Social Security

[miles]

shadowsource

I'm not commenting on your first para because I don't know if it was an attempt at sarcasm or not. I'll leave it at that.

Your second paragraph is just more verbal hysteria. It works like a charm on senior citizens and scares the shit out of them, especially those who suffered during the depression. They are too afraid not to believe the rhetoric. In fact, many WW II veterans felt and still feel they are entiltled to SS, and I agree with them. These people - your fathers and grandfathers - literally saved the world, and I'll gladly give up a portion of my income to take care of them for the remainder of their lives.

I can't even describe your last statement as rhetoric. It's that absurd. The only way people will be suffering in your scenario is if SS benefits were immediately halted, and that isn't going to happen. Any changes would be made incrementally over many years. Please, spare the BS!

 

[shadowsource]

Re: shadowsource

The only way people will be suffering in your scenario is if SS benefits were immediately halted, and that isn't going to happen. Any changes would be made incrementally over many years. Please, spare the BS!

Postponing retirement payments by 5 years won't hurt anyone, or violate the general trust. Cutting COLAs won't hurt anyone. Fabulous. We both know SS doesn't pay much, and that cutting it will affect enormous numbers of people whose "crime" is to need the money they forked out.

From Martin Mayer, author of THE BANKERS, among many globally respected studies of the money markets: What matters about the trust fund is that its existence expresses the fact that Social Security is a liability of the government. The assets in the trust fund are Treasury bonds. And bonds, of course, are claims on general revenues, including money from taxes on capital gains and corporate income as well as the payroll tax. When Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill says the bonds in the Social Security trust fund are not "real economic assets," he is denying that the full faith and credit of the United States stands behind the financing of Social Security benefits — at least as long as the Social Security system holds bonds. This rhetoric is dangerous because it could undermine confidence in the Treasury's bonds....

Turning Social Security into a matter of individual private accounts, by contrast, would tear up the contract that Americans who paid Social Security taxes thought they had with their government. A government that promised justice for all would suddenly leave many of its older people at the mercy of the state of the market on the day they retire — or of the prevailing interest rate on the day they receive their annuities. No change in American society in the last half-century has been so dramatic as the reduction of the proportion of the elderly who are poor, and most of this change is the benign shadow of Social Security. That's a lot to put at risk.

 

[Thumper]

Gordon Gecko would be proud

Laurel:



greed·y (grd)
adj. greed·i·er, greed·i·est
Excessively desirous of acquiring or possessing, especially wishing to possess more than what one needs or deserves

I love the word greed. It's a relative term - someone who wants more than what they need or deserve. Is it greedy for a business owner to try and double his profits by selling more of his product? Of course not.

In the movie "Wall Street" Gordon Gecko said "Greed is good".

His implication was that it was what spurred capitalism on. He may have been right but it is also what eventually poisons it. Too much of a good thing. Is it good when that business owner continually makes a huge profit and refuses to share that with those who made that profit possible (workers) then at the first sign of trouble he lays them off without so much as a "kiss my ass"?

You hit Socialism on the head with that definition but how different is it for the government to have a centralized control of the economy than it is for a small and very powerful group of businessmen. That is what is happening right now. Why would you trust them anymore than anyone else? All power in the hands of a few individuals smacks of an Aristocracy to me.

Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Doesn't matter if you are a politician or a businessman. At least politicians can be voted out.....for now.

 

[shadowsource]

Whose money?

Giving people their money back is irresponsible.We didn't earn it, we don't own it, and we are not entitled to it. The government is.Tjhat's kind of the point about the SS money. You just relish the idea that it won't be paid out because you so hate the program. But the people did pay it, the money went to carry the US goverment through the arms race, among other expensive treats, and they deserve to get it back when the time comes. Miles is just afraid that the people will figure this one out in time.

 

[miles]

shadow

Miles is just afraid that the people will figure this one out in time.

For your own good, man, put down the crack pipe.

 

[shadowsource]

I was referring -

to your oft-stated love for democracy. I'm sober as a nun.

 

[morninggirl5]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Social Security

Then have I got a deal for you!

Thus, the reality was always that those of us born between '65 - '80 would be helping to take care of those that came before us, which almost outnumber us 2 to 1. I don't care how much they paid in; at the time Social Security was conceived, the longest people were expected to live was around 72; that number is now closer to 90.

Actually I'm now totally OUT of the equation. I've paid into Social Security for the past 14 years, but now that I'm in the Teacher's Retirement System, I won't be eligible for ANY Social Security anyway.

Isn't it interesting that teachers don't have to be part of Social Security but everyone else does?

 

[Unclebill]

even though Bush promised not to touch Social Security.


Well, so much for that.

If you wish to accuse, at least be honest and accuse the guilty party. It was the Democratic Congress of the 60's that eliminated the Social Security trust fund and put the money into the General Fund to use as their slush fund to create the socialist welfare state of Lyndon Johnson's dreams. It is forever the Democrats who campaign that Social Security is in dire straits and once elected, do nothing until the next campaign, then use it as a campaign issue.

When the Republicans offer to fix it, they are opposed by the Democrats steadily and demagogued for their attempts.

Originally posted by Laurel
greedy - a person who wants to use public roads, expects public police to protect them, and wants a strong military, yet gets all bent out of shape when asked to fork over one thin dime. Everyone else should pay in, but not ME, damnit! They're violating my fargin rights by making me pay for services I use! How dare they! It's a conspiracy!

Actually, they're violating my rights by FORCING me to pay for programs that are illegitimate under the Constitution and that I cannot or do not use.

Originally posted by Laurel
Businesses run to make a profit. Government runs to provide a service. Many services - i.e. roads - do not make a profit per se, yet they enable commerce and thus make us more profitable and successful as a country.

And the legitimate services government offers are about 25%-30% of the present Federal government. It's the rest of the vote buying schemes devised by the career politicians predominantly of the Left that should be eliminated. This would be the greatest boon to the economy anyone could imagine. Far more beneficial than the pathetic tax reduction Bush offered.

Originally posted by Laurel
So call me whatever names you want, if it makes you feel better. Doesn't change the facts. I'm centrist, a moderate. If I seem Socialist to you, that may say more about your position on the political spectrum than mine.

If you don't want the label, don't advocate the political goals of that political group. But that's what you do when you assert that reducing taxes hurts the economy. The tax cuts under the Reagan presidency almost doubled the U. S. Treasury tax receipts. It was the Socialist programs of the Democrats that ran up the deficits like never before in history. It was the socialist/Collectivist irresponsibility that caused the problems, not the idea of allowing those who earn the money to keep it for their own uses.

And, BTW, I don't consider it greedy merely because one desires to improve his lot in life. And if he manages to do so, the government should not penalize him.

Originally posted by morninggirl5
Actually I'm now totally OUT of the equation. I've paid into Social Security for the past 14 years, but now that I'm in the Teacher's Retirement System, I won't be eligible for ANY Social Security anyway.

Isn't it interesting that teachers don't have to be part of Social Security but everyone else does?

Ah, but they don't, you see! Congress is not in it, railroad employees are not, Federal employees are not and numerous others.

 

[shadowsource]

Maybe it takes a Depression

... to show people why a little safety net's a good thing. Fuck it. It's as if no one understands just how difficult life can be. The market always rises, the economy always grows. Wheeee! I'm beginning to see just how much the poor are truly despised, as if they've sinned by not making mnore money. A sort of Calvinism. Revolting. And now I await the wrath of the Fountainhead fans....

 

[morninggirl5]

A safety net is a good thing. BUT, Social Security isn't a safety net for most of those who are contributing now. The way the plan was set up, those working now support the retirees and when this generation retires, working Americans support them with their FICA "contributions". Noone had the foresight to factor in great differences in the segments of the population and the increase in life span.

You need to read more clearly and you would see that the truly poor aren't despised. But those who remain poor because they haven't taken advantage of numerous opportunities to better themselves and expect everyone else to take care of them, are an entirely different story.

 

[Guest]

Opportunity knocking.

It always amazes me how one can expound on the numerous opportunities available "out there" for everybody. Usually it is someone who has had plenty of opportunity in their life and didn't have to deal with growing up in a ghetto or with absent parents or a broken home. It is arrogant to assume that the roads to success are equal for everyone.

Our society is sort of like a pyramid...if we let the base weaken we will all fall..and those at the top will fall farthest.

Hey Bill...how do you get around if you don't use the roads? Ever fly? Thank the FAA for the strides made in safety.

Ever had your neighbor decide to use his property as a toxic waste dump? No? Who do ya thank for that? It used to happen many years ago and there would have been absolutely nuthin you could do about it.

The world we live in is fundamentally different from the world you want. We are a society. It is no longer "look out for number one". That worked for the first million years or so. We are our brother's keeper. If we don't care for our brother can we expect him to care for us when we need it?

It is the best interests of society to mitigate poverty.

 

[shadowsource]

Wow....

That's my kind of troll! Eloquent, understated, sensible. Who was that?

 

[miles]

It is the best interests of society to mitigate poverty

Please tell me how you would accomplish this noble feat without playing Robin Hood.

 

[Unclebill]

Re: Opportunity knocking.

Originally posted by Unregistered
It is the best interests of society to mitigate poverty.

I'm intensely curious how it can be in the best interest of anyone to deny the idea of the rights of the individual. Because doing so implies acceptance of the Left's hypothesis that one man is the means to the ends of another.

It subsumes the premise that society is the owner of each man's life and thus is entitled to dispose of that life for the good of society.

It is the premise that rights and freedom are privileges granted by the state and by those of superior wisdom who are properly the ones to make the decisions for society, i. e., those whose totalitarian wisdom is superior to the ideas of individual rights, freedoms and responsibilities.

 

[shadowsource]

Uncle Bill

I'm curious to know: Who have you voted for - President, Senate, if you don't guard your statehood - in the last few elections? Who do you support?

 

[Siren]

Re: Ok, shoot the geezers -

 

[Thumper]

Re: Opportunity knocking.

It always amazes me how one can expound on the numerous opportunities available "out there" for everybody. Usually it is someone who has had plenty of opportunity in their life and didn't have to deal with growing up in a ghetto or with absent parents or a broken home. It is arrogant to assume that the roads to success are equal for everyone.

Our society is sort of like a pyramid...if we let the base weaken we will all fall..and those at the top will fall farthest.

Hey Bill...how do you get around if you don't use the roads? Ever fly? Thank the FAA for the strides made in safety.

Ever had your neighbor decide to use his property as a toxic waste dump? No? Who do ya thank for that? It used to happen many years ago and there would have been absolutely nuthin you could do about it.

The world we live in is fundamentally different from the world you want. We are a society. It is no longer "look out for number one". That worked for the first million years or so. We are our brother's keeper. If we don't care for our brother can we expect him to care for us when we need it?

It is the best interests of society to mitigate poverty.

That was me....damn cookie thing or something like that.

Study history....poverty is a good way to bring about civil unrest. Hunger is a great motivator.

Beat a dog enough and it will eventually turn on you. You assume all those in poverty are there due to choices they have made. This indicates a very limited understanding of who the poor are and the factors behind poverty. Myopic, I think, is the word.

Ask Czar Nicholas or Louis XIV about that one.

Fat people don't make revolution....or maybe that's what you want so you can take over...then I would say you feed on the hungry.... as the Bolsheviks did.

 

[miles]

thumper

It is the best interests of society to mitigate poverty

Again, I'd like to hear exactly how this will be accomplished.
It sounds wonderful.

 

[Lancaster]

We have a rationing system in Britain.
It is called the National Health Service.
You can get health care on demand free of charge if you're willing to wait long enough.
It should be abolished - I don't believe in rationing, but most of all I don't believe asylum seekers, refugees or whatever you want to call them should get it without paying their way.

 

[Thumper]

Re: thumper

It is the best interests of society to mitigate poverty

Again, I'd like to hear exactly how this will be accomplished.
It sounds wonderful.

I never said I had any easy answers to that question. Poverty is a human condition and is caused by many factors. Some we can control others we cannot.

Education is one way....

To stop trying will only set us back.

A large segment of those getting aid from the government are children...do you advocate cutting them off?

What about the mentally retarded or mentally ill?

The elderly that are unable to work?

These make up the vast majority of TANF recipients.

The "welfare mother spitting out kids" is a very rare occurence. But the example is constantly thrown out by the right wing to demonize all recipients.

 

[shadowsource]

The Three Penny Opera

Bertolt Brecht: First sort out the basic food condition
Then start your preaching
That's where it begins

 

[Unclebill]

Re: Re: Opportunity knocking.

Originally posted by Thumper
...You assume all those in poverty are there due to choices they have made. This indicates a very limited understanding of who the poor are and the factors behind poverty. Myopic, I think, is the word.

A big difference between us is that I don't make assumptions unless I specifically note so. I also don't accept that all those in poverty are there by choice.

However, in the past 40 years, the collectivists/Liberals/Left/Democrats have stolen about 6 trillion ($6,000,000,000,000) and after filtering it through the Federal bureaucracy, given some of it to the poor, we still have the same percentage of the American population below the Federally defined poverty line. What has been accomplished by this four decades of theft, corruption and graft? Nothing. Yet you are advocating more of it?

And you call me myopic?

America was created as a free nation with a government that was limited in its authority to protect the principles of freedom upon which it was founded.

If you want to live in a collectivist state, the world is littered with them. You have the luxury of choice if you wish to live in such an environment.

I don't have such a range of choice for a nation that honors freedom and individual rights.

Why are those on the left so intent on destroying the freedom of Americans to institute the collectivist state? And why do you advocate their goals?

If you want to see poverty, take a close look at any nation that does not respect the rights and freedom of its citizens. Then tell me how their government is so superior to the American government defined by our Constitution.

It amazes me that people are so willing to accept crimes committed by politicians as good when they want the same crimes punished when perpetrated by individual citizens (commonly defined as criminals).

I guess these are the same people who buy into the Left's propaganda and support the value system of the Left so eloquently defined by Dan Rather when he made the unabashed declaration that one could lie and still be an honest man.

No one with the most miniscule intellectual consistency or moral integrity could possibly embrace such a blatant dichotomy but this is the foundation of the Left's entire philosophy. And this is the reason that it is not possible to have an intellectually honest debate with the Left; the Left embraces the collectivist tenets that truth is whatever advances their political cause and increases their political power (the essence of Rather's declaration), rights and freedom are not to be respected and the end justifies the means.

 

[miles]

Does anyone know why the thread gets verrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrry quiet after Uncle Bill posts?

Because a few people here simply can't argue logically. If anyone responds it will be interesting, to say the least.


Na-na-na-na-na.

 

[lavender]

UncleBill isn't really that logical

 

[miles]

lavender

Present company excluded from my previous post.

I guess these are the same people who buy into the Left's propaganda and support the value system of the Left so eloquently defined by Dan Rather when he made the unabashed declaration that one could lie and still be an honest man.


You call this logic Miles. This is just UncleBill's futile effort to try and bring issues such as Clinton and Condit's moral terpitude into a debate that has little to nothing relevant to that issue.

You're dead wrong. I never said that - you misquoted me. This is what I said:

Because a few people here simply can't argue logically. If anyone responds it will be interesting, to say the least.

That aside, Bill and I don't agree with each other on everything any more than you would with someone whose beliefs were similar to yours.

I don't really understand the relationship between Bill's two paras that you pasted,or which people he is referring to. I saw Rather make that incredibly dumb statement, and can only speak for myself. I thought he was either stupid (he isn't) or using the arrogant doublespeak politicians have made famous that piss so many people off. I can't change the fact that the most recent and glaring examples of this were Democrats, and I'm not saying Repubs don't do it.

I couldn't disagree with you more that we aren't giving up our freedom. I can give you many examples of how we have allowed the government to violate our Constitutional rights. I'm too tired to start listing them now, but please tell me how the following does not amount to illegal search and seizue: Thanks to the phony War on Drugs, innocent citizens can have their property seized and never returned if they are arrested for violating drug laws and later not charged or found not guilty.

Someone with paranoia has irrational or unfounded fear. His fear is certainly not unfounded. They are based on facts.