State of the union

[Pacridge]

Everyone who pays income tax received a reduction in proportion to what they paid. With all of the 'gimmies' available, nearly fifty million families pay no income tax at all. Of course, the 'poverty pimps', as Bill Cosby calls them, will never be satisfied.


Those who understand the meaning of the word 'lie' realize that it is used incorrectly in these statements.



If you would prefer to see your social security contribution rise from the present 12% to about 50% of your earnings, the way to accomplish that is to do nothing to change the present system.

A recent poll shows that workers in the 18 t0 40 age group prefer the private savings accounts by 2 to 1.

Perhaps they know something that you don't.

When he said he'd made a statment that he hadn't made that was a lie. No misunderstanding of the meaning or realization of the word lie.

Presenting poll numbers of what people think is best has what to do with the fact that Bush is currently lying about the situation and financial status of the Social Security Adminstration?

 

[Fantasea]

So are you opposed to what FDR's New Deal did? And is it a cardinal sin now to oppose free market capitalism? If so I guess Thomas Frank is truly right in saying that we believe in "one market under God". Liberals have long opposed unregulated corporate capitalism i.e. liberals have always been pro-labor while cons have been pro-business. I suppose the question now is are you pro-business? Do you favor laissez-faire style capitalism in which the government gives few if any regulations and restrictions to businesses. So since it is clear that liberals are opposed to unrestricted capitalism, are we simply Commies and socialists who "just don't get it"?

Seventy years after the fact what difference does it make?

Without a doubt, FDR inherited a mess the genesis of which and FDR’s involvement you can find at:

http://www.amatecon.com/gd/gdoverview.html

Being pro-labor, in my opinion, means doing everything possible to enable business to expand so that more jobs at all levels can be created. Bear in mind that the only sources of jobs are businesses and the government. Government jobs do not produce goods or services that can expand the economy. This can be done only through businesses that produce goods and services for consumer consumption.

As I see it, the pro-labor efforts of liberals seek to create an adversarial relationship between labor and management. The rigid work rules they strive to enforce stifle growth and drive up production costs. The net effect is fewer jobs, lower salaries, and reduced dividends paid to those who buy a company’s stock.

My view on liberalism is that those who consider themselves the ‘hierarchy’ believe that they know what is best for everyone. And that is a cradle to grave socialistic system for all, modeled after the continental European model.

Liberals seem to believe that all people should be in a relatively narrow economic range and that the way to ‘equalize’ things is to tax wealth away from those who have more and, through government ‘entitlement’ programs, redistribute it to those who have less. Individual achievement is not considered politically correct.

For the more than forty years they controlled Congress, socialist-lib-Dems cried bitterly about the ‘broken’ public education system and continued to throw more and more money at it. Money, itself was never the problem. The problem was the way the money was spent and the continual erosion of classroom control by teachers.

Today, the national average annual per capita spending in grades K-12 is roughly equivalent to the national average annual per capita college tuition.

When the Lyndon Johnson ‘Great Society’ (read: no more personal responsibility) programs began to kick in, the problems being discussed at teacher conventions centered on chewing gum in class, talking in class, and spitballs. However, by the time the socialist-lib-Dems lost control of Congress some forty years later, the problems being discussed at teacher conventions centered on security guards, metal detectors, and teachers defending themselves against student assaults.

 

[Fantasea]

When he said he'd made a statment that he hadn't made that was a lie. No misunderstanding of the meaning or realization of the word lie.

I'm sure you can cite a few instances, can't you?

Presenting poll numbers of what people think is best has what to do with the fact that Bush is currently lying about the situation and financial status of the Social Security Adminstration?

As far back as I can remember, the socialist-lib-Dems have been yelling about the 'broken Social Security System that must be fixed'. They constantly sought to rile up the seniors, saying that unless something was done, benefits would be slashed.

Does any of that sound familiar?

Now that the capitalist-conservative-Repubs have co-opted the issue, the socialist-lib-dems are doing what they do best, they demagogue the issue.

Since they've been out of power so long now and are still sinking fast, what else can they do?

 

[Pacridge]

I'm sure you can cite a few instances, can't you?

Yep, you and I both know I could give you a lot of examples of Mr. Bush and or people in his adminstration lying.


As far back as I can remember, the socialist-lib-Dems have been yelling about the 'broken Social Security System that must be fixed'. They constantly sought to rile up the seniors, saying that unless something was done, benefits would be slashed.

Does any of that sound familiar?

Now that the capitalist-conservative-Repubs have co-opted the issue, the socialist-lib-dems are doing what they do best, they demagogue the issue.

Since they've been out of power so long now and are still sinking fast, what else can they do?

Yes, it does sound very familar. What doesn't sound familar is that it's bankrupt or will be bankrupt by X date if we don't allow people to stop paying into an start putting their money else where.

Both parties have been saying there are problems coming down the line with social security if we don't make some changes and do some things to fix the system. As far as I know Bush is the first to claim that by having people stop paying into the system that will somehow fix the system. Many on the GOP side have also voiced their concerns over his plan and what he's been claiming.

 

[Fantasea]

Both parties have been saying there are problems coming down the line with social security if we don't make some changes and do some things to fix the system. As far as I know Bush is the first to claim that by having people stop paying into the system that will somehow fix the system. Many on the GOP side have also voiced their concerns over his plan and what he's been claiming.

My understanding is this.

Benefits for older folks won't change.

Younger folks will have a choice. Stick with the old system, or switch to the new one.

Those who stick with the old system will get whatever benefit everyone in the old system gets.

Those who switch to the new system will get their benefit in two parts.
1. A reduced benefit based on the old system,
2. Whatever benefit their private retirement account has earned.

Based on historical patterns over a hundred years, the 'switchers' should receive a much greater total retirement benefit than the 'stickers'.

Nothing concrete will happen for at least a few years.

The alternative would require large increases in social security tax contributions because there aren't enough wage earners to support the present and future retirees. (Perhaps it wasn't such a good idea to abort those fifty million potential wage earners.)

What's your understanding?

 

[Pacridge]

My understanding is this.

Benefits for older folks won't change.

Younger folks will have a choice. Stick with the old system, or switch to the new one.

Those who stick with the old system will get whatever benefit everyone in the old system gets.

Those who switch to the new system will get their benefit in two parts.
1. A reduced benefit based on the old system,
2. Whatever benefit their private retirement account has earned.

Based on historical patterns over a hundred years, the 'switchers' should receive a much greater total retirement benefit than the 'stickers'.

Nothing concrete will happen for at least a few years.

The alternative would require large increases in social security tax contributions because there aren't enough wage earners to support the present and future retirees. (Perhaps it wasn't such a good idea to abort those fifty million potential wage earners.)

What's your understanding?

For the most part that my understanding as well. Though to be honest I'm not sure the entire plan as really been disclosed. As far as the "switcher's should receive a much greater total retirement benefit than the sticker's." comment I'm not absolutely certain that true, just as I'm sure I don't know that it's not. I tend to think it is accurate to some degree. But to what degree remains unknown. The parts of the plan, at least as far as I understand it, that are missing what effect does borrowing trillions more to pay for it have on our economy. Plus, no part of the private accounts plan seems to address the impending short falls. It merely shifts money out of an already stressed system

As for "Perhaps it wasn't such a good idea to abort those fifty million potential wage earners." Sooner or later those wage earners would be drawing benefits on the system and would be a deficit to the system. Equal number of people in, equal number of people out- not much change in the overall effect, is it? I'm no fan of abortion but you can't blame it for every problem we've ever had.

 

[Gabo]

The parts of the plan, at least as far as I understand it, that are missing what effect does borrowing trillions more to pay for it have on our economy.

That's why I propose a decrease in government spending of that amount. Then, when all the dependents are finished with the system, taxes can be cut for whatever amount was needed to provide their benefits.


Everyone wins!

 

[Fantasea]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fantasea
My understanding is this.

Benefits for older folks won't change.

Younger folks will have a choice. Stick with the old system, or switch to the new one.

Those who stick with the old system will get whatever benefit everyone in the old system gets.

Those who switch to the new system will get their benefit in two parts.
1. A reduced benefit based on the old system,
2. Whatever benefit their private retirement account has earned.

Based on historical patterns over a hundred years, the 'switchers' should receive a much greater total retirement benefit than the 'stickers'.

Nothing concrete will happen for at least a few years.

The alternative would require large increases in social security tax contributions because there aren't enough wage earners to support the present and future retirees. (Perhaps it wasn't such a good idea to abort those fifty million potential wage earners.)

What's your understanding?

For the most part that my understanding as well. Though to be honest I'm not sure the entire plan as really been disclosed. As far as the "switcher's should receive a much greater total retirement benefit than the sticker's." comment I'm not absolutely certain that true, just as I'm sure I don't know that it's not. I tend to think it is accurate to some degree. But to what degree remains unknown.

Exactly. Right now, no one knows for certain what this horse will look like. A camel, a zebra, a mule, a donkey, or what. However, that doesn’t stop the Jackass political party from doing its best to create a firestorm of confusion and disruption.

The parts of the plan, at least as far as I understand it, that are missing what effect does borrowing trillions more to pay for it have on our economy. Plus, no part of the private accounts plan seems to address the impending short falls. It merely shifts money out of an already stressed system

Two questions:
1. Over what period will that money have to be borrowed? If it’s spread out over thirty or forty years, it’s no big deal.
2. What will be the shape of the borrowing curve? How long before the real borrowing starts and how steep is the curve?

I think there are many straw men having harpoons thrown at them.

As for "Perhaps it wasn't such a good idea to abort those fifty million potential wage earners." Sooner or later those wage earners would be drawing benefits on the system and would be a deficit to the system. Equal number of people in, equal number of people out- not much change in the overall effect, is it? I'm no fan of abortion but you can't blame it for every problem we've ever had.

The Social Security Ponzi Scheme thrives so long as fresh faces come in on the front end. Can you honestly say that the missing fifty million fresh faces wouldn’t make a difference? Don’t forget that in addition to tax contributions, they would be adding fresh faces of their own to further swell the ranks.

 

[Pacridge]

Exactly. Right now, no one knows for certain what this horse will look like. A camel, a zebra, a mule, a donkey, or what. However, that doesn’t stop the Jackass political party from doing its best to create a firestorm of confusion and disruption.


Two questions:
1. Over what period will that money have to be borrowed? If it’s spread out over thirty or forty years, it’s no big deal.
2. What will be the shape of the borrowing curve? How long before the real borrowing starts and how steep is the curve?

Yes, no one knows exactly what the plan looks like. But that doesn't stop the guys of the right wing to sing it's praises either does it? So how is it that anyone is more of a jackass than anyone else in this case?


So, it's OK to go more deeply in debt as long as we pass that debt on to our kids or it's just spread out over a great deal of time?

 

[Gabo]

So, it's OK to go more deeply in debt as long as we pass that debt on to our kids or it's just spread out over a great deal of time?

A better idea is to cut government spending!

 

[Fantasea]

Yes, no one knows exactly what the plan looks like. But that doesn't stop the guys of the right wing to sing it's praises either does it? So how is it that anyone is more of a jackass than anyone else in this case?

Right now, since there is nothing concrete, the only thing to fight sbout is the concept. The Republicans believe that the concept of private retirement accounts make sense and the democrats disagree.

Would anyone expect both sides to agree on anything?

So, it's OK to go more deeply in debt as long as we pass that debt on to our kids or it's just spread out over a great deal of time?

It has been ever thus, has it not? You and I are being taxed to pay for debt incurred before we were born. You can't see the individual items because everything goes into that gigantic 'blender' called the US Treasury.

 

[Pacridge]

Right now, since there is nothing concrete, the only thing to fight sbout is the concept. The Republicans believe that the concept of private retirement accounts make sense and the democrats disagree.

Would anyone expect both sides to agree on anything?


It has been ever thus, has it not? You and I are being taxed to pay for debt incurred before we were born. You can't see the individual items because everything goes into that gigantic 'blender' called the US Treasury.

No, maybe you're right- I shouldn't expect anything but disagreement, but one can dream.

As far as being taxed for debt incurred before we were born. That all depends on your age and exactly how you compute the numbers. But I'm not going to argue with you about whether I'm paying off my grandfather's debt. I would say two things about that though. Just because it's always been that way doesn't mean it's a good thing or the right thing to do. Second, The debt ratio, as to the GNP or other factors, is getting up there, way up there. That used to concern conservatives, why the change? Why is it suddenly OK to spend like there's no tomorrow? Do you seriously think there will be no negative effect to any of this?

 

[Fantasea]

No, maybe you're right- I shouldn't expect anything but disagreement, but one can dream.

Ah, yes.

Hope springs eternal in the human breast;
Man never Is, but always To be blest:
The soul, uneasy and confin'd from home,
Rests and expatiates in a life to come.

-Alexander Pope,
An Essay on Man, Epistle I, 1733​

He uses lots of nice words to say, "Not in this life."

As far as being taxed for debt incurred before we were born. That all depends on your age and exactly how you compute the numbers. But I'm not going to argue with you about whether I'm paying off my grandfather's debt. I would say two things about that though. Just because it's always been that way doesn't mean it's a good thing or the right thing to do.

Maybe yes, maybe no. Nevertheless, that's how the game of politics is played.

Second, The debt ratio, as to the GNP or other factors, is getting up there, way up there. That used to concern conservatives, why the change? Why is it suddenly OK to spend like there's no tomorrow?

Perhaps it's a lesson finally learned. A nation cannot tax its way to prosperity. To solve the problem it can only improve the business climate so that expansion is encouraged. When business expands, the economy rises and as it does, so do tax revenues which pay off the debt.

If one retraces history, one will find that every recession or depression came after government restrictions were imposed on business and left after they were relaxed.

Do you seriously think there will be no negative effect to any of this?

Nothing permanent. As the wisest of the Kennedy brothers, that was the sailor, observed, "A rising tide lifts all ships."

 

[Pacridge]

Perhaps it's a lesson finally learned. A nation cannot tax its way to prosperity.

QUOTE]

Yeah, But it looks like we're trying to spend our way to prosperity.

 

[Fantasea]

Perhaps it's a lesson finally learned. A nation cannot tax its way to prosperity.

Yeah, But it looks like we're trying to spend our way to prosperity.

There are many folks who believe it worked for FDR during the Great Depression.

The economic principle is this: Increased business means increased business tax revenue and increased jobs; increased jobs mean increased personal tax revenues as well as fewer expenditures for welfare and unemployment payments. The increased revenues and the reduced expenditures combine to reduce federal debt.

It works best when the jobs are created in private industry. The Democratic roadblocks with respect to corporations are difficult hurdles to overcome.

 

[Hoot]

Bush is doing the same thing Reagan did...spend, spend, spend...attempting to buy a momentary prosperity, with no thought for what future generations will be left to deal with.

As far as "democratic roadblocks to corporations," I think most Americans want to see corporate welfare ended...most Americans want to see corporations be held responsible for their environmental abuses..most Americans do not believe corporations should be getting tax breaks for moving their jobs and production out of the country...and most Americans believe corporations should be held liable for their lack of fiscal responsibility.

If all of the above means a slight downgrade in the economy, and job loss, then so be it....better in the long run to restore trust in corporate America...not only in our own country, but in the eyes of the world.

 

[Gabo]

If all of the above means a slight downgrade in the economy, and job loss, then so be it....better in the long run to restore trust in corporate America...not only in our own country, but in the eyes of the world.

Exactly.

Throughout history we have been caught up with ONLY short term effects on things.

Nobody thinks at all into the future.

Only what can we get NOW, what will this cause NOW.


That kind of thinking gets us nowhere, and only causes major problems for the future.

 

[Cynic]

Your post is chilling, considering that the whole Social Security sham was forced onto the American people with only short-sighted results. There have been people who have had the great privilege of usurping the current S.S. program and privately invested this money. The rate of return is astounding as compared to the 'returns' of the S.S. program.

If you would like to avoid these 'major problems of the future', I suggest you get behind some sort of S.S. reform. The money is not there and I prefer not to raise the age of retirement or increase payroll taxes. I would like to be responsible for myself, however, we must take care of those that cannot take care of themselves... or that's the liberal version, anyway. That's why my money, and yours, is being stolen by the government. Privatization is the best possible alternative to a horrible situation.

 

[Gabo]

Privatization is the best possible alternative to a horrible situation.

As long as it is complete privatization, not the crap Bush is proposing.

 

[Pacridge]

Your post is chilling, considering that the whole Social Security sham was forced onto the American people with only short-sighted results. There have been people who have had the great privilege of usurping the current S.S. program and privately invested this money. The rate of return is astounding as compared to the 'returns' of the S.S. program.

If you would like to avoid these 'major problems of the future', I suggest you get behind some sort of S.S. reform. The money is not there and I prefer not to raise the age of retirement or increase payroll taxes. I would like to be responsible for myself, however, we must take care of those that cannot take care of themselves... or that's the liberal version, anyway. That's why my money, and yours, is being stolen by the government. Privatization is the best possible alternative to a horrible situation.

And how do you plan to pay for this privatization?

 

[Cynic]

Complete privatization would be the best scenario, however, because of the current state of S.S., it is not possible. Although extremely unpopular, it would seem logical to pay for this transition by cutting benefits of current recipients. They have put the least amount into the program and are taking the most out.
This will not happen either, so, a massive limitation of government would be a more viable solution. Specifically, I would dissolve the IRS and implement the fair tax plan before tackling S.S., but that's just me.

 

[Gabo]

Complete privatization would be the best scenario, however, because of the current state of S.S., it is not possible.

No, its quite possible.

All we need is....

a massive limitation of government would be a more viable solution.

Government spending could be cut to make up for the difference.
Then after the money was no longer needed, taxes could be reduced to fill the void.

 

[Fantasea]

Bush is doing the same thing Reagan did...spend, spend, spend...attempting to buy a momentary prosperity, with no thought for what future generations will be left to deal with.

As far as "democratic roadblocks to corporations," I think most Americans want to see corporate welfare ended...most Americans want to see corporations be held responsible for their environmental abuses..most Americans do not believe corporations should be getting tax breaks for moving their jobs and production out of the country...and most Americans believe corporations should be held liable for their lack of fiscal responsibility.

If all of the above means a slight downgrade in the economy, and job loss, then so be it....better in the long run to restore trust in corporate America...not only in our own country, but in the eyes of the world.

The world cares not a whit about trusting, whatever that means, in connection with US corporations. Their only concern is that they can continue to derive economic benefit from the import of US goods.

The vast majority of US corporations are responsible citizens. They never make the headlines. However the few are accused of abuses, real or imagined, generate a disproportionate degree of publicity.

Every time the government puts the squeeze on corporations, the result is a cut in production, a cut in jobs, and a cut in tax revenues.

I don't understand the mentality that doesn't understand that the entire economy is joined at the hip to Corporate America. Without them, the US would resemble a third world dropout.

Those who expect perfection in others would be well advised to examine their own consciences.

 

[Fantasea]

As long as it is complete privatization, not the crap Bush is proposing.

Tell us please, the Bush proposal for Personal Retirement accounts.

 

[Gabo]

People can choose to put some of their SS money in "private" accounts.
The government decides where you get to put your money.
The government decides how much you get to put there.
The government decides when you take it out.
The government decides how much you take out.
Only some of your money is able to be passed to the next generation.
You still use the crappy SS system for the rest of your retirement.
The extra money needed for the conversion comes from the taxpayers.



Bush isn't all that bad.
He is going in the right direction at least.
But he messes up in a few ways:

-The "private" accounts are hardly private at all
-The extra money needed is coming from increased tax instead of decreased spending