" is "socialism" that oppresses the employer----and I'm supposed to think that the ideology these people push will lead to a better future???

For who? Not me, that's for darn sure.

Dave