How many times will Social Security be . . .

[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]

Originally Posted by 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

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.(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.

Why are conservatives so intent on destroying the middle class? This guy's arrogance makes my skin crawl. 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]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

The OP in this thread reflected on misinformation by Robert Samuelson. He's at it again.

Why are conservatives so intent on destroying the middle class? This guy's arrogance makes my skin crawl. 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]

Originally Posted by Charles

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!

[Charles]

Originally Posted by 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.

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...030602926.html

He directly takes the position that social security is welfare.

Regards,

D-Ray