"Republicans - will always protect Medicare and Social Security " > Speaker McCarthy

[poweRob]

Which, to be fair, would provide far - far - better results.

No it would not. SS has never missed a payment and it doesn't go down. And stock market rises being bigger overall, doesn't help elderly the zillion times it crashed and will crash. With retirement, stability is far more important than growth averaged growth rates.

 

[cpwill]

No it would not. SS has never missed a payment and it doesn't go down. And stock market rises being bigger overall, doesn't help elderly the zillion times it crashed and will crash. With retirement, stability is far more important than growth averaged growth rates.

Again, I have run the math for every cohort since WWII - and yes it would, including when it crashes. Feel free to check my figures; I laid out my sources, methodology, assumptions, numbers, etc., all there.

With retirement, income is what is important. Privatized investments - for all their volatility in any particular given year - provide far more of it, in a stable manner, in retirement, than Social (in)Security.

 

[poweRob]

Again, I have run the math for every cohort since WWII - and yes it would, including when it crashes. Feel free to check my figures; I laid out my sources, methodology, assumptions, numbers, etc., all there.

With retirement, income is what is important. Privatized investments - for all their volatility in any particular given year - provide far more of it, in a stable manner, in retirement, than Social (in)Security.

I know the averages are higher in the private sector. I didn't say otherwise. But when you are old and in your twilight years, waiting out a stock market crash isn't much of an option. Like I said, stability wins out more than fast growth at that point. And SS is far FAR more stable and reliable.

 

[Fearandloathing]

This is my way to give Mr. McCarthy a if he truly means it while I also sport this look about his promise "to scrutinize every dollar spent" under his recognition that there is "no plan yet".


ttps://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/kevin-mccarthy-says-republicans-will-protect-social-security-what-s-that-mean/ar-AA16jHWH?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=98a4327c6d7f4fda86683c449df405f8
“One thing I will tell you, as Republicans, we will always protect Medicare and Social Security,” McCarthy said in response to a question from HuffPost on Thursday. “We will protect them for the next generation going forward. But we are going to scrutinize every single dollar spent.”

Everybody in Washington wants to “protect” or “strengthen” Medicare and Social Security; it’s a perfectly anodyne statement that a member of any party could utter at any time without thinking.

McCarthy’s answer suggests that Republicans have no plan yet and that his biggest challenge will be trying to get his fractious caucus — which only elected him leader on the 15th ballot — to settle on a unified list of demands.

Typical 'look over here' politics.

While ramping up on something ugly, the Republicans always seem to want to lay down a distraction first. Responding to a planted question rises a back burner issue to the forefront where, as a Republican, he can say anything because he'll never have to back it with action.

Mc Carthy is a man of words, not letters. He smooths the road without having to pave it, that way he can backtrack and ignore the hoots and howls.

From what I've seen of this guy just in the last three months, his lack of spine will not hinder his status as a functionary of the real Republican brass.

 

[cpwill]

I know the averages are higher in the private sector. I didn't say otherwise. But when you are old and in your twilight years, waiting out a stock market crash isn't much of an option.

As shown above, it's also not a requirement. Even someone who retires in the middle of back-to-back 2008-style market crashes would still be getting a bigger check from a private account than OASI.

Like I said, stability wins out more than fast growth at that point. And SS is far FAR more stable and reliable.

It's not. SS is currently scheduled to drastically cut the income of today's retirees. :-/

 

[poweRob]

As shown above, it's also not a requirement. Even someone who retires in the middle of back-to-back 2008-style market crashes would still be getting a bigger check from a private account than OASI.



It's not. SS is currently scheduled to drastically cut the income of today's retirees. :-/

No matter your situation, you still contribute to SS and get a return. Not so much in the private side. SS will be there. If we don't let republicans cut and/or kill it with privatization. Something you can't rely on on the private side. Stability matters.

 

[bomberfox]

As did my proposal; you have to require investments, just as today we require FICA taxes. I look forward to your input in the thread .



They do fluctuate more; indeed. They also grow far, far, more, and, over a working lifetime, that is by far the more important factor.

Seems the requirement is meant to fuel the private sector instead of something we all own. This is quite a change from those who were against the individual mandate no?

If you are going to require we purchase something, let it be in something we can all own in common.

 

[cpwill]

No matter your situation, you still contribute to SS and get a return. Not so much in the private side. SS will be there. If we don't let republicans cut and/or kill it with privatization. Something you can't rely on on the private side. Stability matters.

Not only can you rely more on private accounts, they are particularly more beneficial than OASI for those in lower income circumstances. Math matters.


Again, I've linked the work, here. Your position, respectfully, is mathematically incorrect.

 

[cpwill]

Seems the requirement is meant to fuel the private sector instead of something we all own. This is quite a change from those who were against the individual mandate no?

If you are going to require we purchase something, let it be in something we can all own in common.

... This complaint makes no sense to me. Why in the world, given the repeated demonstration of poor results from socializing property, would I want to replicate those results, and make retirees bear them? That's part of what helped get us into this new in the first place.

 

[bomberfox]

... This complaint makes no sense to me. Why in the world, given the repeated demonstration of poor results from socializing property, would I want to replicate those results, and make retirees bear them? That's part of what helped get us into this new in the first place.

We all own it and have a sense of responsibility towards eachother. The federal government cant run out of money.

Either way you are requiring by law that people contribute. Make people contribute to something that is stable and owned by us all . Our SS taxes go towards something every American owns collectively as it should be. This was why i rejected the proposal when i was a free marketer. If im required by law to invest i would rather it be in something that has more stability, guaranteed payout (the federal government cannot by nature of being a sovereign currency issuer run out of money), and it is something that we all own versus something any private company could easily run off with.

Im also ok with socializing all prisons with no exceptions whatsoever.

 

[poweRob]

Not only can you rely more on private accounts, they are particularly more beneficial than OASI for those in lower income circumstances. Math matters.


Again, I've linked the work, here. Your position, respectfully, is mathematically incorrect.

You can't rely on an account where you don't know if you can put into it. Bottom line.

 

[cpwill]

We all own it and have a sense of responsibility towards eachother

The history of socialism suggests this is a .... very optimistic take.

. The federal government cant run out of money.

That depends on how you define "money". In the sense that we can - I suppose - always print more until the entire nation actually collapses into a variety of autonomous zones, sure, I guess?

In the real world, however, the Federal Government absolutely can run out of money that has actual meaning and value.

Have you noticed what has happened to our cost of borrowing now that interest rates have increased?

Either way you are requiring by law that people contribute. Make people contribute to something that is stable and owned by us all .

Doubling down on failure doesn't strike me as the best strategy, especially when we know that other plans work far better for individual Americans, for our society, and even for our Government.

Our SS taxes go towards something every American owns collectively as it should be.

No they don't. Our SS Taxes immediately go to payouts, because it's structured like a ponzi scheme, and, (thanks to lowered birthrates), we are no longer adding new suckers at a sustainable rate.

This was why i rejected the proposal when i was a free marketer. If im required by law to invest i would rather it be in something that has more stability

Then you should want to get out of our current Social (in)Security model, which does not.

, guaranteed payout (the federal government cannot by nature of being a sovereign currency issuer run out of money), and it is something that we all own versus something any private company could easily run off with.

...you think we are investing somehow in "government"???

Im also ok with socializing all prisons with no exceptions whatsoever.

law enforcement is an inherently governmental function?

 

[bomberfox]

The history of socialism suggests this is a .... very optimistic take.




That depends on how you define "money". In the sense that we can - I suppose - always print more until the entire nation actually collapses into a variety of autonomous zones, sure, I guess?

In the real world, however, the Federal Government absolutely can run out of money that has actual meaning and value.

Have you noticed what has happened to our cost of borrowing now that interest rates have increased?



Doubling down on failure doesn't strike me as the best strategy, especially when we know that other plans work far better for individual Americans, for our society, and even for our Government.



No they don't. Our SS Taxes immediately go to payouts, because it's structured like a ponzi scheme, and, (thanks to lowered birthrates), we are no longer adding new suckers at a sustainable rate.



Then you should want to get out of our current Social (in)Security model, which does not.



...you think we are investing somehow in "government"???



law enforcement is an inherently governmental function?

*facepalm* im talking about social security. Im going to politely ask you to reread the comment and just focus on social security which is something even conservative Bismark proposed. Yes law enforcement is inherently a government function because governments enforce laws. I dont believe the private sector has any business enforcing laws .

Yes governments make investments and it cannot run out of money. Thats not how sovereign currency issuers work. If you are going to require by law that we make payments i would rather it be in something we all own than a plan to funnel all that money into enriching the wealthy whom i cannot vote for or against.

This is a really boilerplate argument i’d compare to a Prager poo video.

 

[cpwill]

*facepalm* im talking about social security

I assumed so. I don't know why you think that you are somehow investing in something "everyone owns" with FICA taxes. The government is not "investing" in anything on our behalf in Social Security.

. Im going to politely ask you to reread the comment and just focus on social security which is something even conservative Bismark proposed.

This is where political language gets tricky - Conservatism in the American tradition is focused on defending the Classic Liberal values of our founding. That is a far cry from Bismark, who, in American parlance would not fall under "Conservativism" but "Progressivism", which is why our early 20th Century Progressives here were so enamored with his systems.

Yes law enforcement is inherently a government function because governments enforce laws. I dont believe the private sector has any business enforcing laws .

A certain amount of private sector activity is necessary and beneficial. I'm not a huge fan of privatized prisons, but, I also have no problem with Wal Mart catching shoplifters.

Yes governments make investments and it cannot run out of money. Thats not how sovereign currency issuers work.

This sounds suspiciously like the "MMT" nonsense - is that what you are trying to propose here?

Governments' can make investments - ours does not, at least, with FICA funds, though that is something I am trying to change.

However, governments can indeed run out of money, even after that money has become effectively worthless because of overproduction. What do you think happens when it costs more money to print the money than you can print?

This is a really boilerplate argument i’d compare to a Prager poo video.

I've shown you the math - I had hoped you were going to engage with it . You seem to prefer not to.

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

That sure does sound like a WHOPPER right there Friend!!!

 

[bomberfox]

I assumed so. I don't know why you think that you are somehow investing in something "everyone owns" with FICA taxes. The government is not "investing" in anything on our behalf in Social Security.




This is where political language gets tricky - Conservatism in the American tradition is focused on defending the Classic Liberal values of our founding. That is a far cry from Bismark, who, in American parlance would not fall under "Conservativism" but "Progressivism", which is why our early 20th Century Progressives here were so enamored with his systems.



A certain amount of private sector activity is necessary and beneficial. I'm not a huge fan of privatized prisons, but, I also have no problem with Wal Mart catching shoplifters.



This sounds suspiciously like the "MMT" nonsense - is that what you are trying to propose here?

Governments' can make investments - ours does not, at least, with FICA funds, though that is something I am trying to change.

However, governments can indeed run out of money, even after that money has become effectively worthless because of overproduction. What do you think happens when it costs more money to print the money than you can print?



I've shown you the math - I had hoped you were going to engage with it . You seem to prefer not to.

Right it is paying into something we all own instead of splitting the required payments into something that is much more volatile but also something that we dont all own and make decisions about. It doesnt need to be invested in volatile markets and if the trust fund is not touched, its still going to be there.

Yes im aware that European definitions are different and im glad you recognize that, however Bismark was a far cry from AOC . What causes people like Bismark to come up with reforms is actually to stave off the people with more revolutionary proclivities.

Reformism is the enemy of the status quo but it is also the enemy of revolution.

Its one of the things i agree with MMTers with even though i find a lot of what they say to still be kinda loopy . Its just a manner of federal finance, the debt ceiling is only a self inflicted wound.

We agree certain amount of private sector activity is beneficial. I dont want the government making all sorts of things. Im not exactly a died in the wool socialist. (Btw im glad we agree on private prisons, i think they should be abolished and could go into a whole list of reasons but anyway!)

Apologies that i havnt engaged in the math, i wanted to engage in the easiest part first.

 

[Dans La Lune]

Since the 1960's when Medicare started, how many times have Republicans reduced benefits?

Tried or succeeded?

 

[MTAtech]

Tried or succeeded?

Medicare? You mean socialized medicine.

 

[cpwill]

Right it is paying into something we all own

No it's not. There is nothing that we are paying into that is owned. Nothing is being purchased. It's a transfer payment system. We send the money in in January, and they send it right back out in February to recipients.

There is no investment or property being purchased by the government with these funds. There is nothing "there" to be "owned".

instead of splitting the required payments into something that is much more volatile

But safer, and which lets our lower-income workers retire with financial independence.

You listed a single year in which your investments lost 20% (which they will soon gain back) as "volatility". OASI is currently scheduled to cut benefits by 25% in 2031, a cut that will hold in perpetuity.

Something that already provides poorly for our low income seniors is going to get cut by a quarter. We need the increased power that private accounts can bring if we are going to let them start retiring in dignity, instead.

Yes im aware that European definitions are different and im glad you recognize that, however Bismark was a far cry from AOC

Indeed, which is why I said he was best lumped with early 20th Century American progressives.

What causes people like Bismark to come up with reforms is actually to stave off the people with more revolutionary proclivities.

and putting the State in charge of critical parts of people's lives so that they remain dependent loyal.

Reformism is the enemy of the status quo but it is also the enemy of revolution.

Its one of the things i agree with MMTers with even though i find a lot of what they say to still be kinda loopy . Its just a manner of federal finance, the debt ceiling is only a self inflicted wound.

The Debt Ceiling in and of itself is just a check (and mostly a proforma one at that).

However, the MMT notion that we can endlessly print money is....

...it is Weimar Germany Dumb. It is Zimbabwe dumb. At some point, you've debased the currency to the point where the country no longer "exists" as it did before. It is the kind of theory that could come up only really when you had a solid core of people who had not experienced inflation in their adult lives.

We agree certain amount of private sector activity is beneficial. I dont want the government making all sorts of things.

Government control of the means of production tends to go poorly if you are scoring by terms of "people get to eat"

Im not exactly a died in the wool socialist. (Btw im glad we agree on private prisons, i think they should be abolished and could go into a whole list of reasons but anyway!)

Apologies that i havnt engaged in the math, i wanted to engage in the easiest part first.

I get that. My ability to engage here on some threads waxes and wanes when I'm on my phone v on a laptop; phone debate has to be simple

 

[Linc]

Tried or succeeded?

Watching Bernie on Chris Hayes?

 

[Ug make hammer]

... This complaint makes no sense to me. Why in the world, given the repeated demonstration of poor results from socializing property, would I want to replicate those results, and make retirees bear them? That's part of what helped get us into this new in the first place.

"Socialized property" would be if the government still owned $3 trillion worth of stocks. So far as I'm aware, they don't, only a notional loan to government which is repayed at a "deeming rate." That deeming rate is very likely lower than what a stock portfolio would earn.

It's not so much that federal government is a dumb investor. It's not an investor at all. And that's a shame: the Chinese government shows us that large stakes in private enterprise provide revenue without the need to tax. I expect that would work for us too, BUT it's a very long term strategy and in the short term, someone has to pay to buy the stocks.

 

[poweRob]

What ****ing liars Republicans are

 

[Dans La Lune]

Watching Bernie on Chris Hayes?

No, I don't watch MSNBC.

 

[Kushinator]

That depends on how you define "money". In the sense that we can - I suppose - always print more until the entire nation actually collapses into a variety of autonomous zones, sure, I guess?

In the real world, however, the Federal Government absolutely can run out of money that has actual meaning and value.

Remember the whole Kyle Bass fiasco?

Have you noticed what has happened to our cost of borrowing now that interest rates have increased?

Why don't you show us?

You listed a single year in which your investments lost 20% (which they will soon gain back) as "volatility". OASI is currently scheduled to cut benefits by 25% in 2031, a cut that will hold in perpetuity.

That's pretty old analysis. If i remember correctly, the S.S. trust fund depletion was moved up to 2034 because of a rebound in employment and FICA revenue.

Something that already provides poorly for our low income seniors is going to get cut by a quarter.

Why is it providing poorly? It's doing exactly as it was intended..

We need the increased power that private accounts can bring if we are going to let them start retiring in dignity, instead.

People can already invest in private retirement accounts.

...it is Weimar Germany Dumb.

Production collapsed.

It is Zimbabwe dumb.

See above. You're not being honest here, and this type of confusion continues to make its rounds as a result of people who should know better attempting to sound off.

 

[Linc]

No, I don't watch MSNBC.

Bernie was awesome, as usual. CNN is better at broadcasting the GOP message than Fox.