Bush thinks he's the rebirth of Christ

Originally Posted by Fantasea
I can't find the "BS" Smiley icon so this one will have to do.
Where in the world did you ever get the mistaken idea that social security was intended to be the sole source a retirees income? From day one, right on up to the present, it had been intended as a supplement to the pension or the savings that a person has been accumulating. The fact that some make no provision for the future is not the fault of the system.

Of course the socialist in you demands cradle to grave government support for the masses. How come the Democrats didn't think of that during the forty year period in which they controlled the Congress?Of course he did. What else would one expect to hear from a socialist-lib-dem apologist from Princeton?

Click to expand...

Uh, I think you're a bit mistaken here. If you invest money, your return is completely dependent on whether the market is up or down when you retire. Got that? That's what I'm talking about when I say 'some will lose'. And of course SS isn't supposed to be one's total retirement, but many poor do not have any spare money to invest or put into savings. Do you understand that? This system then will either shortchange them through a cut in benefits or it will make them put their money in the stock market, and pray for the best.

Click to expand...

anomoly said:

Originally Posted by Fant
The statistics seem to refute what you say.

Trends In Union Membership
By Smith, Currie & Hancock LLP ​

The U.S. Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics announced that the first increase in total union membership in five years occurred in 1998. Membership in unions increased by 101,000, equaling 16.2 million represented employees overall. When viewed as a percentage of the general workforce, however, union members comprised only 13.9% of employed hourly and salaried workers in 1998, which is down from 14.1% in 1997. When government employees are taken out of the mix, the numbers are even lower, with less than 10% of private sector employees being unionized. In fact, union membership has steadily fallen since the Bureau first began gathering data regarding membership statistics.

Most, if not all, of last year's growth in union membership occurred in the public sector. The Bureau found 6.9 million union members working in all levels of government, which accounts for nearly 38% of total government employment. The number of union members employed in private industries, however, decreased by nearly 50,000. Among union members in private industry, transportation and public utilities employers have the highest unionized rate. Construction was next, followed by manufacturing and mining. Unionization rates were lowest in sales, farming, forestry and fishing occupations.

If your employees begin talking about organizing, you may want to mention these trends to them. In other words, ask them this question: If unions are so great, why have the vast majority of American workers decided to stay union-free?

Click to expand...

That's a pretty biased source there, especially with that last paragraph. Good stats, but you fail to mention the effect of union busting in the '80s and '90s and the gov't placing itself firmly behind business and not labor.

Click to expand...

Thanx for the compliment on the stats. I notice that you do not refute them. You simply point out the obvious; but you don't offer an answer to that final sentence.

Click to expand...

Fantasea said:

What's wrong with allowing younger people, WHO CHOOSE TO DO SO, TO PUT SOME OF THEIR MONEY IN A PRIVATE ACCOUNT, WHICH THEY WOULD OWN, WHICH THEY COULD PASS ON TO THEIR HEIRS, AND WHICH WOULD BELONG SOLELY TO THEM?

Click to expand...

26 X World Champs said:

Check it out? There are things called IRAs, Roth IRAs, SEP IRAs, 401Ks, etc. etc. They are available everyone. People want to have private accounts? Fine, call up Fidelity and open one today...or go online, or visit your bank.

Interestingly, the rhetoric re Bush's idea is receding as it becomes increasingly clear that Congress has no desire to tackle this thorny subject. They've seen the polls that show the vast majority of Americans have no use for SS private accounts.
For once the end result is non-partisan. Americans of all political persuasion are anti-private accounts....:monkey

Click to expand...

Fantasea said:

{Quote=anomoly]Better get your money back. The one you have has never been updated.

Click to expand...

Fantasea said:

anomoly said:

Of course, I realize that. What you don't realize is that, as the wildest exaggeration, if all social security taxes stopped, the monthly benefits would continue to be paid without interruption. Other taxes would be enacted, or funds would be borrowed. However the social security benefits would not stop.

What's wrong with allowing younger people, WHO CHOOSE TO DO SO, TO PUT SOME OF THEIR MONEY IN A PRIVATE ACCOUNT, WHICH THEY WOULD OWN, WHICH THEY COULD PASS ON TO THEIR HEIRS, AND WHICH WOULD BELONG SOLELY TO THEM?

Click to expand...

The monthly benefits would be paid in full for retirees who are 55 or over, just as Bush has said. However, you must understand that less people paying into the system will have an effect over time. This is why retirees who are currently 40-54 will obviously not have time to see any return on stocks, and will be subject to benefit cuts. Right now, SS is scheduled to start paying more in benefits than it brings in in 2042. If a people can opt to put a third of their taxes in a private account, this vast loss in money will add up and take its toll over time. So if one is 40-54 now, we can suspect that they will be the ones to experience benefit cuts. It should be rather obvious.

Might as well respond to your next post. What you obviously fail to recognize is that currently we are experiencing a market boom, and we have been experiencing one for around 14 years now. We cannot expect this boom to continue, in fact, to assume it will continue is rather short sighted. If there is a dip in the market, you will certainly not have enough to retire on, coupled with cuts in benefits for SS. These facts along with the prospect of $2 trillion dollar transition costs make the plan seem not worth it. Why don't we simply raise the ceiling, and begin to progress this regressive tax? Currently, the poorest Americans pay 6.2% of their income into the system, while Bill Gates pays less than 1%. A cap of $90,000 seems rather low, considering the rich have seen their salaries rise by an average of 70% in the last 15 years or so. A cap of 200K would solve this so called crisis.

Click to expand...

Fantasea said:

anomoly said:

Thanx for the compliment on the stats. I notice that you do not refute them. You simply point out the obvious; but you don't offer an answer to that final sentence.

Click to expand...

I believe I do. Why do less Americans than ever join unions? I'll admit, some simply don't like them, and with the gov't's anti-union stance, why would they like them? Also, why join a union when you know it has no real power, that the business one works in has the power to simply move the factory south? And when the gov't or a business can simply bust a union, why join it. Unions have considerably lost power, and so they have lost membership. If the gov't would, as FDR did, take a pro-union stance, I'm sure membership would rise.

Click to expand...

anomaly said:

Fantasea said:

The monthly benefits would be paid in full for retirees who are 55 or over, just as Bush has said. However, you must understand that less people paying into the system will have an effect over time. This is why retirees who are currently 40-54 will obviously not have time to see any return on stocks, and will be subject to benefit cuts. Right now, SS is scheduled to start paying more in benefits than it brings in in 2042. If a people can opt to put a third of their taxes in a private account, this vast loss in money will add up and take its toll over time. So if one is 40-54 now, we can suspect that they will be the ones to experience benefit cuts. It should be rather obvious.

Might as well respond to your next post. What you obviously fail to recognize is that currently we are experiencing a market boom, and we have been experiencing one for around 14 years now. We cannot expect this boom to continue, in fact, to assume it will continue is rather short sighted. If there is a dip in the market, you will certainly not have enough to retire on, coupled with cuts in benefits for SS. These facts along with the prospect of $2 trillion dollar transition costs make the plan seem not worth it. Why don't we simply raise the ceiling, and begin to progress this regressive tax? Currently, the poorest Americans pay 6.2% of their income into the system, while Bill Gates pays less than 1%. A cap of $90,000 seems rather low, considering the rich have seen their salaries rise by an average of 70% in the last 15 years or so. A cap of 200K would solve this so called crisis.

Click to expand...

Although you should be aware, you write as if you are unaware, that participation in Private Retirement Accounts is optional. Why is this?

Click to expand...

Fantasea said:

anomaly said:

Although you should be aware, you write as if you are unaware, that participation in Private Retirement Accounts is optional. Why is this?

Click to expand...

Given that it is likely that atleast, say, 30% (I'd call that a conservative estimate) will invest, that means that a few billion dollars going right into the market. The market is, as many have said, like an engine. What happens when you flood an engine? It stalls. Chances are very, very good that the market will indeed stall, leading to mass selling, and, at the very least, ending the long standing bull market. If 30% invest, one would have to, again conservatively, estimate that 5% will lose. 5% will go in to there golden years in poverty, with the end of the bull market quite possible, this number could rise (again, it's a conservative estimate, I think). Most of what I wrote, however, does in fact take into consideration that private accounts are optionable. This means money that would go towards retirees will go into private accounts, so for the age group I mentioned, benefit cuts are nearly inevitable (as I highly doubt Bush will have the guts to raise taxes). And optional private accounts has absolutely nothing to do with the SS tax being a regressive one.

While I'm here typing, I'll point out that I think alien ken is on to something. Noone seems to want to do it, but if SS was an independent, rather than general, fund, it would be impossible for it not to have a surplus, always. This, however, would certainly mean taxes must be raised to accomodate the areas the SS general fund was paying towards. So why not do that, and then take that yearly SS surplus and give it back to people at the end of the calendar year? Or just lower SS taxes (yes, that's right, a leftist wanting to lower taxes)? I agree with alien ken, an independent fund would likely solve this problem.

Click to expand...

anomaly said:

Fantasea said:

Given that it is likely that atleast, say, 30% (I'd call that a conservative estimate) will invest, that means that a few billion dollars going right into the market. The market is, as many have said, like an engine. What happens when you flood an engine? It stalls. Chances are very, very good that the market will indeed stall, leading to mass selling, and, at the very least, ending the long standing bull market. If 30% invest, one would have to, again conservatively, estimate that 5% will lose. 5% will go in to there golden years in poverty, with the end of the bull market quite possible, this number could rise (again, it's a conservative estimate, I think).

Click to expand...

You simply echo the argument that has been made since the 1920s, when the Dow Jones Index was under 200. Today, after all of the gyrations, it stands at 10,400. Yet, all of the gloom and doomers continue to moan and whine. At every 'tipping point' analysts predicted that there was a resistance point through which the market could not pass. Typically every one thousand increment. Thus far they have been wrong ten times, and not right even once. The argument fails every time.

Most of what I wrote, however, does in fact take into consideration that private accounts are optionable. This means money that would go towards retirees will go into private accounts, so for the age group I mentioned, benefit cuts are nearly inevitable (as I highly doubt Bush will have the guts to raise taxes). And optional private accounts has absolutely nothing to do with the SS tax being a regressive one.

Click to expand...

If the socialist-lib-Dems would stop fighting the policies of the conservative-capitalist-Repubs which are designed to propel the economy forward, there would be a sufficient increase in revenues so that tax increases would not be necessary.

While I'm here typing, I'll point out that I think alien ken is on to something. Noone seems to want to do it, but if SS was an independent, rather than general, fund, it would be impossible for it not to have a surplus, always. This, however, would certainly mean taxes must be raised to accomodate the areas the SS general fund was paying towards. So why not do that, and then take that yearly SS surplus and give it back to people at the end of the calendar year? Or just lower SS taxes (yes, that's right, a leftist wanting to lower taxes)? I agree with alien ken, an independent fund would likely solve this problem.

Click to expand...

After sixty years of spending the excess collections, Congress is not going to stop now. Private Retirement Accounts have the potential to put as much as a third of new collections beyond Congressional grasp. That would be a start.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Fantasea said:

anomaly said:

Fantasea said:

You simply echo the argument that has been made since the 1920s, when the Dow Jones Index was under 200. Today, after all of the gyrations, it stands at 10,400. Yet, all of the gloom and doomers continue to moan and whine. At every 'tipping point' analysts predicted that there was a resistance point through which the market could not pass. Typically every one thousand increment. Thus far they have been wrong ten times, and not right even once. The argument fails every time.If the socialist-lib-Dems would stop fighting the policies of the conservative-capitalist-Repubs which are designed to propel the economy forward, there would be a sufficient increase in revenues so that tax increases would not be necessary.After sixty years of spending the excess collections, Congress is not going to stop now. Private Retirement Accounts have the potential to put as much as a third of new collections beyond Congressional grasp. That would be a start.

Click to expand...

Every single one of your 'arguments' for private accounts fails to take into account what I have already said, the benefits being lowered, the two trillion dollar cost, and, most importantly, the fact that we are experiencing a market boom. Do you realize that market growth cannot continue at the same pace as was seen during the '90s, that it will fall? It may begin to rise again right after it falls (maybe 5 years later or so) but recessions are inevitable. Any 'measure' for the private accounts is based on the rapid growth we have seen during this market boom, and really connot be considered accurate. The simple fact is that any mutual fund is risky, and some Americans will lose. Some, no doubt, will gain mightily, but you have to accept that some will lose. Now, this would be fine if SS was still an option, but unfortunately, benefits will almost have to be cut to help accomodate the vast loss in tax revenue. This plan does not keep SS solvent, as was the President's mission in the first place, in fact, private accounts will lead to the demise of SS, complete privatisation.

So if we just let the GOP do what it wants, the economy will grow, and everyone will win? Hmm, let's see if that adds up. Let's look at two of the fastest growing economies in the world: India and China. Both have a more laissez-faire style policy than the USA, and in both, people suffer much greater than in the USA. What you continually fail to realize is that GOP policy will help the rich at the expense of the poor.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

anomaly said:

So if we just let the GOP do what it wants, the economy will grow, and everyone will win?

Click to expand...

Yes. Except that the socialist-lib-dems don't want to let anything beneficial happen, and neither do you.

Click to expand...

Fantasea said:

anomaly said:

Yes. Except that the socialist-lib-dems don't want to let anything beneficial happen, and neither do you.

Click to expand...

Beautiful cut there, taking my question out of its context, and snipping the bit I said after it. I think you must still be in some kind of shock, realizing that the capitalist system you so love doesn't help the majority of people. That bit you said, by the way, is completely ignorant of the entire left wing of politics. I understand the supposed benefits of capitalism (opportunity, economic 'freedom'), now you must understand its shortcomings (mass inequality, poverty, unfair economic practices, economic tyranny). I do hope that someday you will realize the beneficial sides of the left, just as I realize the beneficial sides of the right. Your argument is simply laughable: "liberals and socialists just don't want anything good to happen". I'd love to debate, but please, please drop this ignorance.

Click to expand...

anomaly said:

Fantasea said:

Beautiful cut there, taking my question out of its context, and snipping the bit I said after it.

Click to expand...

It's a dirty trick I learned watching socialist-lib-dem apoligist media folks who construct their questions in the deliberate hope of being able to generate a sound bite with which they can slap the face of the speaker. They also microscopically analyze all written and spoken material struggling for a magic phrase or two.

I figured it would get your goat. And I was right. It did.

I think you must still be in some kind of shock, realizing that the capitalist system you so love doesn't help the majority of people. That bit you said, by the way, is completely ignorant of the entire left wing of politics. I understand the supposed benefits of capitalism (opportunity, economic 'freedom'), now you must understand its shortcomings (mass inequality, poverty, unfair economic practices, economic tyranny).

Click to expand...

A simplistic illustration of the differences I can think of is this. Two men are standing at a well stocked stream on a hot day. One has brought a rod, some bait, and some lunch. He baits the hook, casts, gets a bite, and stuffs the fish into his creel. He does this several times and feels pretty good about himself.

In the meantime, the other man, who has brought nothing, feeling uncomfortably warm in the sun on the bank of the stream, finds a shady tree and lies down for a nap. After a while, he awakes, strolls over to the fisherman, who is about to eat his lunch, looks at the full creel, and expects the fisherman to share his catch and his lunch.

The fisherman represents the beneficiaries of capitalism, and the other man represents those who do not benefit. The problem is not a new one. It is referenced even in biblical times.

2 Thessalonians 3

6 ¶ Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.
7 For yourselves know how ye ought to follow us: for we behaved not ourselves disorderly among you;
.8 Neither did we eat any man's bread for nought; but wrought with labour and travail night and day, that we might not be chargeable to any of you:
.9 Not because we have not power, but to make ourselves an example unto you to follow us.
.10 For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.

Note the use of the word 'would'. The reference is to able bodied persons who refuse to work. Those unable to work were always treated charitably.

I do hope that someday you will realize the beneficial sides of the left, just as I realize the beneficial sides of the right.

Click to expand...

The only thing I realize about the beneficial sides of the left is that those in positions of power want to keep what they have and redistribute the wealth of everyone else. I would greatly prefer their emphasizing self-sufficiency, instead.

Your argument is simply laughable: "liberals and socialists just don't want anything good to happen". I'd love to debate, but please, please drop this ignorance.

Click to expand...

Face it. The socialist-lib-dems have lost all of the political power they once held and are rabidly struggling to regain some. To the extent that things are bad, they can sling mud at the Administration. They are not about to do anything which might improve things and reflect favorably on the Administration. That would only dig them deeper into the hole they're in.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Fantasea said:

anomaly said:

Fantasea said:

A simplistic illustration of the differences I can think of is this. Two men are standing at a well stocked stream on a hot day. One has brought a rod, some bait, and some lunch. He baits the hook, casts, gets a bite, and stuffs the fish into his creel. He does this several times and feels pretty good about himself.

In the meantime, the other man, who has brought nothing, feeling uncomfortably warm in the sun on the bank of the stream, finds a shady tree and lies down for a nap. After a while, he awakes, strolls over to the fisherman, who is about to eat his lunch, looks at the full creel, and expects the fisherman to share his catch and his lunch.

The fisherman represents the beneficiaries of capitalism, and the other man represents those who do not benefit. The problem is not a new one. It is referenced even in biblical times.

Click to expand...

You do realize that not all jobless people are the lazy, unskilled morons you take them for, and nor are those in poverty?
Remember this little quote of yours, explaining the 'glory' and 'reason' of capitalism? "Catch a man a fish, feed him for a day, teach a man to fish, feed him for life". Karl Marx has a similar quote: "Catch a man a fish, feed him for a day, teach a man to fish, and waste a valuable business opportunity". Rather cynical, yet certainly just as true for quickly describing the 'nature' of capitalism. I think you have to begin to understand that competition, the natural balancing force that is so reverred in capitalism, also apllies to the job market, meaning that only some can get into certain jobs. It is not unlimited. What determines who gets in? A mix of qualifications, one's skill in a job interview, and a lot of luck. So it is rather foolish to assume that those on top of the wealth pyramid are also the most skilled and valuable human beings. 'Skill' is a rather broad term, and very few skills are actually needed to succeed in capitalism. Obviously, and unfortunately, most do not possess such skill. What is the skill?-manipulating money. If one can simply do this, one will become rich under capitalism. The most deserving, wise, and qualified do not neccesarily get rewarded accordingly. And workers are not mindless drones, or lazy people who refuse to work hard, many of them are simply unforunate, and even more decide, yes decide, to take up that particular job.

Fant said:

The only thing I realize about the beneficial sides of the left is that those in positions of power want to keep what they have and redistribute the wealth of everyone else. I would greatly prefer their emphasizing self-sufficiency, instead.Face it. The socialist-lib-dems have lost all of the political power they once held and are rabidly struggling to regain some. To the extent that things are bad, they can sling mud at the Administration. They are not about to do anything which might improve things and reflect favorably on the Administration. That would only dig them deeper into the hole they're in.

Click to expand...

So wait, politicians and the government officials in general are automatically exempt from economic policy? Do you realize that those in 'positions of power' (the real position of power in modern America is the businessman, the stock broker, and the investment banker) make less than those I have mentioned in parenthesis?

And you continue to pat your ideology on the back by denouncing socialists. Do you even realize that socialists haven't had any real power in America since the '30s? Socialists are not Dems, get that through your head.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

anomaly said:

Fantasea said:

anomaly said:

You do realize that not all jobless people are the lazy, unskilled morons you take them for, and nor are those in poverty?
Remember this little quote of yours, explaining the 'glory' and 'reason' of capitalism? "Catch a man a fish, feed him for a day, teach a man to fish, feed him for life". Karl Marx has a similar quote: "Catch a man a fish, feed him for a day, teach a man to fish, and waste a valuable business opportunity". Rather cynical, yet certainly just as true for quickly describing the 'nature' of capitalism. I think you have to begin to understand that competition, the natural balancing force that is so reverred in capitalism, also apllies to the job market, meaning that only some can get into certain jobs. It is not unlimited. What determines who gets in? A mix of qualifications, one's skill in a job interview, and a lot of luck. So it is rather foolish to assume that those on top of the wealth pyramid are also the most skilled and valuable human beings. 'Skill' is a rather broad term, and very few skills are actually needed to succeed in capitalism. Obviously, and unfortunately, most do not possess such skill. What is the skill?-manipulating money. If one can simply do this, one will become rich under capitalism. The most deserving, wise, and qualified do not neccesarily get rewarded accordingly. And workers are not mindless drones, or lazy people who refuse to work hard, many of them are simply unforunate, and even more decide, yes decide, to take up that particular job.



.

Click to expand...

As a Conservative, I know that not all jobless people are lazy and i don't think anyone here is saying that. I know of some people that are trapped. They don't have a job because they need a car and don't have a car because they need a job to pay for it. But at the same time I have helped people who needed rent or gas money and they kept coming back for more. I have been taken advantage 100% of the time that I try to help and that is the attitude of the majority of the jobless(that I have experienced). It goes back to self reliance and responsibility. Too many people will not take care of themselves if they have someone to do it for them. That's the problem I have with socialism.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

alienken said:

anomaly said:

Fantasea said:

As a Conservative, I know that not all jobless people are lazy and i don't think anyone here is saying that. I know of some people that are trapped. They don't have a job because they need a car and don't have a car because they need a job to pay for it. But at the same time I have helped people who needed rent or gas money and they kept coming back for more. I have been taken advantage 100% of the time that I try to help and that is the attitude of the majority of the jobless(that I have experienced). It goes back to self reliance and responsibility. Too many people will not take care of themselves if they have someone to do it for them. That's the problem I have with socialism.

Click to expand...

I don't know what jobless you've met, but the jobless people I've known have been dying to get back into the job market. And I don't see how mindless giving has anything to do with socialism. I'm sure socialism would include a welfare state and many social and redistributive policies, but that doesn't mean the government is simply carrying all the 'lazy jobless' people. If you're against socialism, obviously you're against greater equality or aginst welfare for the needy. So which is it? Better yet, respond to me with what you envision socialism as being.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

anomaly said:

I don't know what jobless you've met, but the jobless people I've known have been dying to get back into the job market.

Click to expand...

Dying is not the solution to their problem. The solution is effort and hustle. Hanging around waiting for the job to come is nowhere near as effective as going wherever the jobs are more plentiful.

And I don't see how mindless giving has anything to do with socialism. I'm sure socialism would include a welfare state and many social and redistributive policies, but that doesn't mean the government is simply carrying all the 'lazy jobless' people.

Click to expand...

Are you saying that the government would wisely find a way to avoid carrying the "lazy jobless" person to whom you refer?

If you're against socialism, obviously you're against greater equality or aginst welfare for the needy. So which is it? Better yet, respond to me with what you envision socialism as being.

Click to expand...

Socialism resembles one big union where one size fits all and individual recognition and improved economic status are out of the question.

Socialism produces what Henry David Thoreau was describing when he wrote, "The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation. What is called resignation is confirmed desperation." When the government controls a man's destiny by seemingly pandering to his every need from cradle to grave, he becomes as if emasculated -- powerless to excel, to rise to the level of his abilities and ambitions -- stuck in the midst of the common herd from which he cannot escape. Socialism destroys initiative.

Click to expand...

anomaly said:

alienken said:

anomaly said:

... And I don't see how mindless giving has anything to do with socialism. I'm sure socialism would include a welfare state and many social and redistributive policies, but that doesn't mean the government is simply carrying all the 'lazy jobless' people. If you're against socialism, obviously you're against greater equality or aginst welfare for the needy. So which is it? Better yet, respond to me with what you envision socialism as being.

Click to expand...

Here is the difference, I see the welfare state as mindless giving, so it appears to me that you are contradicting yourself. I have never had an in depth study on socialism but to me it's the next step after liberalism were the gov. is the answer to all of the problems of society. If there are not strict guidelines and training programs in the welfare system, it WILL turn people lazy, it's human nature. Why work when you don't have to? And better yet why should I work hard when the gov. takes my money and gives it to someone who will not.(old and disabled people excluded, of course these need to be taken care of)

Click to expand...

Click to expand...