Social Security Complaints.

[guitar shmoe]

Originally posted by rememberduane LOL I know. I say something he doesn't like, and he starts screaming "LIBERAL. DIRTY COMMIE LIBERAL!" I'm sorry the encyclopedia is so liberal.

Just foolin' with cha...you know yer my BBOOOUUUYYY!

[rememberduane]

Originally posted by guitar shmoe I guess I can stick you into the: 'angry liberal' pile....seems to be a BIG pile....(of....) BTW, I'm in favor of 'privatizing' our SS...give me more of MY money and let ME invest it for MY future....what is ssoooo hard? if I blow it? that's MY responsibility...NOT the govts....LESS govt. = a good thing!!!

 

 

Can you just go away? You are by far the most polarizing, obnoxious, and ridiculously unintelligent person on the forum.

[rememberduane]

Originally posted by Jarick We could, and it's entirely unpopular. How about we eliminate all of that crap at the federal level and put it back to the state level? States spend money on all that anyways, and they could determine how best to spend the money, if at all. The idea of states as mini-democracies was so people could choose to do goofy things that the rest of the country didn't want. For example, if one state wants gay marriage and another doesn't, let the voters decide. If one state wants complete socialization of all aspects of the market and another wants 1% tax to cover watering the lawn on the capital and that's it, let them do that. Unfortunately, it's far more politically valuable to corral people into pet projects that may or may not work. Thomas Jefferson called states "Laboratories of Democracy" for that very reason. Try something at the state level and if it works, maybe it'll work at the federal level. Instead, we have ideas that sound great on paper but don't work in practice. Like education...the more we spend, the more bloated it becomes, and the more waste is created. We spend more now than ever, but our level of education is stagnant and test scores are dropping. There isn't a correlation between spending on education and results. But we continue to pass this legislation and fund more and more education without any oversight blindly. Anyways, if you want to read more about the political and economic theory of spending at the federal level, check out Walter Williams. He has tons of free columns on the net.

I'll check him out.

I agree with you about states' decisions. The whole point of the federal system of government is so that those more directly involved with certain things can decide. That's why we have different levels.

Since the advent of mass media technology, along with plenty of legal precedent, things have become controlled much more at a national level than state level. I feel that if more responsibility was given to states, they would pony up and do better.

Then again, I live in Florida. We all know how Jeb is doing in the education and social issue departments.

[D/FW XJ'er]

Glock + your head = no more worries about SS taxes being taken out of your check.

[telephant]

Originally posted by guitar shmoe I guess I can stick you into the: 'angry liberal' pile....seems to be a BIG pile....(of....) BTW, I'm in favor of 'privatizing' our SS...give me more of MY money and let ME invest it for MY future....what is ssoooo hard? if I blow it? that's MY responsibility...NOT the govts....LESS govt. = a good thing!!!

Few things here.

First of all, apparantly you cant grasp the concept of "sarcasm" even when its presented with emoticons.

Second, your arguement ALWAYS consists of labeling people liberals as if thats some how a bad thing..

Third, less government is good. But why are the conservatives doing the exact opposite? Homeland Security? What a joke.

[Tele The Truth]

OK then.

Social security is a program developed by FDR after the great depression. It's a pyrimid scheme of sorts where the base (workers) pays the top (retirees). It's not an account in the traditional sense because the money you put in goes right back out to someone else. The SS program goes through periods of shortage and surplus that can reasonably be measured in advance based upon shifts in the workforce. You can think of it for the most part as revolving fund. When you retire, you're going to be collecting money someone else is putting in.....not the money that you put in.

Now to the inheret problem. Since SS is based on a pyrimid scheme, what happens when the base cannot support the top? That is what we are going to have in the near future when a sizable chunk of the workforce (baby boomers) retire. There is simply not going to be enough comming in to cover what is expected to go out. So, they have to either raise taxes, cut direct entitlements, get more people on the bottom of the pyrimid or find some combination thereof.

SS is a fixed expense, and also the biggest expense program in the federal government. Actually, the majority of government expenditures are fixed rather than discretionary. The funny thing is, that sometimes SS is used in calculations of the federal budget, and sometimes it isn't. Even the top economists disagree on how to accurately asses the national budget, wich is what makes the defecit such a grey number. Back in the 90s, SS had a projected surplus. Congress enacted to allow it used in calculation (it previously wasn't being used) of the federal budget, thus you had Clinton's 'balanced budget'. I wasn't really 'balanced spending', but the surplus made it look that way on paper.

But back to the point, yes SS is going to need a reform, but to say that there is going to be no SS when you retire is unfounded. Also blaming Bush for financial limitations that are built into the SS program is bunk. The program is NOT going to be able to sustain itself as is "at the current rate" regardless of who is in office without a change. If you think the federal deficit is bad now, just wait until the baby boomers retire.....unless hillary gets in office and decided to have congress pull SS out of the budget.... LOL.

Also if you're so interested in national debt and the deficit, check out Japan where the debt is 160%% of the GDP. Did you realise that the SS tax was originally less than 2% of gross pay? That's what happens when an assistance program becomes a retirement program.....which it was never intended to be. However, SS is an important program that offers many valuable services besides giving retirees a check (mainly medicare) and I seriously doubt that anyone would pull the plug on it. It won't exist as we know it right now, but it will exist.

[rememberduane]

Originally posted by telephant Few things here. First of all, apparantly you cant grasp the concept of "sarcasm" even when its presented with emoticons. Second, your arguement ALWAYS consists of labeling people liberals as if thats some how a bad thing.. Third, less government is good. But why are the conservatives doing the exact opposite? Homeland Security? What a joke.

I'm starting to think he is a troll.

No one can be that flat out dumb.

[fancynapkin]

Originally posted by rememberduane Why do you keep changing numbers? Discretionary spending is a third, not a quarter of the budget. Big picture? We're cutting government funding for scholarships. We're cutting education spending in general. Personally, I'd rather educate our nation so that we can at least maintain a highly educated population. We have become a service-based economy, and we're even losing that to globalization. One of our few hopes is the export of ideas and innovation, but China and India are beating us on that front AND on the service front AND on the production front.

silly, education funding has more than doubled in the past eight years, on average the govt spends 10,000 on each student. title 1 funding has reached a record high, and yet we still fall behind countries that spend substantially less.

[rememberduane]

Originally posted by fancynapkin silly, education funding has more than doubled in the past eight years, on average the govt spends 10,000 on each student. title 1 funding has reached a record high, and yet we still fall behind countries that spend substantially less.

 

 

I guess I was pulling that out of my ass. But my understanding was that we recently cut scholarship programs. I'd have to check the spending bill.

 

The reason we fall behind is much more social than governmental IMO.

[guitar shmoe]

Originally posted by rememberduane Personally, I'd rather educate our nation so that we can at least maintain a highly educated population. We have become a service-based economy, and we're even losing that to globalization. One of our few hopes is the export of ideas and innovation, but China and India are beating us on that front AND on the service front AND on the production front.

Actually this is due to an imbalanced trade agreement...we, as a nation, can no longer afford to allow these off shore imports into our country without balancing our exports into their countries...

[rememberduane]

Originally posted by Tele The Truth OK then. Social security is a program developed by FDR after the great depression. It's a pyrimid scheme of sorts where the base (workers) pays the top (retirees). It's not an account in the traditional sense because the money you put in goes right back out to someone else. The SS program goes through periods of shortage and surplus that can reasonably be measured in advance based upon shifts in the workforce. You can think of it for the most part as revolving fund. When you retire, you're going to be collecting money someone else is putting in.....not the money that you put in. Now to the inheret problem. Since SS is based on a pyrimid scheme, what happens when the base cannot support the top? That is what we are going to have in the near future when a sizable chunk of the workforce (baby boomers) retire. There is simply not going to be enough comming in to cover what is expected to go out. So, they have to either raise taxes, cut direct entitlements, get more people on the bottom of the pyrimid or find some combination thereof. SS is a fixed expense, and also the biggest expense program in the federal government. Actually, the majority of government expenditures are fixed rather than discretionary. The funny thing is, that sometimes SS is used in calculations of the federal budget, and sometimes it isn't. Even the top economists disagree on how to accurately asses the national budget, wich is what makes the defecit such a grey number. Back in the 90s, SS had a projected surplus. Congress enacted to allow it used in calculation (it previously wasn't being used) of the federal budget, thus you had Clinton's 'balanced budget'. I wasn't really 'balanced spending', but the surplus made it look that way on paper. But back to the point, yes SS is going to need a reform, but to say that there is going to be no SS when you retire is unfounded. Also blaming Bush for financial limitations that are built into the SS program is bunk. The program is NOT going to be able to sustain itself as is "at the current rate" regardless of who is in office without a change. If you think the federal deficit is bad now, just wait until the baby boomers retire.....unless hillary gets in office and decided to have congress pull SS out of the budget.... LOL. Also if you're so interested in national debt and the deficit, check out Japan where the debt is 160%% of the GDP. Did you realise that the SS tax was originally less than 2% of gross pay? That's what happens when an assistance program becomes a retirement program.....which it was never intended to be. However, SS is an important program that offers many valuable services besides giving retirees a check (mainly medicare) and I seriously doubt that anyone would pull the plug on it. It won't exist as we know it right now, but it will exist.

Thanks for the clarification. I guess I was fuzzy in a few areas. I knew a lot of that, but I guess I didn't piece it together correctly.

Greatly appreciated though.

[rememberduane]

Originally posted by guitar shmoe Actually this is due to an imbalanced trade agreement...we, as a nation, can no longer afford to allow these off shore imports into our country without balancing our exports into their countries...

 

 

My god you're an idiot. Please reread my post. That is exactly what I said... in big boy terms.

[riffy]

Originally posted by rememberduane I agree. To be honest, I probably won't be living in the states for much longer. I am going to University in Edinburgh. Barring grad school at a US institution (one of many choices among top UK/European institutions as well), I don't plan on living in the US any longer. But plans change. I'll take your advice and start putting money in a savings account. It will be tough not to touch it when GAS hits though.

Don't put your money into a savings account. You are paying full tax on it BEFORE it goes to work for you. Put it into a 401k or Keogh retirement account. That way the monies are not taxed at all when you deposit them there. They will be taxed when you withdraw them, presumably at a much lower rate of tax since your income will have dwindled after retirement.

The accumulation of wealth is started this way. While, I may not have a lot of disposable income at present, when I retire, unless we have a drastic bout of inflation or the U.S. Dollar completely tanks on the world market, I won't have to worry about income in the least.

Gary

[fancynapkin]

Originally posted by rememberduane I guess I was pulling that out of my ass. But my understanding was that we recently cut scholarship programs. I'd have to check the spending bill. The reason we fall behind is much more social than governmental IMO.

 

 

The problem I think with this and ss, goes a bit deeper than throwing money at the problem. reform is definently needed, and bush just picked henry paulson as the new treasury last month, so its only a matter of time.

[guitar shmoe]

Originally posted by telephant Few things here. First of all, apparantly you cant grasp the concept of "sarcasm" even when its presented with emoticons. Second, your arguement ALWAYS consists of labeling people liberals as if thats some how a bad thing.. Third, less government is good. But why are the conservatives doing the exact opposite? Homeland Security? What a joke.

OK....
First thing....all you do is personally attack me
Second thing....nothing wrong with a little loaded language and a few labels...(colors up the place...heheheh)
Third thing....Liberals (in our country) = bad thing (usually)...
Fourth thing....you and R-Duane are a coupla kids!...maybe when you get out from under mum and dad's roof and start pulling yer own weight for a few years we will be able to communicate a little better.

[Jarick]

Originally posted by rememberduane The reason we fall behind is much more social than governmental IMO.

 

 

Stick that quote in your mind because that's pretty much the answer to every domestic problem!

 

Another thing that Walter Williams talks about...in a lot of aspects, black Americans were better off in the 1920's than they are today, even though that was only 60 years removed from slavery and Jim Crow laws were still on the books! There were no federal grants, subsidies, affirmative action laws, hiring mandates, etc.

 

The reason has to do with family and values. If your parents value education, you will value education, regardless of the money spent on education. If your family doesn't, you won't, regardless of spending.

[guitar shmoe]

Originally posted by rememberduane My god you're an idiot. Please reread my post. That is exactly what I said... in big boy terms.

what the....I was a sociology/economics minor in college junior...I happen to know what you are talkin about...thanks for bringing me up to the 'grown up's table'

[Sick Michael]

Originally posted by Jarick Stick that quote in your mind because that's pretty much the answer to every domestic problem! Another thing that Walter Williams talks about...in a lot of aspects, black Americans were better off in the 1920's than they are today, even though that was only 60 years removed from slavery and Jim Crow laws were still on the books! There were no federal grants, subsidies, affirmative action laws, hiring mandates, etc. The reason has to do with family and values. If your parents value education, you will value education, regardless of the money spent on education. If your family doesn't, you won't, regardless of spending.

 

Good post!

[Jarick]

Originally posted by guitar shmoe what the....I was a sociology/economics minor in college junior...I happen to know what you are talkin about...thanks for bringing me up to the 'grown up's table'

Economics/Political Science here

[Tele The Truth]

Wow, by the time I typed out my response, this thread was almost 4 pages long.

I must be slowin down...

........ Oh well, it's time for a nap in the ol easy chair.

[rememberduane]

Originally posted by Jarick Stick that quote in your mind because that's pretty much the answer to every domestic problem! Another thing that Walter Williams talks about...in a lot of aspects, black Americans were better off in the 1920's than they are today, even though that was only 60 years removed from slavery and Jim Crow laws were still on the books! There were no federal grants, subsidies, affirmative action laws, hiring mandates, etc. The reason has to do with family and values. If your parents value education, you will value education, regardless of the money spent on education. If your family doesn't, you won't, regardless of spending.

Very true. But watch out you might get called a racist.

[rememberduane]

Originally posted by Jarick Economics/Political Science here

Except guitar schmoe is lying and you're probably not.

I've never seen a post from him that indicates anything beyond an 8th grade civics class understanding of politics or economics, and maybe not even that.

[Jarick]

Originally posted by rememberduane Very true. But watch out you might get called a racist.

Yep! By the very same people who oppress minorities through the system. Income subsidies are a lovely disincentive to further education and better your job situation!

[rememberduane]

Originally posted by guitar shmoe OK.... First thing....all you do is personally attack me Second thing....nothing wrong with a little loaded language and a few labels...(colors up the place...heheheh) Third thing....Liberals (in our country) = bad thing (usually)... Fourth thing....you and R-Duane are a coupla kids!...maybe when you get out from under mum and dad's roof and start pulling yer own weight for a few years we will be able to communicate a little better.

 

 

1. He didn't personally attack you in that post.

 

2. Loaded language is polarizing and not conducive to intelligent conversation.

 

3. The same can be said of conservatives. When you polarize and pigeon-hole, and you use one side as a deragatory term, typically you are classifying that side by the worst common denominator.

 

4. Please never tell me I'm not able to communicate. You are by far the least capable adult I have ever seen at effectively conveying ideas with written word.

[rememberduane]

Originally posted by Jarick Yep! By the very same people who oppress minorities through the system. Income subsidies are a lovely disincentive to further education and better your job situation!

Damn skippy they are.

I do believe we see eye to eye on these issues.