Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Thoughts on the President's fiscal year 2011 budget?


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Thoughts on the President's fiscal year 2011 budget? Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Thoughts on the President's fiscal year 2011 budget? - 2/2/2010 11:39:58 PM   
Brain


Posts: 3792
Joined: 2/14/2007
Status: offline 		Yes it is Bushs’ fault, Obama inherited a depression and all the lost revenue it entails.

(in reply to servantforuse)
Profile   Post #: 21
RE: Thoughts on the President's fiscal year 2011 budget? - 2/3/2010 12:52:26 AM   
Brain


Posts: 3792
Joined: 2/14/2007
Status: offline 		China Seeks Assurances That U.S. Will Cut Its Deficit

The unusual exchange between American and Chinese officials, in consecutive news conferences at the conclusion of the so-called Strategic and Economic Dialogue, underscored a subtle shift in power between China and the United States, one in which the Chinese are showing a new assertiveness as they seek to protect their huge investment.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/29/world/29strategy.html?_r=1

(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 22
RE: Thoughts on the President's fiscal year 2011 budget? - 2/3/2010 5:51:39 AM   
samboct


Posts: 1817
Joined: 1/17/2007
Status: offline 		LIke Mies Van de Roh said- "The devil is in the details."

I actually wish Obama would show a bit more gumption.  The idea that the defense budget is sacrosanct is ridiculous, and we need to pull out of the wars we're in.  If Iraq can stand on its own two legs- fine.  If it can't- oops.  Afghanistan is just a quagmire-what we've done is as dumb as the Russians invading Viet Nam.  Wartime economies are supposed to lead to full employment- but these wars have done nothing of the sort- therefore they're just an expensive waste of time.  Let's not even get into the ridiculous moral charade that got us there.

Agree with Muse that there are too many sacred cows in this budget- I'd be delighted to give Social Security the heave ho, as well as redo Medicaid and Medicare to more needs based systems.  Why are so many retirees able to go on cruises and not have to worry about the expensive medical care they're racking up?

In terms of the education spending- wholeheartedly agree- time for more grants, student loan forgiveness and getting banks out of the picture.  It's quite clear that transferring debt onto the backs of the young college graduates has been a disaster in terms of growing the economy (like this wasn't predictable?- thank you Ronnie Rayguns AGAIN)- instead of using what are typically meager paychecks to save and build their own businesses, they've been paying off bank loans which have been quite profitable.  Too much concentration of money leads to less wealth.

Unfortunately I know too much about our energy spending to be really happy in that area.  We're not spending money on the new technologies needed to really solve the problem, we're spending money patching or in some case chasing after boondoggles that cannot possibly work to whit- clean coal with carbon sequestration.

Overall, I think Obama is pandering too much to the Republicans- it's time for a bare knuckled brawl.  He wasn't elected to carry out tweaks- he was elected for major change.  Haven't seen enough yet.


Sam

(in reply to TheHeretic)
Profile   Post #: 23
RE: Thoughts on the President's fiscal year 2011 budget? - 2/3/2010 7:11:20 AM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline
quote:

I'd be delighted to give Social Security the heave ho, as well as redo Medicaid and Medicare


Just to be clear, I'm arguing to fix Social Security, not eliminate it. Take a look back at life before Social Security.

But it will mean delaying or cutting benefits (I like the current voluntary choice thing depending on what age you decide to start collecting)--which are not particularly high. People aren't cruising on their SS money, for sure. It will also mean raising SS taxes. This is only a crisis if we continue to do nothing---which is apparently our plan.

Medicaid and Medicare are a bigger problem---and we absolutely have to solve the underlying larger problems of universal health coverage and rapidly rising costs. All this is linked, and it will further trash the economy left unchecked---apparently also our plan now. We are the only industrial nation without universal health care--and we spend more on health care than any other nation. Time to take our heads out of the sand. If that's socialist, then hell yes, socialize it.

Defense/HLS spending has got to undergo an overhaul. Simple reality, we can't afford it. We spend literally multiples of what any other nation spends on this. Simple reality, we don't need it. We are spending lots to get little.

All the rest is loose change. Changing your brand of daily latte isn't addressing your budget problems.

I do like the small business incentives, and I agree education is a fundamental investment. But we have to address the rest.


< Message edited by Musicmystery -- 2/3/2010 7:16:33 AM >

(in reply to samboct)
Profile   Post #: 24
RE: Thoughts on the President's fiscal year 2011 budget? - 2/3/2010 7:21:32 AM   
samboct


Posts: 1817
Joined: 1/17/2007
Status: offline 		"Just to be clear, I'm arguing to fix Social Security, not eliminate it. Take a look back at life before Social Security"

I suspect that I am as well- I've just gotten so furious at AARP and the enormous shift in wealth that SS has driven that made me exaggerate.  The simplest fix on SS is what Jimmy Carter and the Concord Coalition proposed years ago- make it means tested.  AARP, said oh no, we can't do that- it'd be welfare and then our wonderful seniors couldn't take that money.  So instead, SS funds cruises for the geriatric set.....I, of course, have no problem if somebody doesn't want to take the money because it would be welfare- fine- that's their choice.  But shoveling money at rich folks to make it more palatable for everybody just sticks in my craw....  SS already chews up too much of our tax money and it's a very regressive tax, it falls most heavily on the people making $50k or less.  Spare me the insipid chicanery that insists that SS is not a tax- it's money out of my pocket into someone elses-that makes it a tax.


Sam

(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 25
RE: Thoughts on the President's fiscal year 2011 budget? - 2/3/2010 7:28:39 AM   
AnimusRex


Posts: 2165
Joined: 5/13/2006
Status: offline 		Thee are several ways to fix SS and Mdeicare, without jettisoning our committment to taking care of the nations elderly.

In addition to what you Samboct mentioned, we can raise the retirement age to 70 (or even 75); we can elliminate the current cap of $102,000 and have people pay FICA on their entire earnings;

But this becomes the language of shared sacrifice and shared comittments and trust, which is sorely lacking.

(in reply to samboct)
Profile   Post #: 26
RE: Thoughts on the President's fiscal year 2011 budget? - 2/3/2010 7:54:22 AM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: samboct

"Just to be clear, I'm arguing to fix Social Security, not eliminate it. Take a look back at life before Social Security"

I suspect that I am as well- I've just gotten so furious at AARP and the enormous shift in wealth that SS has driven that made me exaggerate.  The simplest fix on SS is what Jimmy Carter and the Concord Coalition proposed years ago- make it means tested.  AARP, said oh no, we can't do that- it'd be welfare and then our wonderful seniors couldn't take that money.  So instead, SS funds cruises for the geriatric set.....I, of course, have no problem if somebody doesn't want to take the money because it would be welfare- fine- that's their choice.  But shoveling money at rich folks to make it more palatable for everybody just sticks in my craw....  SS already chews up too much of our tax money and it's a very regressive tax, it falls most heavily on the people making $50k or less.  Spare me the insipid chicanery that insists that SS is not a tax- it's money out of my pocket into someone elses-that makes it a tax.


Sam



I know I'm on to an idiot when the posts ignore the points and invent positions. You did it with the last post. Now you're sailing with full colors. Surely, of all the things I've said, you can find actual things I've said instead of making them up?

Of course it's a tax. We call it the Social Security tax. I even spoke of raising it.

Of course it's not welfare. It's retirement savings. Of course it's a regressive tax. Who needs the retirement savings plans, the already wealthy? Nor is it any give away--it's based on your earnings. Nor does it replace individual savings--it pays only a fraction of what you were earning. The benefits are also taxable as income. It's a basic retirement plan.

How the fuck do you figure this is "shoveling money at rich folks"? The majority of people receiving it need it. Go to a bank the third of the month. You'll see seniors lined up, checks in hand. Take a look at what happened before we had social security. It exists for very good reason. And it's even paid for, as it was designed, funded by the participants and their employers, as a small percentage of their wages. That's why even today, social security has a surplus. Now, demographic changes are slowly eating away at that surplus, due to the baby boomers, but this is a matter of adjusting the already working formula for half a century. It's one of the most successful programs in the history of the nation. And when this demographic anomaly passes, it will continue a successful program for perpetuity.

So go fuck your "insipid chicanery." Read a book. Try a history book.

Meanwhile, back at the Defense budget, and while we put on a puppet show pretending to be security, this is your beef?

Wonderful to be fed, clothed, and warmly housed, isn't it.

Get a clue. And as for any seniors who can handle the cash for a cruise--I hope they have a wonderful time.



< Message edited by Musicmystery -- 2/3/2010 7:58:22 AM >

(in reply to samboct)
Profile   Post #: 27
RE: Thoughts on the President's fiscal year 2011 budget? - 2/3/2010 8:05:24 AM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Democrats are going to have to admit we need to redo Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

Republicans are going to have to admit we need to raise some tax revenue.

Everyone is going to have to admit we're spending money we don't have on two pointless wars and expensive homeland security theater, neither of which makes us any safer.

None of this is going to happen.



That's a nice piece of common ground you've found there, Muse.  I'll just hop right up on it with you.


And that's the thing, isn't it, Rich--the problems aren't any secret, but the partisan twisting creates a world that isn't there.

I wish the vast majority of people would stand up and tell their representatives, their candidates, and their commentators that the left/right division does not exist--the majority of people are moderates. I'd love to see us elect a sea of independents who then refuse to caucus with either party, but meet themselves, regardless of party, and hash out differences, strategies and solutions. I'd love to see the left and the right have to actually court those moderate independent votes, instead of spending all their time complaining everything is the fault of the other extreme.

Of course none of that is going to happen either. But we can try.

(in reply to TheHeretic)
Profile   Post #: 28
RE: Thoughts on the President's fiscal year 2011 budget? - 2/3/2010 8:44:17 AM   
samboct


Posts: 1817
Joined: 1/17/2007
Status: offline 		"I know I'm on to an idiot when the posts ignore the points and invent positions. You did it with the last post. Now you're sailing with full colors. Surely, of all the things I've said, you can find actual things I've said instead of making them up?

OK-I'm lost here.  I quoted you- how is that making something up?  And before this post, I thought we were in agreement, but clearly I thought wrong.

Of course it's a tax. We call it the Social Security tax. I even spoke of raising it.

It's already too stiff.  In between Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid- I pay over 16% of dollar one in profit as a small business.  That just wiped out any rainy day money that one could possibly try and save.

Of course it's not welfare. It's retirement savings.

No- it isn't.  Gov'ts can't have savings accounts- that's a function of the banks.  Since the gov'ts print money- what's a government savings account- shoving paper into a vault?


Of course it's a regressive tax.

Regressive taxes fall hardest on the poor.  The country has already seen a decline in the middle class, and this set of taxes is a big chunk of the reason.

Who needs the retirement savings plans, the already wealthy? Nor is it any give away--it's based on your earnings.

Not really- last time I checked, SS maximum amounts are what- $16k/yr?  How is this proportional to earnings?  I had a grandmother who when she went on SS, had more money than she'd ever had in her life, but for my folks with six figure incomes, it's a drop in the bucket.  How is this based on earnings?

Nor does it replace individual savings--it pays only a fraction of what you were earning. The benefits are also taxable as income.

Taxable as income doesn't mean that you have to give the whole amount back if you either don't need it or didn't earn it.  Surviving spouses get this money, even if they've been left with multimillion dollar estates and never worked a day in their lives.

 It's a basic retirement plan.

It's a lousy retirement plan.  In general, someone in the private sector who put this money in a commercial retirement plan would earn much better benefits.  It would also provide investment money for banks and pension plans- investment money with a long term horizon which has been sorely lacking from the capital markets today.

How the fuck do you figure this is "shoveling money at rich folks"?

See above- if it's not means tested, it's a waste of money.

The majority of people receiving it need it. Go to a bank the third of the month. You'll see seniors lined up, checks in hand. Take a look at what happened before we had social security. It exists for very good reason.

No disagreement- some form of financial support for the destitute elderly is called for.  But Social Security has all the vices of socialism, and none of the benefits of capitalism.  It needs major reconstruction.  I have no problem in calling a spade a spade and terming this welfare.


And it's even paid for, as it was designed, funded by the participants and their employers, as a small percentage of their wages.

It's not a small percentage of their wages- that's the problem.  It's economic jiggerypokery to claim that the employer and employee pay this tax.  If an employee hires an individual and pays them $50k, then Social Security gets something like $3.5k.  The fact that the $3.5k appears to come from both the employer and employee is meaningless- the employer still has to pay this tax.  Now double the amount for Medicaid and Medicare.  How is $7k on $50k "a small amount"?  And I have read some history- enough to know that in the 1950s- the average amount collected for social security was $60.  It's now more than an order of magnitude larger than that now.

That's why even today, social security has a surplus. Now, demographic changes are slowly eating away at that surplus, due to the baby boomers, but this is a matter of adjusting the already working formula for half a century. It's one of the most successful programs in the history of the nation. And when this demographic anomaly passes, it will continue a successful program for perpetuity.

And from my perspective-it's one of the biggest disasters going because it was never meant to eat up all the available money for peoples individual retirements.  Claiming it's successful doesn't make it so.  It's been very popular because the people receiving it have gotten one helluva deal- those of us funding it have gotten screwed.  I suspect it's getting less popular, as people like me get increasingly aggravated.

So go fuck your "insipid chicanery." Read a book. Try a history book.

Meanwhile, back at the Defense budget, and while we put on a puppet show pretending to be security, this is your beef?

Maybe you've mixed me up with somebody else- where on earth did I say our current defense budget was reasonable and that Homeland Security was anything other than a sick joke?

Wonderful to be fed, clothed, and warmly housed, isn't it.

Get a clue. And as for any seniors who can handle the cash for a cruise--I hope they have a wonderful time.

You think it's a coincidence that cruise lines are based in Florida? Try asking Carnival what the average age of their passengers is...

Sam



(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 29
RE: Thoughts on the President's fiscal year 2011 budget? - 2/3/2010 8:49:14 AM   
cloudboy


Posts: 7306
Joined: 12/14/2005
Status: offline
The cavalier deficit spending reminds me of Reaganomics, except substitute two wars for a nuclear missile buildup & Star Wars, and insert regulation over deregulation.

(in reply to MzMia)
Profile   Post #: 30
RE: Thoughts on the President's fiscal year 2011 budget? - 2/3/2010 2:50:25 PM   
willbeurdaddy


Posts: 11894
Joined: 4/8/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery



Of course it's not welfare. It's retirement savings. Of course it's a regressive tax. Who needs the retirement savings plans, the already wealthy? Nor is it any give away--it's based on your earnings. Nor does it replace individual savings--it pays only a fraction of what you were earning. The benefits are also taxable as income. It's a basic retirement plan.

How the fuck do you figure this is "shoveling money at rich folks"? The majority of people receiving it need it. Go to a bank the third of the month. You'll see seniors lined up, checks in hand. Take a look at what happened before we had social security. It exists for very good reason. And it's even paid for, as it was designed, funded by the participants and their employers, as a small percentage of their wages. That's why even today, social security has a surplus. Now, demographic changes are slowly eating away at that surplus, due to the baby boomers, but this is a matter of adjusting the already working formula for half a century. It's one of the most successful programs in the history of the nation. And when this demographic anomaly passes, it will continue a successful program for perpetuity.





Re the bolded, the net of taxes and benefit payments is progressive, not regressive...ie there is a shift from higher income earners to lower. Uncapping the wage base without adjusting the benefit formulas would make it even more progressive, and much closer to welfare than a retirement plan.

(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 31
RE: Thoughts on the President's fiscal year 2011 budget? - 2/3/2010 6:24:27 PM   
popeye1250


Posts: 18104
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline 		I have a thought, we're spending way too much money.

_____________________________

"But Your Honor, this is not a Jury of my Peers, these people are all decent, honest, law-abiding citizens!"

(in reply to willbeurdaddy)
Profile   Post #: 32
RE: Thoughts on the President's fiscal year 2011 budget? - 2/3/2010 6:45:57 PM   
StrangerThan


Posts: 1515
Joined: 4/25/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery


quote:

ORIGINAL: servantforuse

This country is headed for a fiscal train wreck. The reason banks aren't lending money to the public sector is they are lending it to the Federal Govt. for a federally insured 3% interest rate..No risk for them, no money left to loan to small business..


And not to mention that Animus is right---the days when we owed the debt to ourselves is long since past.

Without China, we'd be in that train wreck already.


Gotta love the logic of building more bombs, more planes, more everything designed to kill in order to protect ourselves, while handing over the economic keys to the country.


_____________________________


--'Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform' - Mark Twain

(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 33
RE: Thoughts on the President's fiscal year 2011 budget? - 2/3/2010 7:45:18 PM   
MzMia


Posts: 5333
Joined: 7/30/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: samboct
"Just to be clear, I'm arguing to fix Social Security, not eliminate it. Take a look back at life before Social Security"

I suspect that I am as well- I've just gotten so furious at AARP and the enormous shift in wealth that SS has driven that made me exaggerate.  The simplest fix on SS is what Jimmy Carter and the Concord Coalition proposed years ago- make it means tested.  AARP, said oh no, we can't do that- it'd be welfare and then our wonderful seniors couldn't take that money.  So instead, SS funds cruises for the geriatric set.....I, of course, have no problem if somebody doesn't want to take the money because it would be welfare- fine- that's their choice.  But shoveling money at rich folks to make it more palatable for everybody just sticks in my craw....  SS already chews up too much of our tax money and it's a very regressive tax, it falls most heavily on the people making $50k or less.  Spare me the insipid chicanery that insists that SS is not a tax- it's money out of my pocket into someone elses-that makes it a tax.
Sam

Hello Sam, it is nice to see you back on the boards again.
I often agree with you, but we are not seeing eye-to-eye on SS.
 
With the free-for-all that is going on these days in the "stock market", with unemployment
and underemployment around 20%, with all the economic woes we are facing including
STILL a possible Depression, you think you can just eliminate SS??

No damn way, Sam.
For many seniors this is the ONLY source of income they have.
The seniors that you see going on cruises and living large, represent a small percentage
of society.
In fact, many older people are working longer and longer, and many will work up until they
are too sick to work or on the way to meet their maker.
 
I work with a woman  near 70, who gets a small pension, and she works 2 jobs.
She is far from wealthy, and she is far from being on "easy street'.
She is using the money from her 2 jobs to pay her bills, she is not using the money to go on cruises.

Do you have any idea how many senior's are faring these days?
We need to cut back on many things, but SS should be here to stay, until we come up with something BETTER.
And that BETTER won't be for at least 100 years, it is going to take us at least 10-20 years to get out of the deep and dark hole we are in now.
 
Many of us that will get pensions, are also depending or planning on SS to help make ends meet.
And most of us won't be using our SS checks to go on cruises.

Another thing about your post that is pissing me off.
People PAY into fucking SS, it is not a damn handout.
Many people pay 40-50 years in SS, and only live long enough to get it a couple of years.
They keep raising the age for full benefits, hell I won't get full benefits unless I work until I am 70.
How many people contribute 30-40 years and don't collect a dime?

The day they eliminate SS, every other fucking program will be eliminated also, including Medicaid, food stamps, welfare, section 8, and unemployment benefits.
IF the old and disabled don't get SS, the young and poor will not be getting a damn dime.    
We will all eat cake together.
Social security may need revamping/changes made, as DO EVERYTHING else, from TOP to damn BOTTOM.

Seniors Going Hungry: Study Suggests 6 Million At Risk

Twice as many elderly in poverty: New formula, new policy hope - DailyFinance

< Message edited by MzMia -- 2/3/2010 8:25:08 PM >

_____________________________

Namaste'
To Each His/Her Own
"DENIAL ain't just a river in Egypt." Mark Twain


What's your favorite fetish?
"My partner's whisper"--bloomswell

(in reply to samboct)
Profile   Post #: 34
RE: Thoughts on the President's fiscal year 2011 budget? - 2/4/2010 6:28:05 AM   
samboct


Posts: 1817
Joined: 1/17/2007
Status: offline 		Hi Mia

Gee, it's nice to be missed- missed you too.

On to the posts-

OK- I screwed up.  My first post where I said SS should be given the heave ho- big mistake.  What I should have said is that SS does need to be on the negotiating table which in hindsight is what I think.  Damn- people can't read my mind, just what I write....

Points of agreement with you and Musicmystery-

1) I can't stand destitute people living on the street any more than either of you.  I'm appalled by the plight of the homeless- I kick money into homeless shelters, and I'm furious that our mental health care seems to involve lots of fresh air and little else.  Nazi Germany gassed their mentally ill, claiming it was putting them out of their misery- seems to me that turfing someone out on the street who is incapable of holding down a job and needs treatment is arguably crueler.

2)  I'm well aware that seniors who have worked hard all their lives, but are left without any retirement resources rely on SS to prevent this.  There's really not a lot of difference between someone who is unemployable because they're mentally ill, and someone who is no longer physically capable of holding down a job.  (Side note- The retirement age of 65 comes from Bismarck's Germany- an age which was chosen because most workers were dead!  The concept of 20 years of retirement is a recent one, and one which is proving to be a problem- economies are spending too much money on elder care and not enough investment in education and new technologies.)  I'm damned if I want to see these people on the street either!

So it seems that you, Musicmystery and me have the same goals.  My comment is that I don't think that SS is a good way to accomplish this- it's too expensive and has helped destroy long term investment which grows an economy.  I also find the accounting that is sent out showing how much we have contributed to SS to be disingenuous, since it implies that there's a savings account with our name on it.  Well, there isn't- this is just a statement of how much the gov't owes you.  As noted earlier- governments CANNOT have a savings account- they can issue bonds instead.  I really don't see how this is any different from paying taxes and getting a road, a police force, hospitals, etc- its just deferred and has to be paid for by the next generation of workers.

Also- there has been a big demographic shift in the money of the country to the elderly.  While we're all aware that some of the elderly are destitute, others have done very well.  There are probably the largest differences in income in the over 65 age bracket than any other age bracket.  Here's where we diverge in our thought process.  I'm aggravated that SS goes to wealthy people as well as the destitute!  I think it was close to 20 years ago that the Concord Coalition, with Jimmy Carter, proposed that SS be means tested.  It made great economic sense- and AARP would have none of it.  That's because the wealthy seniors like the money from SS, and convinced other folks that there were differences between welfare and SS.  In my book- there aren't- it's just a dodge so that wealthy individuals can get SS too!  It's a crazy system!

Since you know me, you know that I rarely identify a problem without coming up with a potential solution- so here's mine.

Less radical- revisit the Concord Coalition proposal of means testing SS.  This will keep the program solvent, probably allow a boost in COLA for the recipients- and reduce costs for everyone else.  However, Leona Helmsley will NOT get an SS check- like she does now.

More radical- ditch the program and start with a clean sheet of paper.  Essentially offer a gov't run retirement insurance program.  Allow workers to contribute a certain amount- say $2,000 tax free to a pension plan, IRA etc. per year.  Put a penalty on the money so if they don't it costs like $500.  You have to make it an absolute no-brainer that everybody is going to do it- even people making minimum wage.  When these folks hit retirement age-most will have a decent nest egg.  However, if the pension plan goes bellyup- their retirement fund gets stolen- whatever, then the gov't insures that they get $15k/yr no matter what.  Everybody contributes to that insurance pool out of general revenue- no income caps.

Is this welfare?  Well, probably- but it's at least as good an argument as SS that its different from welfare in some important fashion.

Howzzat?

Sam

(in reply to MzMia)
Profile   Post #: 35
RE: Thoughts on the President's fiscal year 2011 budget? - 2/4/2010 7:38:36 PM   
MzMia


Posts: 5333
Joined: 7/30/2004
Status: offline 		Hiya Sam, 

Thanks for clarifying your feelings.  I agree that something needs to be done as far as SS is concerned, but it will have to be a "gradual" process.  If they ever do a major over-haul, I was thinking maybe they should have an age cut-off.  If they want to start some new plan or program they should target those under 23 FIRST, because they don't have much money invested yet and will have YEARS to adjust to the new "system".
It is going to be a lot harder for those over 40, unless they want to give us the money we have already contributed and let us invest the money.

I am torn about the wealthy receiving SS.  Didn't they contribute to it?  Shouldn't they get something back?  Don't they also pay all sorts of taxes?  If wealthy people have contributed large sums into SS is that some sort of gift or donation?
Hummmm, I will have to mull that one over.
I don't always feel taking money from the wealthy will solve our problems.
 
Now if you want to talk about all the corporations that have taken millions of jobs to 3rd world countries, we can talk.
We will have to agree to disagree about the wealthy getting SS.
If I suddenly acquire 50 billion dollars, I want my 50 billion dollars AND my fucking SS check.
I don't care if the SS check is $850 a month, I want it.
I can use the SS check to take cruises and go to Vegas!!

Thanks for a healthy debate!


< Message edited by MzMia -- 2/4/2010 7:41:12 PM >

_____________________________

Namaste'
To Each His/Her Own
"DENIAL ain't just a river in Egypt." Mark Twain


What's your favorite fetish?
"My partner's whisper"--bloomswell

(in reply to samboct)
Profile   Post #: 36
RE: Thoughts on the President's fiscal year 2011 budget? - 2/5/2010 6:29:04 AM   
samboct


Posts: 1817
Joined: 1/17/2007
Status: offline 		Hi Mia

Historically, the problem with SS has gone the other way.  For example, some of the railroad unions wanted to be able to opt out of SS and provide their own pension plans to their members.  Teachers unions still do this IIRC- and actually offer much better bang/buck than SS.  However, when the railroad went bellyup and its pension plans vanished, these people screamed they should get SS too, even though they'd never contributed to the system- and they did.  This meant that rates had to be raised on the existing payers- which is what's happened.  Plus, the system was designed so that when people were 65, odds are they were dead in a few years.  Now we've got people collecting SS for over 20 years.

The people collecting now, especially those in their 80s- likely never contributed the amounts that they're pulling out.  Its no wonder that SS is so popular- everybody always feels that they pay too much in taxes, and views getting their SS check as a tax rebate.  Unfortunately, we the workforce are the ones paying it off.  It wasn't an investment- it's just a system of robbing Peter to pay Paul.

The last time I checked, people in the workforce now would have to live for 40 years past 65 for us to break even compared with a modest rate of return on the same money invested elsewhere.  I kinda doubt I'm living to 105- and what's worse is that SS has been a terrible drag on the economy since the money isn't invested. 

Pension plans are wonderful investors- as is the current teachers unions.  They have large blocks of money- they need good rates of return, but they're not risk averse and they have a long time horizon.  VCs are lousy investors by comparison.  Until the great financial boondoggle- pension plans used to invest in big capital projects- building factories etc.  Maybe they will again- but we need this kind of money in our economy- and SS wiped a big chunk of it out.  SS is one of the big reasons why other countries have much better savings rates than the US, and we have to finance things with debt, rather than savings.

I agree with you that whatever we do, would need grandfathered steps- especially to those approaching retirement.  But people under 50 in the workforce should be clamoring for change- they're getting screwed.

In terms of your own situation- let's say that you really do come into $50 million.  Do you really want your SS check if it means that a family with two young kids has to be making choices about health insurance and food?  Somehow, I don't see two wrongs making a right here- We've gotten screwed out of our money- but I don't think this entitles us to screw the next generation in return.


Cheers,

Sam

(in reply to MzMia)
Profile   Post #: 37
RE: Thoughts on the President's fiscal year 2011 budget? - 2/5/2010 1:23:45 PM   
MzMia


Posts: 5333
Joined: 7/30/2004
Status: offline 		Hello sam,
 
You make a lot of valid points.  I am not sure what the future will bring, but most people that have worked, paid taxes and paid into SS, deserve  to get something when they get older.
 
I agree with a means/needs based test, and those that are wealthy probably should NOT get SS benefits.
But again, didn't they PAY into the system?
If they contributed into the system, than at least they deserve an extra tax break for foregoing their SS benefits.
 
Also sam, 50 million {after taxes} is not what it used to be!


< Message edited by MzMia -- 2/5/2010 1:29:40 PM >

_____________________________

Namaste'
To Each His/Her Own
"DENIAL ain't just a river in Egypt." Mark Twain


What's your favorite fetish?
"My partner's whisper"--bloomswell

(in reply to samboct)
Profile   Post #: 38
RE: Thoughts on the President's fiscal year 2011 budget? - 2/5/2010 2:09:11 PM   
samboct


Posts: 1817
Joined: 1/17/2007
Status: offline 		"But again, didn't they PAY into the system?
If they contributed into the system, than at least they deserve an extra tax break for foregoing their SS benefits."

Hi Mia

Good to hear that you think so.

There is no doubt this is a knotty problem.   The system was a deception from the get/go, and now it's very hard to unwind.  Essentially, people paid taxes under a false assumption- that the gov't had created savings accounts for them, and that the taxes weren't really taxes.  But as noted earlier, gov'ts can't have savings accounts, so the whole thing was a bit shady.

I could certainly see doing some type of horse trading so that wealthy folks who are no longer going to get SS would get some form of tax break instead.  There are two ways to proceed-

1)  cut things off as cleanly as possible, because as noted earlier, we're robbing Peter to pay Paul, and people not making much money are subsidizing the retirement of both the destitute and the wealthy elderly.

2)  Cap SS payments to the folks who have already collected what they've put in and then means test.  Of course, the people being cut off will bellyache that they were promised this money till they died.  One could always say no problem- that can be arranged....,<weg>


Cheers,

Sam

(in reply to MzMia)
Profile   Post #: 39
RE: Thoughts on the President's fiscal year 2011 budget? - 2/5/2010 2:15:02 PM   
MzMia


Posts: 5333
Joined: 7/30/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: samboct

"But again, didn't they PAY into the system?
If they contributed into the system, than at least they deserve an extra tax break for foregoing their SS benefits."

Hi Mia

Good to hear that you think so.

There is no doubt this is a knotty problem.   The system was a deception from the get/go, and now it's very hard to unwind.  Essentially, people paid taxes under a false assumption- that the gov't had created savings accounts for them, and that the taxes weren't really taxes.  But as noted earlier, gov'ts can't have savings accounts, so the whole thing was a bit shady.

I could certainly see doing some type of horse trading so that wealthy folks who are no longer going to get SS would get some form of tax break instead.  There are two ways to proceed-

1)  cut things off as cleanly as possible, because as noted earlier, we're robbing Peter to pay Paul, and people not making much money are subsidizing the retirement of both the destitute and the wealthy elderly.

2)  Cap SS payments to the folks who have already collected what they've put in and then means test.  Of course, the people being cut off will bellyache that they were promised this money till they died.  One could always say no problem- that can be arranged....,<weg>
Cheers,
Sam


Your suggestions, MIGHT be feasible on some levels.
I will tell you THIS, with this economy sinking into the abyss, you will not be able
to just STOP SS payments to most of the people receiving it or expecting to receive it
any time soon.
 

_____________________________

Namaste'
To Each His/Her Own
"DENIAL ain't just a river in Egypt." Mark Twain


What's your favorite fetish?
"My partner's whisper"--bloomswell

(in reply to samboct)
Profile   Post #: 40
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Thoughts on the President's fiscal year 2011 budget? Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.125