Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Regular on Let immigrants run
- Regular on Too many exemptions
- Monkeyhawk on Let immigrants run
- Regular on Let immigrants run
- Politico on Too many exemptions
- XXX on Open thread 11/23
- XXX on Let immigrants run
- BlueJay on Let immigrants run
- Monkeyhawk on Let immigrants run
- Chrisfrommactown on Let immigrants run
Open thread 8/4
- By Phillip Brownlee
- Posted Aug. 4, 2007 at 1:04 a.m.
- Filed under Open thread
- Permalink
- Comments RSS
- Both comments and trackbacks are closed
353 Comments
Here’s a joke people in Iran are telling these days, according to a mennonite missionary who’s been living there for the past five years:
A Frenchman, a German, an Iranian, and American are each given an apple. Each apple has a worm in it.
The Frenchman whines and argues until he’s given a different apple.
The German takes out his knife and skillfully extracts the chunk of apple containing the worm.
The Iranian simply eats the apple, worm and all.
The American bombs the orchard.
Hey, they actually found a WMD in Iraq!
It’s called “OIL!”
Just what did the U.S. get out of the India muclear deal? Wasn’t it macademia nuts?
Bin Laden may as well surrender himself to the U.S., as bush has repeatedly told the world “he can run, but he can’t hide.”
Bin Laden is dead… Long live Video Tape!!
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/01/opinion/01wed2.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
The article is called “In Praise of Tap Water”.
Like the song says “dont it always seem to go that we dont know what we’ve got ’till it’s gone. They paved paradise to put up a parking lot.”
Wave bye-bye to your water Kansas…
Man oh man is not Cspan getting very interesting. I have not seen such acting since the last time I watched the British!
grrl
I agree that the problem of the plastic waste is real.
However, I buy water from Sam’s ate about 16 cents a bottle so even at 8 bottles a day I would spend about $500 a year not $1400.
Overall, Wichita tap water is OK except when it is greenish yellow and then all the assurances of how safe it is go out the window for me.
The Iraqi people would rather fight with each other, and take things from others. They don’t want to make peace and quit blaming others, get a job, and start earning their own money.
In other words, they are all be Liberal Socialist Democrats.
oops – “they are all Liberal Socialist Democrats”.
(Darn typos)
Anyone consider the wear and tear of 70,000+ lb semi trucks on interstates and bridges?
We wouldn’t have to rebuild interstate highways every 10 years if most of the long-haul freight was put onto trains.
The Minneapolis bridge was built in 1967 – just 40 years old. Interstate highway bridges were built to last 100 years. Bridge age isn’t the factor, rising truck weights and trucking volume is a big factor.
Yes, design and maintenance may be found to be factors as well, but closing down railroads, turning railways into bike trails, and shifting shipping from rail to concrete has been bad for America.
Yes, you Teamsters can be happy about long-haul truck routes now being the norm.
If you care about the environment, or in reducing oil consumption in the USA, while reducing transportation costs, then you should favor bringing back the trains.
Unless you’re a Teamster.
Socialists hate hearing the truth, don’t they farmgirl?
You would rather take from hard-working taxpayers than earn your own way in life.
Good Socialist you are.
Just admit it, you Socialists can’t make it on your own. Even after years of ‘free’ public education/indoctrination.
Ya either can’t make it, or you’re just too damn lazy.
PS kansasrepublicantroll1999 = KSFarmgirl.
She’s a troll.
Read it and Weep:
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/trsummary.html
Conclusion
Social Security and Medicare both present daunting fiscal challenges, though Social Security’s is far more manageable analytically and dollar-wise. Their fiscal problems are driven by inexorable demographic change and, in the case of Medicare, relentless increases in health care costs, and are not likely to be greatly ameliorated by economic growth or mere tinkering with program financing. Prudence dictates action sooner rather than later to address these fiscal challenges.
John L. Palmer,Trustee
Thomas R. Saving,Trustee
Status of the Social Security and Medicare Programs
A SUMMARY OF THE 2007 ANNUAL REPORTS
Social Security and Medicare Boards of Trustees
OUCH!!!
The 75-year projected cost outlook for Social Security and Medicare is similar to that described in last year’s report.
In 2006, the combined cost of the Social Security and Medicare programs represented roughly 7.3 percent of GDP. Social Security outgo amounted to 4.2 percent of GDP in 2006 and is projected to increase to 6.3 percent of GDP in 2081.
Medicare’s cost was smaller in 2006-3.1 percent of GDP- but is projected to surpass the cost of Social Security in 2028, growing to 11.3 percent of GDP in 2081 when it will be 80 percent larger than Social Security’s cost.
In 2081, the combined cost of the programs will represent 17.6 percent of GDP. As a point of comparison, in 2006 all Federal receipts amounted to 18.5 percent of GDP.
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/trsummary.html
You catch the point? We are going from 7.3% of GDP to 17.6% of GDP for Social Security and Medicare Costs!
In 2006, the combined cost of the Social Security and Medicare programs represented roughly 7.3 percent of GDP.
In 2081, the combined cost of the programs will represent 17.6 percent of GDP.
Is everyone OK with increasing our Social Security and Medicare taxes by 2.4 times?
7.65% to 18.36% Yikes!
Don’t forget the employer match (all of it is paid by the self-employed)
15.3% to 36.72% Oh my!
Gross Domestic Product for the US was approx 13 Trillion Dollars in 2006.
7.3% or $949 Billion was spent on Social Security and Medicare.
17.6% is $2.28 TRILLION projected to be spent on Social Security and Medicare in the future.
lhg, do YOU plan on being around in 2081?
Attention all trolls! Attention all trolls!
Please report to Troll Central for morning dispatch.
Attention all trolls!
Troll Control
Well you just better not even think about taking MY social security. My husband worked hard for that dismal check, and now I have to survive on it. I don’t want to have to start using my investments.
lhg,It gives me great pleasure to know that you will have to pay for my Social Security whether you like it or not.
I’ve paid Social Security taxes (and watched them rise) for about 40 years now. I never complained about helping support the old folks. I figured I owed them at least that because they paid for my education and all the incidentals that go with childhood.
It takes a conservative to want old folks to live in poverty and eat dog food.
No.
I do care about my kids and grandkids though.
And if you read the link posted previously (or the link below), you’ll see the problem doesn’t start in 2081.
With baby boomers getting ready to retire in droves over the next few decades and life expectancies growing, the ratio of workers paying taxes to retirees collecting checks will drop dramatically. It was 8.6 workers for every retiree in 1955 and will drop to 2 workers for every retiree in 2040.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1018030,00.html?cnn=yes
Ah the ‘old Democratic Party scare tactic’ – the Republicans are going to take away your SS check.
It ain’t gonna happen folks.
Stop listening to these uninformed troglodytes.
Hey lhg, you know of course there is no hope for the unemployed, bottom-sucking, government tit-sucking liberal posters on this board. You are talking about taking candy away from a baby.
Let’s see XXX, you went from paying 4.4% in Social Security on wages up to the maximum limit of $6,600 to 7.65% on wages up to the maximum limit of $97,500.
Our kids and grandkids should then be happy paying 18.36% in Social Security up to a maximum limit of $200,000.
No problem. Just bury your head in the sand and hope that working taxpayers continue to be happy with large tax increases – in order to pay for YOU.
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/taxRates.html
Say American Way, the bottom feeders don’t care how high the taxes are raised – THEY are not the ones paying the taxes.
The Socialist think however, that working taxpayers will continue to pay for them forever.
As if they can chain us to our jobs and force us to work!
Troll 8675309 reporting for duty!
I saw this article posted once before here, and thought it pretty well let’s us know the future of Social Security and all government financials for our children’s years. It’s non-political.
Source is CBS Sixty Minutes. Can’t get any more lib than that can you?”I would argue that the most serious threat to the United States is not someone hiding in a cave in Afghanistan or Pakistan but our own fiscal irresponsibility,” Walker tells Kroft.
David Walker is a prudent man and a highly respected public official. As comptroller general of the United States he runs he Government Accountability Office, the GAO, which audits the government’s books and serves as the investigative arm of the U.S. Congress. He has more than 3,000 employees, a budget of a half a billion dollars, and a message he considers urgent.
“I’m going to show you some numbers…they’re all big and they’re all bad,” he says.
So bad, that Walker has given up on elected officials and taken his message directly to taxpayers and opinion makers, hoping to shape the debate in the next presidential election.
“You know the American people, I tell you, they are absolutely starved for two things: the truth, and leadership,” Walker says.
He calls it a fiscal wake up tour, and he is telling civic groups, university forums and newspaper editorial boards that the U.S. has spent, promised, and borrowed itself into such a deep hole it will be unable to climb out if it doesn’t act now. As Walker sees it, the survival of the republic is at stake.
“What’s going on right now is we’re spending more money than we make…we’re charging it to credit card…and expecting our grandchildren to pay for it. And that’s absolutely outrageous,” he told the editorial board of the Seattle Post Intelligencer.
Beginning next year, and for 20 years thereafter, 78 million Americans will become pensioners and medical dependents of the U.S. taxpayer.
“The first baby boomer will reach 62 and be eligible for early retirement of Social Security January 1, 2008. They’ll be eligible for Medicare just three years later. And when those boomers start retiring in mass, then that will be a tsunami of spending that could swamp our ship of state if we don’t get serious,” Walker explains.
Walker says you could eliminate all waste and fraud and the entire Pentagon budget and the long-range financial problem still wouldn’t go away, in what’s shaping up as an actuarial nightmare.
Part of the problem, Walker acknowledges, is that there won’t be enough wage earners to support the benefits of the baby boomers. “But the real problem, Steve, is health care costs. Our health care problem is much more significant than Social Security,” he says.
The problem with Medicare, Walker says, is people keep living longer, and medical costs keep rising at twice the rate of inflation. But instead of dealing with the problem, he says, the president and the Congress made things much worse in Dec. 2003, when they expanded the Medicare program to include prescription drug coverage.
“The prescription drug bill was probably the most fiscally irresponsible piece of legislation since the 1960s,” Walker argues.
Asked why, Walker says, “Well, because we promise way more than we can afford to keep. Eight trillion dollars added to what was already a 15 to $20 trillion under-funding. We’re not being realistic. We can’t afford the promises we’ve already made, much less to be able, piling on top of ‘em.”
So where’s that money going to come from?
“Well it’s gonna come from additional taxes, or it’s gonna come from restructuring these promises, or it’s gonna come from cutting other spending,” Walker says.
“On cost we’re number one in the world. We spend 50 percent more of our economy on health care than any nation on earth,” he says.
Walker says we have promised almost unlimited healthcare to senior citizens who never see the bills, and the government already is borrowing money to pay them. He says the system is unsustainable.
“It’s the number one fiscal challenge for the federal government, it’s the number one fiscal challenge for state governments and it’s the number one competitive challenge for American business. We’re gonna have to dramatically and fundamentally reform our health care system in installments over the next 20 years,” Walker tells Kroft.
And if we don’t?
“And if we don’t, it could bankrupt America,” Walker argues.
You’re probably expecting to hear from someone who disagrees with the comptroller general’s numbers, projections, and analysis. But hardly anyone does. He is accompanied on the wake-up tour by economists from the conservative Heritage Foundation, the left-leaning Brookings Institution, and the non-partisan Concord Coalition. The only dissenters seem to be a small minority of economists who believe either that the U.S. can grow its way out of the problem, or that Walker is over-stating it.
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke validated much of Walker’s take on the situation at congressional hearings this year, and so did ranking Republicans and Democrats on the Senate Budget Committee. Senator Kent Conrad of North Dakota is the chairman.
Sen. Conrad thinks David Walker is “providing an enormous public service.”
Conrad acknowledges that most people in Washington are aware how bad the situation is. “They know in large measure here, Republicans and Democrats, that we are on a course that doesn’t add up,” the senator tells Kroft.
“Why doesn’t somebody do something about it?” Kroft asks.
“Because it’s always easier not to. ‘Cause it’s always easier to defer, to kick the can down the road to avoid making choices. You know, you get in trouble in politics when you make choices,” Sen. Conrad says.
“Any politician who tells you that we can solve our problem without reforming Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid is not telling you the truth,” Walker told an audience at the University of Denver.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/01/60minutes/main2528226_page3.shtml#ccmm(CBS) This segment was originally broadcast on March 4, 2007. It was updated on July 8, 2007.
KENNEDY LEADS DEMOCRATS TO BURY HEADS IN SAND, PELOSI TO GO DOWN TOO
Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, said on the NBC’s “Meet the Press” that the existing Social Security program was in need of mending but that it did not constitute a crisis, citing figures from the Congressional Budget Office suggesting that the Social Security Trust Fund could pay at least 81 percent of projected benefits through 2053.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/02/06/news/socsec.php—–
CBS News and especially 60 Minutes are such a bunch of Conservative Right Wing Nuts!
Sorry, reporting for duty late, #2332467.
Are we trying to save Social Security again today?
Been down this road before on this blog, but I’m afraid the intelligent ones on this blog have been drinking the koolaide for too many years to listen to reason. The rest of the posters really don’t matter as they are unemployed bus boys and bag boys who are still *looking for a job.
*I am being nice by using the word looking. If they were looking they wouldn’t be on this blog posting 24-7. They’d have a J.O.B. by now.
Say A.N.Keny,
No one’s gonna take your Social Security if you truly need it.
There will be a MEANS TEST though, so if you are rich, you will lose some of your Social Security benefits.
There will also be a HUGE TAX INCREASE.
And maybe, there will be some FAIRNESS added to allow the younger folk to be able to save for themselves and eventually get away from being DEPENDENT on GOVERNMENT for everything!
If nothing is done, the RATH of the taxpayers will be wrought on the Generation that started and made worse this Social Insecurity problem.
There will be a MEANS TEST though, so if you are rich, you will lose some of your Social Security benefits.Posted by: troll2358547 | August 04, 2007 at 08:02 AM
What do you mean by means testing and how do they define “rich”?I have a few investments which I have to consider and may put me over the threshold.
Don’t worry, they (Big Brother) probably won’t consider assets – too difficult to document and too easy to hide.
THEY likely will consider total income. That is, non-Social Security income you have from working, and earnings from investments.
Remember, the RATH OF THE TAXPAYERS will RAGE if they have to pay 18% Social Security taxes, plus 20% Federal Taxes, plus 10% State Taxes, plus 10% of their income in Property Taxes, plus Sales Taxes, Car Registration fees, License fees, user fees, etc….
Ohhhhh, the RAAAATTTTHHHHH!
So, if you have non-Social Security income that brings in say $3,000 or more per month ($36,000/year) THEY likely will cut your Social Security benefits by say 10%.
If you have non-Social Security income that brings in say $4,000 or more per month ($48,000/year) THEY likely will cut your Social Security benefits by say 25%.
If you have non-Social Security income that brings in say $5,000 or more per month ($60,000/year) THEY likely will cut your Social Security benefits by say 50%.
If you have non-Social Security income that brings in say $8,000 or more per month ($96,000/year) THEY likely will cut your Social Security benefits by say 75 to 100%.
Well that means they will classify me as RICH!!! And many of my widowed friends as well. It doesn’t a lot to fall into even your lower bracket. They may take my social security and I will be forced to dip into my investments.Totally UNfair~!
We worked hard to save and have quite a bit. Now that my husband is gone, I am at an age I have been having to withdraw certain amounts each year. That increased my income and I had to pay taxes on it. I gifted the max to each of my children with my mandatory withdrawals, but it’s dead wrong they will come after my social security money. He worked hard for that and they did keep money out of his pay for it up until he retired in 1979.
What? You were rich enough to give money away to your kids?!?
Sorry A.N.Keny, if you made more than $29,500 in non-Social Security income in 2004, YOU are in the TOP 50% of all taxpayers!
You be rich!
Sorry.
(You might have to sell your Condo in Arizona)
“Let’s see XXX, you went from paying 4.4% in Social Security on wages up to the maximum limit of $6,600 to 7.65% on wages up to the maximum limit of $97,500.”Posted by: lhg | August 04, 2007 at 07:48 AM
Yep, back when I made $1.35 an hour and thought $10,000 a year was a lot of money (I made about $3000 with overtime).
You whine about how much Social Security taxes have gone up in 40 years…how much has a gallon of gas gone up in that time? How about a gallon of milk?
I guess you’ll just have to put in a little more overtime to help pay for my retirement.
Well that is just about everyone, so that will be terrible. Thank goodness for senior citizen discounts and AARP, or we would have had to dip into our investments long ago.
It is not right to threaten to reduce already retired senior citizens.
The only fair way of saving social security is to increase the withholding for young people and decrease their benefits.
They have time to recover.
A.N.Kenny,
It sounds like you may have more than enough income, that you could afford a 10% cut in your Social Security. That may be a cut of only $150 per month for you.
Don’t you think it would be fair to spread burden of solving the Social Security Mult-Trillion deficit on ALL GENERATIONS?
Why make all of our Kids and Grandkids pay for the mistake made by older generations in creating this Social Insecurity Pyramid scheme.
It’s just another socialist experiement that failed miserably.
Tripple X,
Social Security tax RATES are PERCENTAGES.
So I’m not whining without reason.
The tax percentage increasing so dramatically will be the death blow to Social Security.
Would you have been happy paying 7.65% of your $3,000 salary in 1967 vs 4.4%? How about 18% of it?
If Bush would reduce my contribution to the prescription drug benefit and my medicare cost share, then maybe I would think about helping with social security. They are my children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren (2, a boy and a girl).
But let’s face it, you are talking about taking money out of my pocket and FORCING me to start using the money I’ve got invested. Many of my friends are in the same condition. I don’t think very many of them will go along with a decrease in social security payments. We earned ours.
And Triple X,
Don’t worry, I’m not advocating the END of Social Security, I’m advocating a range of solutions that will save it.
If steps are NOT taken now, the resulting Fiscal Crisis will cause more drastic cuts in benefits, and more drastic increases in taxes, then if action was taken now.
You can either choose to be a part of the solution, or a part of the continuing problem.
lhg your comments and the financial information is a matter of public record and the math cannot be disputed. Unfortunately, I believe they are falling on deaf ears.
People are too busy with their babyboomer lives between careers, busing kids to games, church, and everything else to get involved and consider the future. Others are simply no longer open minded enough to consider all sides to the issue. They have placed blinders over their eyes and want to believe it will “all go away”.
Well it IS going to go away, but literally – out of their pockets.
Give me my own personal savings account and let me control my destiny. I don’t need the government to baby me. I can stand on my own. Let me opt OUT of Social Security NOW and give me ten years of investing my FICA dollars on my own. It will take the money away from Congress (who spend every dime on general fund projects each year), and put it in an account the greedy bastards cannot touch.
I’m not afraid of living without government support.
A.N.Keny,
You are in the group that says “We earned ours”. Every group wants to keep what is “theirs”, unfortunately the demographics no longer support the continuance of the Social Security handout from the young to the old.
Will you start a generation war, standing behing AARP to take more and more – from 1% in 1934 to 7.65% today, to 18% tomorrow?
Will the younger generation support this? I doubt it.
A compromise sharing the burden of the solution with all generations would minimize the tax increases on the young and benefit reductions to the old – a more fair solution don’t you think?
“Tripple X,
Social Security tax RATES are PERCENTAGES.”
Well Doh!
“It’s just another socialist experiement that failed miserably.”
Hogwash! It’s one of a few government programs that’s been successful.
lhg, if the government wants to give me back EVERY CENT that I and my employers put into Social Security over the past 40 years, I’ll put it into an annuity and I’ll be just fine. I’ve been paying near the top for a long time now.
But I wonder what it would do for your income tax rate if the government gave all boomers nearing retirement their money back.
A.N.Keny,
You say you “Earned” your Social Security benefits.
Your husband retired in 1979, and so your husband (until he passed) and now you have been collecting his benefits for the last 28 years.
Questions:
How much in Social Security taxes did your husband pay?
How much in Social Security benefits have you received?
Well Doh! Posted by: XXX | August 04, 2007 at 08:38 AM
Instead of “doh” try “duh”.
And I thought I read awhile back that you were unemployed and on disability? Here you state you are “near the top”. Sorry if I have this wrong. I can go back and check the post blogs.
XXX, you obviously don’t know what a percentage is. Can’t help you with your math here.
And you made my point, if the government were to give all my money back and forgoe my retirement, I’d take that deal.
Problem is, the government doesn’t have the money. They spent it.
And if you think Social Security and Medicare is safe, you didn’t read the link above.
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/trsummary.html
Oh goodness lhg, I don’t know the answer to those questions. It’s been too long ago and Fred took care of the checkbook. I have an investment officer at AG Edwards who tracks my investments and my accountant does the taxes. I’m sure we paid in our fair share though, although I worked mostly domestic work and was paid cash. But Fred paid in down at the factory.
Where are the regulars who normally post on this blog? Too early to get their drunk -sses out of bed after a Friday night of partying? Must be tough being unemployed, blogging all day and night, and then trying to save up enough to hit the bar on Friday.
I don’t know, maybe the regulars are on vacation?
Do unemployed people get vacation?
Ok, A.N.Keny,
Maybe you and your accountant can do the math sometime and post again later.
Would be interested in hearing how much Social Security taxes were paid in and what your benefit has been.
I bet your SS investment return has been pretty good. And I would probably be happy with that, except the Government can’t afford to keep the SS gravy train going forever.
I’d say that everyday is a vacation for them, but you can build up a lot of stress sitting on your -ss behind a computer screen blogging.
Say A.N.
Don’t know if XXX is unemployed or rich, but it is clear he doesn’t think he’s part of solving the Social Security Fiscal Crisis.
He wants to get what’s “his”.
Screw the younger generations.
Maybe they are Professional Ridiculous Internet Computer Kids paid to blog?
You know, the PRICK people. All seem to be liberal pricks too.
Well in a way he is right. That protects us seniors with what we have been promised.
I’m sure someday the government will take care of him too. Our nation is a great provider.
Oops, meant to route that comment to AW.
Well A.N.Keny, I can understand if you don’t want to share your financial info. This blog is fairly anonymous if you don’t use your real name.
The link posted above clearly shows the Government is NOT promising anything to the younger generations.
It’s OK with you and the AARP if the Government keeps its promise to you. Not sure that’s fair to the younger ones though.
As far as our nation being a great provider, that’s only been the case since the great socialist experiment began in 1934 – and expanded in the 1960’s by Pres Johnson and his fellow Socialists.
Historically, the people of this great nation have provided for themselves.
Not sure self-reliance is being taught in public schools today or at home even.
I have a problem with the statement “…our nation being a great provider…”. If you are wanting the government to provide, then you have a problem.
Guess I am not a very good socialist. I do have to admit that my income comes from the government. Hope that does not make me a socialist.
Troll Break. This was just a test.
Regroup for the real thing. Mass Invasion.
D-Day coming soon!
Won’t the Libs take over in the vacuum that follows our retreat?
Of course not!
The Libs will simply add more dead space before we return.
Don’t worry about it. Be Happy!
And we’re not retreating.
We’re simply attacking in another direction!
No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country
lhg our nation has always provided for it’s people. You have a very negative attitude about the future. Our children are all self-sufficient adults and are doing well. So don’t try to tell me how the older generation didn’t raise their kidsright.
“Retreat Hell! We’re just attacking in another direction.”
“You don’t hurt ‘em if you don’t hit ‘em.”
Lieutenant General Lewis B. Puller, USMC
“I want you boys to hurry up and whip these Germans so we can get out to the Pacific to kick the s**t out of the purple-pissing Japanese, before the Godda**ed MARINES get all the credit!”
Here is one from the other day posted on the blogs. I think it says it all:Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program. He promised:1.) That participation in the Program would be completely voluntary,2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into the Program,3.) That the money the participants elected to put into the Program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year,4.) That the money the participants put into the independent “Trust Fund” rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program, and,5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income
_______________________
Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month — and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to “put away” — you may be interested in the following:————————Q: Who put the social security out of it’s own protected fund and put it in the general fund for congress and the president to rob from to fund the Vietnam War?A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratically controlled House and Senate.————————-Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?
A: The Democratic Party.————————-Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities????
A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the “tie-breaking”deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the US.————————-Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants?
This is MY FAVORITE:
A: That’s right! Jimmy Carter! And the Democratic Party of course!
Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive Social Security payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it!————————-
Then, after doing all this lying and thieving and violating of the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away!
And the worst part about it is uninformed citizens believe it!
If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of awareness will be planted and maybe changes will evolve. Maybe not!.. many Democrats are awfully sure of what isn’t so!!
But it’s worth a try. How many people can YOU send this to? Actions speak louder than bumper stickers. Forward this to others so that they can be informed of the truth.
“THE ONLY THING NEEDED FOR EVIL TO TRIUMPH IS FOR GOOD MEN TO DO NOTHING” EDMUND BURKE
“So they’ve got us surrounded, good! Now we can fire in any direction, those b*****ds won’t get away this time!”
“Instead of “doh” try “duh”.”
Simpsons Doh. “Duh”! When you don’t have a point, go after spelling.
“XXX, you obviously don’t know what a percentage is. Can’t help you with your math here.”
Don’t bet on that, Einstein.
“And you made my point, if the government were to give all my money back and forgoe my retirement, I’d take that deal.”
Point is lhg, where is this money going to come from? How exactly do you think the government is going to come up with the cash? I don’t want it in payments, I want it in a lump sum. Right now so I have a little time to make it work for me.
“And I thought I read awhile back that you were unemployed and on disability? Here you state you are “near the top”. Sorry if I have this wrong. I can go back and check the post blogs.”
Me? Unemployed? Disabled? Hardly! You need to work on your reading comprehension. Go back and check the post blogs since you obviously have very little to add here. If this is an example of your reading skills, it’s no wonder you have your facts wrong. In fact, I think you’ve confused me with one of the conservative trolls.
The way to make social security work is to bring in immigrants to work to pay the bills, according to Michael Bloomburg. Which is why I would vote for him.
In fact, I think you’ve confused me with one of the conservative trolls.
Posted by: XXX | August 04, 2007 at 09:28 AM
Sorry XXX, I don’t watch the Simpsons. I thought I did read correctly about your disability. Sorry if I got it wrong, but I did see it somewhere. It might be as you say about the troll.
“Won’t the Libs take over in the vacuum that follows our retreat?”
The vacuum is what you now are all posting…
It’s been a long time since I saw an open blog with so many delusional Republicans still spouting Rovish Rushisms and Iraq falsehoods, with such mi=sguided conviction.
Maybe its the water in Wichita, who knows, but these Republicans remind me af a footballteam that got beat 40-0, and after everyone left the field, their cheerleaders are still out there in the rain, hollering for victory.
Futility seems to have a home in Kansas Republicans.
Fortunately, many of the wiser ones have seen the bleak future tha broils outside borders of this once progressively noble state.
Now all the bullies think they are being bullied, and except for these mutual admir-bation circles (probably no more than a handful of multiple-name posters), most of the civilized world (emphasis on “civilized”) has come to its senses.
And you Republican cheerleaders are just standing in the rain and your numbers are shrinking every day.
Point is lhg, where is this money going to come from? How exactly do you think the government is going to come up with the cash? I don’t want it in payments, I want it in a lump sum. Right now so I have a little time to make it work for me.Posted by: XXX | August 04, 2007 at 09:28 AM
It’s not all about you XXX, or me. The government doesn’t have the money. Lump sum! Don’t make me laugh!
So we continue in a combination of a few different directions:
1. Drastically increase taxes.2. Drastically decrease benefits.3. Means test benefits now and in the future.4. Less drastically increase taxes, less drastically decrease benefits, and means test benefits.5. Set-up some private savings provision to ensure a future government doesn’t screw-over the youngest generation again.
A priave plan, “a fig leaf of fairness” might induce the younger generation to continue to agree to pay higher Social Security taxes, if they KNOW (vs what the Government tells them) they will get something back out of this “system”.
bring in immigrants to work to pay the billsPosted by: Door King
Door King I thought of that too. But I read somewhere that the average income from the immigrants is less than 20K a year. This makes them eligible for benefits (WIC, food stamps, unemployment, reduced lunches at school cafeteria’s, medical costs, etc…)
It takes many years, generations, before they would exceed 30K a year (single) to start paying in more than they take out of our society.
And I’m not talking about “illegal’s” here. I support legal immigration and believe they contribute greatly to our society. But it’s key that we are not talking migrant workers. Skilled workers contribute.
QUICK… NEW THREAD!!!!
Posted by: JEP | August 04, 2007 at 09:31 AM
Hey JEP was their a point in there somewhere, or were you just sounding off at conservatives as a hate mongerer?
Anything on the issues? I see koolaid spilled all over your post. Has to be, because I haven’t read anything about Iraq up the thread for some time.
Solving the Social Security problem is not about any ONE of us. It’s about how this country, and all of the people in it, are going to work together to solve this problem, or not.
Pitting one generation against another, is not going to solve this fiscal problem.
In fact, a generation war will lead to some very drastic change indeed. And that will be very harmful to all generations.
What will a generation war look like?
The oldest generation has the largest group of $$$ and is the biggest voting block.
The youngest generation is doing the actual work now. At what taxation level do they simply stop working? And what can the oldest generation do about it if they do stop working?
“A private plan, “a fig leaf of fairness”
at least you admit it is a facade to cover a multitude of sins…
So, you are suggesting that we entrust our future Social Security to the Enron Plan for social security?
Have you ever lost your investment in your Social Security savings because some crook cooked your books?
No doubt, especially with Murdoch pulling the strings on Wall Street, the book-cookers will take full advantage of your fig leaf.
They have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, with Enron and numerous other investment debacles, that they aren’t interested in helping us save for our futures, they are just interested in increasing their billions.
Anyone who vbelieves Wall Street is a safe place to put your retirement money never heard of Enron.
Maybe they’ll resurrect (recruit) Kenny Lay from his Bahaman hideaway, to run this program for us…
JEP, you must not own any stock or have a 401k or you would understand what kind of return you can expect from the market.
Your money in the mattress?
“Pitting one generation against another…”
So when we tell one of you “rich folk” (HA!) we don’t want Wall Street’s greedy little bottom-line fingers in our Social Security, we’re pitting generations against each other…
Now there’s a straw man of monumantal proportions.
Social Security fair?
How fair is it when a hard working taxpayer pays into the system for 40 years and dies on his 62nd birthday and his survivors collect a whopping $255 burial “benefit”?
Well, if yall haven’t figured it out yet, here’s a clue.
The road to SS reform runs right through the Democratic Party. Yall want to change SS, yall need to speak to the Dems.
LOL, I kinda doubt that insultin’ ‘em will get you far, but maybe that’s just simple wisdom (and we all know how averse to simple wisdom are the current crop of Republicans).
SS ain’t goin’ anwhwere until Augustus Stupidus is outta the White House. THAT, boys and girls, is as sure as tomorrow’s sunrise. Augustus’s Uncle Rove saw to that, and in right smart fashion (just one example: Rove’s Orwellian “Ownership Society,” followed by an equally Orwellian adjective “Homeland,” as in Homeland Security; doesn’t that make all REAL Americans shudder, that kind of Rovian doublespeak?).
We can take the convesation up again in 2009, if you like.
And if you’re nice. :)
“So, you are suggesting that we entrust our future Social Security to the Enron Plan for social security?” JEP
Pure fiction from the tape recording they are playing over and over in your head. Look up
http://www.tsp.gov/This is where they were suggesting private accounts be invested. This is where congress, our military, and our government workers are invested. Not bad ten year returns, yes?
“Have you ever lost your investment in your Social Security savings because some crook cooked your books?” JEP
As a matter of fact I have lost every year because Congress spends every dime of the money. This is basic finance. There is no money in a trust fund. It is all on a hope and a whim.
“They have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, with Enron and numerous other investment debacles, that they aren’t interested in helping us save for our futures, they are just interested in increasing their billions.” JEP
You must be talking about congress and the president above. Otherwise ENRON and that situation has nothing to do with saving social security. You only heard that at the kool aide fountain.
“Anyone who vbelieves Wall Street is a safe place to put your retirement money never heard of Enron.” JEP
Knock, knock, hello? Is anyone there? Must be an original thought somewhere in there.
“JEP, you must not own any stock”
…are you suggesting Enron didn’t happen?
Seems as if you missed my point entirely. I think it is safe to assume that most of us would prefer a safe, reliable yield on our SSS, instead of a volatile grapph-chart that looks like an angiogram.
Why can’t you rich folks just invest (gamble) your own money on variables, leave our pittance alone, and let us depend on something more stable.
Or do you think we should all be FORCED to invest in volatility, instead of save via SS?
Be honest, now, IHG, have you ever LOST money on a stock?
If not, please, be my financial advisor. Otherwise, let me have my tiny bit of Social Security, and you go make your millions on Wall Street.
I think my chances for real security may be better than yours. Because, unless you are some kind of perfect investor, you just can’t promise that security on Wall Streeet.
Please answer that question, if you really want a dialogiue here that is honest.
Have you ever LOST money on a stock investment? If so, how could that be better than a safe Social Security investment?
No JEP,
THE Generation War will start when the older generation does not agree to any means testing or reduction in benefits while asking the younger generation to pay double the 7.65% SS tax now up to 18%, in addition to rising income tax rates, sales tax rates, etc….
Nice try though at making the issue about greedy Wall Street people.
Privatization is not about making Wall Street rich. It’s about giving the owners of the stock (working Americans) a better return and more sound investment vehicle then Social Insecurity.
Where does SS taxes go today? Spent by the Government for SS and General spending.
Where will private investments in stocks go? Investing in companies and corporate growth IN America.
What do companies in America do? Employ Americans.
You gotta job JEP?
I was posting the term “Enron Plan for Social Security back in 2005, and as yet have never heard or read anyone else say or post it.
I coined that phrase on more than one blog. So suggesting it’s some sort of brainwashing I picked from one of our liberal Rushes is quite a chuckle.
Say Pendant, you can’t blame Bush for lack of SS reform.
Bush asked Congress to address it in EVERY State of the Union address. Bush formed a commission to make recommendations to Congress on a solution. Congress did nothing with the recommendations. Congress did nothing on its own. And the Dems in Congress are not even talking about Social Security now!
“Privatization is not about making Wall Street rich.”
You may believe that, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt.
But they are snickering at you in the boardrooms, you good old boy scout!
Be honest, now, IHG, have you ever LOST money on a stock?
Will you answer that one for all us kiddies?
Where will private investments in stocks go? Investing in companies and corporate growth IN America.Posted by: lhg | August 04, 2007 at 09:52 AM
Investments will go where the highest returns exist, for a given amount of risk.
That ain’t necessarily the US. In fact, China’s GDP is growing at a 12% clip annually, and they’re tryin’ like hell to reel it back to around 8%.
The US will do well to finish 2007 with a 2.5% growth in GDP.
I wouldn’t bet the farm that all, or EVEN THE MAJORITY, of future rational equity investments will create jobs in the USA.
Still waiting….
Say Pendant, you can’t blame Bush for lack of SS reform.Posted by: lhg | August 04, 2007 at 09:55 AM
SS reform was and is a non-starter under Bush, thanks to Karl Rove. Oh, and the incompetency.
THAT’s his legacy, the POTUS who talked about SS reform in every SOTU but couldn’t lift a stick.
Wait, that sounds familiar. Rah rah rah, no sis boom bah. Oh yeah! Bush was a cheerleader!
Say American Way, that Thrift Plan for government employees and those in the military looks great.
Another option, for those who don’t want to invest in stocks, could be good ole US Savings Bonds.
JEP, Lost money in the Stock Market? Overall returns on my stock investments since the early 1980’s have been in the 15% range. Losses from time to time, sure. Overall gain 15% over 25 years.
If I could chose to trust SS or put my money into a private US Savings Bond within the SS system, I’d take the Savings Bond. But, I would prefer a Thrift Plan with many investment options including stocks, bonds, mutual and equity funds.
JEP, look at the SS Trustholders report if you want to see how the Government can be trusted with the current public SS system. THEY HAVE BLOWN OUR MONEY AWAY!
Re: China. Heard last night that 1 in 4 construction cranes worldwide are now working in one city, Shanghai.
Not China per se, but Shanghai itself.
If that keeps up, well it may crimp future US investments in infrastructure, lol.
Everyone gets it now, don’t they.
These (you) privatizers do not want to admit the downside of this big idea, just the glossy good side.
If there’s an investor “out there” who can claim the NEVER lost money on a stock, then they should apply for Nussle’s new job.
There are no guarantees on Wall Street, there just AIN’T NO SUCH INVESTMMENT!
I prefer something that, while not so dramatic in its potential for profit, is also not so dramatic in its potential for losses.
I don’t have the disposable income that you apparently have, so what is there, I would never willingly risk, unlike you “rich folks” (HA!).
Name just ONE broker or investor who has never lost money on a stock investment, and I’ll give you your due.
So when we tell one of you “rich folk” (HA!) we don’t want Wall Street’s greedy little bottom-line fingers in our Social Security, Posted by: JEP | August 04, 2007 at 09:45 AM
This illustrates the wide divide between liberals and conservatives. You believe Wall street is the “greedy little bottom-line fingers”. Conservatives reserve this roll for our federal government. You have an aversion for whomever “rich folk” are and have a hard time defining who the “rich” are, based upon proposed tax increases and the tremendous amounts needed to fund proposed new welfare programs. Conservatives respect the wealthy and realize that most of them worked hard for their money, took risks, and sacrificed their time and energy to get to where they are. You see them as a pile of dollar bills and someone who doesn’t deserve what they rightfully earned in life. You see the rich as having a moral obligation (but not constitutional) to fund the social programs for those with less. I believe they have no such obligation. You believe in from each according to his ability, to each according to his need. Pure socialism or communism if you like.
And you who shout about equality are driving a class war which will ultimately rip this nation apart as we move to socialism.
(Notice I did this Capt/Chas troll without using cuss words, or name-calling, or put downs? I challenge you libs to do the same.)
JEP,
1. There are no guarantees in life.2. Read the SS Trustholders report and you’ll see SS is not guaranteed.3. I never said you had to invest in stock under SS Privitization. There should be an option of stocks, bonds, and US Savings bonds for those like you who only trust the government.
American Way, you did imply that he was a Socialist. That’s sort of a bad name the Liberal Democrats don’t like.
“Sorry XXX, I don’t watch the Simpsons.”
Neither do I, but I am culturally aware and you’d have to live in a cave not to be exposed to the Simpsons. T-shirts anyone?
lhg,”It’s not all about you XXX, or me. The government doesn’t have the money. Lump sum! Don’t make me laugh!”
But upthread you said:”And you made my point, if the government were to give all my money back and forgoe my retirement, I’d take that deal.”
You’re kind of all over the place on this issue, aren’t you? What, you want payments? Isn’t that kind of like Social Security? Or maybe you think I shouldn’t get my money back. Kind of like screw the old for the sake of the young?
“Sorry XXX, I don’t watch the Simpsons.”
Neither do I, but I am culturally aware and you’d have to live in a cave not to be exposed to the Simpsons. T-shirts anyone?
lhg,”It’s not all about you XXX, or me. The government doesn’t have the money. Lump sum! Don’t make me laugh!”
But upthread you said:”And you made my point, if the government were to give all my money back and forgoe my retirement, I’d take that deal.”
You’re kind of all over the place on this issue, aren’t you? What, you want payments? Isn’t that kind of like Social Security? Or maybe you think I shouldn’t get my money back. Kind of like screw the old for the sake of the young?
Well JEP did you look at the TSP website?
And you already know the answer for anyone every losing money on the stock market. I did starting in 2000. But I’ve recovered and advanced.
So how about as lhg suggested US Savings Bonds? Same-same investing in your government. Only that way greedy congress cannot spend it every year.
I have to go drive my Mercedes to the Club for a round of golf and some drinks by the poolside, while watching the babes get all hot and wet in front of me. Have to make a few online stock trades first though.
It’s been fun. Bye!
LSD–
How about if the government invests in stocks to get a better rate of return?
This is what big state pensions do already–KPERS for instance.
But there is a reason that the SS program can’t do it.
Years ago, when SS first started, the CONs said that if SS invested in private funds, it would be SOCIALISM, so the idea was killed.
If social security fails, it will be because the CONs hated it then and hate it now and want to destroy it . .
American Way,
I know CapnAmerica personally (not well, but we’ve met more than once), and JEP isn’t Capn. He’s not Chas, either. Click his Typekey link and read the web page.
Before you start calling people trolls, wait for some actual evidence.
Oh wait, your people don’t need no stinkin’ evidence…
Yeah, LSD–
And me and my leftist friends have to go smoke weed and burn the American flag and have promiscuous sex with bra-less, free spirited hippie-chicks.
“Losses from time to time, sure.”
Thanks for that concession, and talk about dittohead formulas, your perspective on our Social Security funding is just another straw man Republicans keep throwing out, that doesn’t stand onlits own, you need qualifiers and caveats to spin your version.
Again, if any of you “investors” knew what it is like to hit the street, to come down from your arrogant moneypile long enough to realize you, the wealth, hold the keys to a truly great America.
If you would only empower the middle class to invest WILLINGLY, not unbder duress, then you would all see riches beyond your wildest imaginations, because the middle class will go spend that money and stimulate the economy, so you can get even richer.
Call me a nut, (I’m sure some of the archaic economists will do that) but I believe we are on the cusp of a perpetual-motion economy, that simply can never crash precipitously.
But it depends on the wealthy to share their wealth, as WAGES, to empower and enrich the consumer class (the middle class) that will create many more millionaires and billionaires, if they would only let the finances flow to the consumer class, where it will create growth, instead of little pools of personal trickle-down wealth.
These wealthy ones (HA!) would be the ultimate beneficiaries of such an economy, but they resist it because they wouldn’t be able to control it.
Once you get to certain level (how many yachts do you need?) it is no longer a matter of money, it is just a delusion of power, defined in dollar signs.
Just food for thought.
Ok, one more to avoid being taken by XXX out of context. He said:
lhg,”It’s not all about you XXX, or me. The government doesn’t have the money. Lump sum! Don’t make me laugh!”
But upthread you said:”And you made my point, if the government were to give all my money back and forgoe my retirement, I’d take that deal.”
You’re kind of all over the place on this issue, aren’t you? What, you want payments? Isn’t that kind of like Social Security? Or maybe you think I shouldn’t get my money back. Kind of like screw the old for the sake of the young?Posted by: XXX | August 04, 2007 at 10:11 AM
Of course I would take a lump sum for all of the SS I paid in to date, instead of collected any benefits that MIGHT be paid to me should I live for 67 years. I know, and you know, a benefit payout is not an option. Read the above posts and links JEP, the money isn’t there.
The Government has SPENT ALL OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY MONEY ALREADY!
“There are no guarantees on Wall Street, there just AIN’T NO SUCH INVESTMMENT!” JEP
And you believe the government is a guarantee? Read what the government says about THEMSELVES:http://www.ssa.gov/pressoffice/pr/trustee07-pr.htmhttp://www.ssa.gov/article081105.htm
You believe in the tooth fairy too?
“I prefer something that, while not so dramatic in its potential for profit, is also not so dramatic in its potential for losses.” JEP
You don’t have to shoot for ten digit returns for a personal account. You control the investments. YOu can select ultra conservative (sorry) investments.
And you do not get “profit” when you start drawing your social security check.
To those of you who think that JEP is a nic of mine.
JEP is a new poster, as far as I know.
Also, JEP wrote “I don’t have the disposable income [to invest].”
Look back through my old posts–I have said on numerous occasions that I am aggressively invested in growth funds.
American Way–
Most people get back all the money they paid into SS and make a “profit” on all future benefits after about seven years drawing out of SS . . .
It’s a pretty good deal all in all.
If you click my link, please, scroll down to the bottom of my page…
as for “There should be an option of stocks, bonds, and US Savings bonds” there already is an option for us to make these investments.., it is called “free will”.
And as for “I did starting in 2000. But I’ve recovered and advanced.”
It is noce to know someone who has the resources to start over and recover, but what if you had lost everything?
THE RISK IS THE ISSUE. Those of you with extended resources do not perceive that risk because you all have back-up ,either family or fellows with money, or “other investments.”
Which is why you don’t get the concept of risk, because you never really risk anything but your abundance.
“Solving the Social Security problem is not about any ONE of us. It’s about how this country, and all of the people in it, are going to work together to solve this problem, or not.”
Exactly right. Problem is, you want it solved in your favor. My generation provided the money and manpower to raise your generation while at the same time, paying to help the elderly (SS). We’ve sacrificed to give you everything just to have you turn around and stab us in the back. Money that could have gone into personal investment went to make it so you would have it better than we did.
JEP is a new poster, as far as I know.
Started last night…
I have to say, it is an honor to be mistaken for Captain America!
If you would only empower the middle class to invest WILLINGLY, not unbder duress, then you would all see riches beyond your wildest imaginations, because the middle class will go spend that money and stimulate the economy, so you can get even richer.
Posted by: JEP | August 04, 2007 at 10:16 AM
Yes JEP, you have defined yourself now as a truly helpless SOCIALIST.
Who exactly do you want to empower the Middle Class? And how? Who is holding you back?
I came from a middle class family of 6 who lived in a 900 square foot house with 2 bedrooms and 1 bathroom. Worked my way through college (took $500 and a new $50 car battery from Dad when he offerred it, otherwise I paid for my own college expenses). Worked at several companies after college, moving to take advantage of new opportunities and now consider myself fairly successful.
Who did this for me? I did. Who held me back? No one. What or who empowered me? My own free will and the grace of God.
Now how is or why is it you think you are owed anything more than what I had?
Just food for thought.
Tom–
Where did we meet? At a DFA meeting, Howard Dean / Kerry meet-up, democratic function, your or my work place? (If the last one, don’t specify . . . )
What year did you graduate college, LHG?
Yeah, LSD–Posted by: CapnAmerica | August 04, 2007 at 10:16 AM
lhg, I suggest not responding to the name calling by this troll. He just follows anyone conservative around the blogs and posts vomit. He must have just gotten out of bed, which is a good time to leave.
“The Government has SPENT ALL OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY MONEY ALREADY!”
Do you know what an “obligation” is?
The bank loaned you the money to buy your house. You’ve already spent it. Does that mean you’re not “obligated” to pay it back?
JEP appears to be a fellow Borg resident (I’m a former resident).
Välkommen, JEP.
Regards. And tell Lysell his beer is still too warm.
LHG– If you’re scared to answer and you’re trolling me under another nic, I can certainly understand why you’d do that.
Also, LHG, I was suckled by wolves and grew up living in an abandoned box car. I too worked my way through college on a football scholarship–I was quarterback at Notre Dame and won the Heismann Trophy twice.
Later I went on to help design the Mars Rover, win the Nobel Prize for Physics and Literature, and set a Guiness World Record for largest male member.
I think that government should do more to help the poor.
Food for thought . . .
No XXX, if you don’t have the money, you don’t pay your home loan back, and the home is foreclosed by the bank.
The US Government is about to default on its SS debt. And there is no collateral for US Citizens to take out of the Government. Nothin is left.
Well, I may be short on disposable income, but we are debt free, by deliberate choice and by personal discipline.
Surely that counts for something to you money managers. I wonder how many of you are carrying a near-maxed credit card.
What’s in your wallet?
I am aggressively invested in growth funds.Posted by: CapnAmerica | August 04, 2007 at 10:21 AM
You can make believe you are anyone you want to be on the blogs Captain. I’m sure someone will believe you.
I wonder though, are you invested aggressive growth funds or are you just aggressively invested.You must trust your own investing regardless, and not the government. I’m sure you wouldn’t do it – if you thought you might LOOSE money.
For the sarcasm impaired, the above post was parody.
Pedant;
But his sandwiches are GREAT!
Yes, they are!
I use Mellon Investment Firm. Those Canadians are quite clever at diversification and International investing.
LOOSE money is the two billion the gov’t spends in Iraq.
LOSE money is what a lot of people will do if CONs force money out of the SS system.
Do you know what an “obligation” is?
Does that mean you’re not “obligated” to pay it back?
Posted by: XXX | August 04, 2007 at 10:28 AM
XXX, yes what is an obligation in relation to financial affairs?
An obligation to pay maybe? (either side of the transaction)
Do I really have to take you down the road of federal financial management and where that “pay” comes from?
You must not have read any of the links above. You couldn’t have or you would realize the money to pay that obligation does not grow on trees. That is the crux of the problem.
(PS: You can declare bankruptcy. What does out government do when they don’t have money to pay it’s “obligations”)?
Exactly right. Problem is, you want it solved in your favor. My generation provided the money and manpower to raise your generation while at the same time, paying to help the elderly (SS). We’ve sacrificed to give you everything just to have you turn around and stab us in the back. Money that could have gone into personal investment went to make it so you would have it better than we did.
Posted by: XXX | August 04, 2007 at 10:23 AM
No, you want it solved your way XXX. Save all your benefits, screw the younger generation.
I’ve said all generations need to share in the solution.
I’m ok with a Means Test to lower my SS benefits by 10 or 25% given whatever my income is when I retire. That means my kids and their kids can have less of a SS tax increase, while my benefits (and yours) are not cut entirely.
I’ve also said the young should be given a private option to invest part of their SS in a private plan.
It’s wrong to pay into a system and get nothing back or a small part back – depending on when you die. The whole SS system reeks of unfairness.
lhg, remember
Don’t feed the trolls. Walk on by.
Also, I am not saying I would not invest in Wall Street. And I don’t consider the stock market a gamble, I am no gambler, I’m probably in the anti-casino crowd.
But let me make that choice myself, don’t take a rich-man’s game and impose it on regular folk, we just don’t have your abundance to take chances with.
And thanks to all you Republican trolls, I won a buck for every one of your responses.
Cap’n: funny you should mention Notre Dame, I once held a pool record there…
No answer JEP?
Now how is or why is it you think you are owed anything more than what I had?
Just food for thought.
Aw, shucks, JEP.
And living debt-free is the only way to go.
That’s quite an achievement.
LHP won’t answer the question about when he graduated from college. Why? Because in another post he said that he grew up in the 30’s . . .
You do the math. My 80 something grandmother is scared of her answering machine, and this old timer is blogging away like a champ.
Something doesn’t quite jibe . . . unless LHG is just a RepubliKhansas sock puppet.
That would jibe.
lhg, remember
Don’t feed the trolls. Walk on by.
WOW, I’ve tried for years to get on a redneck blog and have someone call me a troll, but they never let me post more thanonce.
And here, while it is by nomeans a “redneck blog,” with such an eclectic mix, IT FINALLY HAPPENED!
I have been called a troll!
Thanks, I really needed that, I was beginning to think I’d never be recognized.
I’m so proud!!
Capn,
I believe I dropped some canvassing lists by your place during a certain city council race earlier this year.
LHG–
Maybe he doesn’t want to answer your question because you won’t answer mine.
But let me jump in here: “owe you a living” is an extreme distortion of JEP’s position.
Nobody is “owed a living” by the gov’t and no one on this WEBlog is arguing that.
However, if you graduated from college before Reagan cut college funds (shifted from tax supported funds to personal LOANS resulting in huge debt burdens on grads), then you got a lot more benefit from gov’t than today’s students do.
Why did you deserve more than the present generation of students do?
Answer that.
I haven’t went through everbodies post, but are you guys talking about how House Democrats stoled votes off the floor of the House?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/03/AR2007080300878_pf.html
Expect the Democratic Congress to plunge in approval numbers even further. In the single digits.
“And living debt-free is the only way to go.”
Actually, living debt free while homesteading is even better.
We really REALLY need to teach gardening to our children, starting in pre-school.
There’s no better social security than a big garden and a nice root cellar.
Oh, right, Tom. Yeah, good on you!
Now I remember.
Correct answer JEP is that you are owed nothing.
I was owed nothing.
And there is nobody holding a control lever over you holding you back.
But still, you need someone to blame for your own failures.
And you see successful people all around you. And you want what they have, only you don’t want to work for it, like they did.
Your solution, steal it. aka Socialism to benefit lazy SOB’s.
redneck blog – thought JEP was from Iowa – or he claimed so in a post.
Guess he’s having a hard time keeping up with his origins as he makes them up.
Can I ask about one of the proposals to “fix” social security?
That is, to raise the SS full retirement age to 70. Most of you know (or should know) they have already raised it to 67 years + months. So that is really a loss of benefits from age65 (when our parents started drawing it) to 67+.
How do you all feel about having to work blue collar ball-busting jobs until 70?
Curious, maybe you all have the same problem, I keep getting the auto prompt for a code word to prove I’m not a machine..
These posts are coming as you read them, how could anyone automate what I am writing?
But it’s OK, I understand the need for an honest blog.
I wonder how many sock-puppets do we have here, most of the time?
“But still, you need someone to blame for your own failures.
And you see successful people all around you. And you want what they have, only you don’t want to work for it, like they did.
Your solution, steal it. aka Socialism to benefit lazy SOB’s.”
Hey, stay off MY highways, you lazy asshole! There are plenty of unpaved dirt roads out there.
Life expectancy for males in the US in the 1930’s was 62.
Now it is 76 for males.
The retirement age should be raised by 14 years, from 62 to 76 for males.
It should be higher for females.
thought JEP was from Iowa
Greene County, my Grandad was Republican county Chairman for many of the Eisenhower years.
I met my wife at U of I, she was a music major, I was majoring in English and “weekends”, (hey, we all have our histories), and she is from Kansas.
So we raised our kids here.
My eldest son graduated from KU Law School a few years back. My youngest son has built a half-dozen Congressional and Presidential campaign websites over the past couple years.
We loosely label ourselves as “political consultants.”
But that certainly gives me no authority in this crowd of experts.
I managed one of our Kansas congressional campaigns for a short stint last time around, and helped manage another one in Iowa.
Just so you folks know, I have nothing to hide.
What you see is what you get…
Welcome, JEP! Stick around, if you can stand it.
–”The hermit formally known as ‘Rage’.
Maybe he doesn’t want to answer your question because you won’t answer mine.
But let me jump in here: “owe you a living” is an extreme distortion of JEP’s position.Posted by: CapnAmerica
lhg this demonstrates how the Captain of the Blog operates.
1. He has a team of trolls at his bidding.
2. He answers for other people who cannot express their own opinions. Either that or he feels he is all knowing of each of us. Or they are one and the same.
“But still, you need someone to blame for your own failures.”
Sorry, my religion takes care of that for me…
And, for some of us who have “been there” and really just don’t want it anymore, failure is in the eye of the beholder…
Watch Out, I agree. No point in feeding the trolls.
Capn has never been Capn of anything, except in his own mind or he might have something of substance to contribute. Pure Socialist, unable to support himself or his family and many ex-Wives (who couldn’t stand him either)
Do tell lhg. What salt of the earth working man tale do you have for us lowly socialists? What have we down wrong? Where have we strayed from the capitalist ways. Tell us why a capitalist enterprise would hire teamsters To haul their foreign produced made with child labor in a sweat shop wares?
Sigh. . walk on by.
I apologize for giving them a snack.
JEP–
There are quite a few sock-puppets generated by the troller RepubliKhansas.
He likes to make up “lives” for himself and post from a right-wing position.
Like one time he was a black man named Eier who “refuses to live on the Democratic party’s plantation.” Before that he was a female African visiting professor, Gail, who also “refused to live on the Democratic party’s plantation.”
At times, he’s been in the Army, in the Marines, and in the Air Force. He’s a veteran of Vietnam and Operation Desert Storm, depending on which day of the week you catch him.
His hallmarks are posting cut-and-paste posts without attribution to make himself look “smart.”
The regulars give this inDUHvidual a wide berth — the “walk on by” campaign — but since he’s so routinely ignored, he comes on with a dizzying array of sock-puppets.
Just thought I’d give you a heads up.
Carry on . . .
Joe
Here’s a nice companion piece to the one you linked to.
“The American people called for greater civility in how Congress conducts its work, and Democrats pledge to conduct our work with civility and bipartisanship, and to act in partnership – not partisanship – with the president and Republicans in Congress.”
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1114/p09s01-coop.html
To newbies: the folks who are launching personal attacks on people (in lieu of an actual argument) are the ‘trolls.’
That’s what trolls do.
You needn’t both posting on this thead. There’s no debate to be found here.
“a team of trolls”
You R’s are just trying to delude yourselves that the current, prevailing, predominant philosophy is your own, and it takes fake libs to match your numbers.
Remember November 2006?
I suppose you just consider “DEMOCRATS” per se, a team of trolls?
That egocentric perspective is exactly why you conservative never understand.
You would have to admit you are wrong to understand, and that is one thing none of you is probably capable of, without much psychological stress.
But many of your fellows have come aroundto reason. I dare say, many many more Republicans have left their failing, flailing party than Democrats.
Your numbers are dwindling every day, and we just keep growing.
Try disputing that with some “Rush facts”, this should be good.
Nice tactic, create a single enemy to blame everything on.
I am not Republican.
You need a scapegoat to blame for your own failures.
Look in the mirror and say to yourself Capn “It’s all my fault, I am responsible for myself. No one owes me anything. I need to work to pay my own way in life, and swear from this day forward to do so.”
Life expectancy for males in the US in the 1930’s was 62.
Now it is 76 for males.
Posted by: lhg | August 04, 2007 at 10:53 AM
This is another item which gets spinned by the liberal Kennedy koolaid.
Actual life expectancy is based upon examination of death records over time. It is probably pretty accurate. But the problem is, it is really based upon your year of BIRTH, sex, age, and race.
Some are quick to point out, “we are living longer”. That is a true statement. But your life expectancy is based upon year of birth. Babies born in 2007 will on average (sex/race) live to 76.
BUT THOSE OF US NEARING RETIREMENT WILL NOT LIVE THAT LONG.
Example male/white born in 1950, is projected to live to 72.2 years of age. (half of us will die sooner)
If you raise retirement to 70, you only get to collect for two years. What kind of return is THAT on a life time of contributing?
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005148.htmlhttp://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr54/nvsr54_14.pdf
Dear Mrs. Keny,
You suffer the common misperception that your husband’s Social Security payments were equivalent to his private investments, or a pension fund, in which part of then-earned income was “put away” for future withdrawal.
Social Security was designed specifically to use working people’s money to support retirees. Originally envisioned to help poor retirees, America had so many working people, relative to retirees, that politicians offered it to all retirees, from rich to poor. In fact, so much money poured in, the government had three choices: lower the SSI tax rate for the time being (but gradually raise it as the ratio of retirees to workers enlarged), increase payments to every retiree to very high levels, in essence in either case, equalize current collections and disbursements, create an investment fund to bank working people’s excess payments and generate capital gains for future disbursement, or divert the money to other things, and issue IOUs to the Social Security Trust Fund.
The last was chosen. A fine idea, until SSI revenues fall below disbursements and then redeeming the IOUs will require general tax increases, at which point the idea’s short and medium term cleverness / long-term fallacy will come home to roost.
There are many solutions, which in combination, can provide for the needs of our elderly for the rest of the century.
Needs testing is unavoidable. I have some relatives in their 80s whose net assets are above $2 M. They are quite happy to use Social Security to partially defray their living costs. But their private assets can readily generate a capital gains/dividends income of $100 k annually without reducing their asset base. (This is for a couple, whose children are all independent.) What social security does is to enable them to keep more of their assets on behalf of their heirs.
This was not Social Security’s original intent. It was a safety net for the poor, not an asset-building-enhancement device for the affluent.
We must control healthcare costs. If we want to maintain our system of allowing insurance companies to get a piece of the pie–versus going to a totally government-run system–it’s very easy: specify that Medicare-participating companies receive 2% of Medicare outlays for programs they administer. This will put 98% of taxpayer outlays into the hands of people who deliver healtcare services, and provide decent livings for those who do “back office” work.
Reduce drug costs in America to those of Europe. Big Pharma tells a wonderful tale, about how it spends billions on research, which is impossible without extraordinarily high drug prices foisted on Americans, whose research support enables the rest of the world to benefit by cheap drug prices, the drugs being the product of Americans’ unique support of this research. But then, it turns out, they make huge profits.
Solution: Gather world-leading scientists to set research agendas for the world. Have taxpayers worldwide pay for drug development research, relieving this burden from the drug companies and their investors. Terminate the drug-patent system. Then pay the drug companies solely the monies required to manufacture the drugs, with, say, a decent 5% profit for initial manufacturing-and-distribution proposals. But then, in the absence of patents, allow anyone to compete to make and distribute a drug at the established cost-plus-5% price. The most efficient and smartest manufacturers will devise ways to cut drug-production and distribution costs to make a higher-than-5% profit on that given price.
Alternatively, go to a globalization-satisfying program. Empower the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to go to drug companies, and say,
“We’re going to pay you the median of what the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Australia and Canada pay. You sell to the U.S. government drugs at this price level, or your executives and directors go to prison for attempting to defraud the U.S. Government.
“If you really think that the other countries are paying too little, why are you selling to them? Oh, you’re a weasel, eh? If you really believe that other countries are paying too little, you just have to negotiate with them to pay higher drug prices there. You’re a global company, you’re smart. You have a lot of people, including all your drug-inventing chemists and molecular biologists, whose training was funded by taxpayers, mostly U.S. taxpayers.
“U.S. taxpayers are no longer willing –we cannot afford–to pay inflated drug prices to subsidize low drug prices for the rest of the world. GET REAL. What you want is “SCREW AMERICANS. You need an attitude adjustment. If you can’t do this yourself, we’ll give you free room and board in a federal penitentiary to have time to rethink things.”
More American families are going to have to think about ancient multigenerational households. Suppose that more retirees live in their children’s homes, sharing their SS payments with their kids to defray their room and board costs.
With longer lifespans, we can raise SS eligibility for healthy people age to 67, then progressively to 70. In a graying society, we must figure out how to keep people productive longer.
Providing decent lives for our senior citizens is eminently feasible. We just have to start thinking differently about how to do it.
lhg–
Look in the mirror and tell yourself the following:
“I am an arrogant f***ing a**hole to presume that I can tell a person that I don’t even know that they are lazy or irresponsible.”
You’ll feel better if you admit the truth to yourself, a**hole.
Hey, Cap’n, Mr. Troll’s got a point. After all those years of wasting time being politically active, you’d think you would have “succeeded” in achieving abject poverty, never gotten a home, never having sent your kids to college. Hell, you could have AT LEAST gotten denied tenure, ya lazy bum!
But look at you, you. . SUCCESS! Damn pathetic.
Some people just don’t have the ambition to achieve their dreams, I guess. . . sigh.
I’ve found it quite easy to scroll over most of the posts in this thread. So much boilerplate. So many memes. So much spin and bullshit.
Anyone who compares Social Security contributions to investing in the stock market is ignorant or purposefully lying.
Social Security is an insurance program and our contributions are premiums.
A friend’s husband was murdered this summer, leaving he with two children and no marketable job skills (other than childcare). She’s going back to college and keeping a roof over her family thanks to the Social Security benefits of her late husband. He was 34 when he was killed.
I know a lady who was a stay-at-home mom and is nearing her 96th birthday. She’s able to live in the home she’s kept since 1953 thanks to the Social Security benefits of her late husband.
Yeah, perhaps maybe, they’d been better off if they’d bought McDonald’s shares at $4 in 1966, or Apple Computers stock in at $3 a share. But plenty of people paid $4 a share in 1966 for Minnie Pearl’s Fried Chicken stock. And a lot of people bought pets.com stock in the 1990s.
Their FICA tax payments are paying off for them both. Big time. It was a sure thing.
If the concept of “America” means anything, it will remain so.
People who want to eliminate Social Security want to eliminate what it means to be “America.”
The “pig-in-a-python” so-called “crisis” facing this nation through Baby Boomers’ retirement is a myopic distortion of so-called “conservatives” who’d love to return to an America where 90% of Senior Citizens lived in poverty (1932). Good luck with that politcal platform, “conservatives.”
“He likes to make up “lives” for himself and post from a right-wing position.”
Chris Cilliza in the Washington Post “The Fix” blog has a similar multi-personality troll who was committing subterfuge back before the 2006 election. He still hangs around, faking characters.
When all his multitude of characters failed to make a dent in the collective conscience, he resorted to a new sock-puppet, claiming to be a Democrat who refused to vote because there were no good Dems.
When I predicted we (Dems) would take back both houses, and I picked Leach as one of the vulnerable ones, this guy laughed, ridiculed and insulted me.
After the election, he never did acknowledge that I was right (I missed on my prediction for the House by one seat, same in the senate, I thought Tennessee would go our way, too)
Oddly, it was another retired old codger with abundant resources, unlimited time, and very little “street” experience outside of Wall Street.
Drop em’ off on the poor side of town and they would wet their britches.
You folks are aware that qwuite recently, “Craigslist” posted an ad recruiting conservative bloggers to do exactly what we are discussing here?
So we really never know whether we are reading a real person or a sock-puppet these days.
I provide a link to my blog, I’m not afraid of you tough guys, so why are all you republican Trolls so mysterious and obscure?
Who are you, really?
Or are you afraid to tell us your real story?
HYPOCRITES!
“I suppose you just consider “DEMOCRATS” per se, a team of trolls?
That egocentric perspective is exactly why you conservative never understand.” JEB
This is a public service announcement from the republican troll headquarters.
JEB you have just violated the integrity of the many liberals (or many NIC’s). We, the republican United States Marching Trolls (USMT) were formed as a direct response to liberals labeling REPUBLICAN’S…..
exactly the same way.
Gotcha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
MPS–
Good post, but I must respectfully differ.
When you cut the affluent out of SS, then you give them no incentive to protect it for the rest of us.
Since the affluent influence gov’t policy far more than anyone else — far more than the majority IMHO — we can’t cut them out and expect SS to stay strong.
Some wit once observed that “programs for the poor become poor programs”–in other words, the poor have no clout, so their programs get de-funded.
I am not Republican.Posted by: lhg | August 04, 2007 at 11:03 AM
It’s fun how so many of the blog’s “conservatives,” even the less-likable ones, do whatever they can to distance themselves from the troll of trolls. Econ101 was doing the same thing last night. After the troll posted a threat of violence against Cosmos (see http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/08/americas-infras.html#c78370160I won’t repeat it; you can read it for yourselves), Econ posted this:
NO I am not defending violence or the threat of violence.Posted by: Econ101 | August 04, 2007 at 12:39 AM
It’s become a daily occurrence around here, conservatives distancing themselves from the troll…
“The “pig-in-a-python” so-called “crisis” facing this nation through Baby Boomers’ retirement is a myopic distortion of so-called “conservatives” who’d love to return to an America where 90% of Senior Citizens lived in poverty (1932). Good luck with that politcal platform, “conservatives.”
That is one of the MOST EXCELLENT and simply worded renditions of The Truth, that defies their SS “Big Lie,” that I have as yet read. I’ll post it elswhere, it is a very efficient description.
Once again, please, Republicans, don’t talk to us about poverty, you just aren’t qualified.
Just ignore it, and maybe it will go away.
Long time
Nice distortion of what conservatives want for Social Security. We’d like to create something BETTER. But that would involve reducing coming generations dependence on Big Fuzzy Gubernmint so you on the Left, who worship at the alter of government dependence, get all twitchy at the thought.
JEB?
Bill, is that you?
Rage–
Hehehe, good one.
LTLFTPer– Right on. The CONs want the widow with two kids to beg on the street so they can feel superior and say “we don’t owe you a living” as they spit on them from the window of their limos.
Instead, thanks to FDR 70 years ago, she can subsist with some dignity and even pursue a career.
If we have trillions to kill people, we should be able to find some money to help people.
“Big Fuzzy Gubernmint…”
What do you call the Bush administration?
What do you call the Bush administration?Posted by: JEP | August 04, 2007 at 11:22 AM
Unflushable.
You know. The one that won’t go down the drain, no matter how many times you flush and flush and flush…
lhg–
Look in the mirror and tell yourself the following:
“I am an arrogant f***ing a**hole to presume that I can tell a person that I don’t even know that they are lazy or irresponsible.”
You’ll feel better if you admit the truth to yourself, a**hole.
Posted by: CapnAmerica | August 04, 2007 at 11:06 AM
Well it’s time to leave. The CapnAMerica poster has already turned to his revolting and insulting self.
I wish someone would monitor this blog and pull the immature posts. The above poster has no self-control and obviously has never been a true leader. Captain in his own imagination.
Have a good day liberals and conservatives.
I have a life to live and don’t have time to simply spout off like some posters herein.
Never got an answer back from the NG JEP on his “obligations” and don’t know if he bothered looking at the TSP website. I’ll bet you money your congressmen and women do – their money is in it.
Obviously SS is an important topic for some of the AMericans on this board. It was nice to hear there really isn’t real opposition to change – except fear.
LOL! JEP and Tom . . .
“Instead, thanks to FDR 70 years ago, she can subsist with some dignity and even pursue a career.”
“big fuzzy gubermint?”
How about hope in the goodness of mankind, through public compassion? (…remember, that compassionate conservative drivel, our trolls and naysayers make a mockery of the concept)
Certainly wouldn’t want to promote anything like that, now would we.
Make us all look weak to the rest of the world, if we eliminated poverty here in the richest nation in the history of mankind.
Tpo them, that lady is just another mooch, and maybe she could just “work the streets” to feed her kids, like a good victim should.
American Way–
No one has that self-pitying AND morally smug tone down as well as RepubliKhansas.
Did you know he’s GASP! a DISABLED vet.
Or so he says when he’s not threatening post-ers with bodily harm.
Anyway, you may not be him but you SOUND like him, so from now on, American Way, I’m walking on by you, dude.
If we have trillions to kill people, we should be able to find some money to help people.
Posted by: CapnAmerica | August 04, 2007 at 11:19 AM
Like you spend federal dollars paying for the murder of millions of babies? Abortion on demand. That’s like supporting the death penalty as a DA, but fighting against abortion. Two of the same.
Stock market talking head Jim Cramer melts down over stock downturn… Priceless
http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=452808336
“Since the affluent influence gov’t policy far more than anyone else — far more than the majority IMHO…”
I posted late last night that this ahard-to-dispute statement means the middle class and the poor are suffering taxation without representation…
And I am not joking.
All our pols, including the Dems, need to climb down from the cocktail-weenie party mentallity, and start producing results for ALL AMERICANS, not just those with the money to finance their campaigns.
PMS–
That’s what we keep seeing with the Bush market.
It goes up for a bit . . . but then it softens and drops back down.
Can’t keep it up. That’s Bush in a nutshell . . .
I’ve posted no attacks or name callings. The liberal Captain of the blog he has labeled me and doesn’t even know me. No cry of pity from me for me.
Real intelligence and maturity.
I pity the child.
People should understand that the stocks used to compute the Dow Jones Industrial Average are those of _successful_ companies. Companies that are losing money are removed from the DJIA. Anyone who relies on that number, or any of the other “weighted” averages, are being duped by the butcher with his thumb on the scale. DJIA is _not_ a true picture of the health of the economy.
Like you spend federal dollars paying for the murder of millions of babies? Abortion on demand. That’s like supporting the death penalty as a DA, but fighting against abortion. Two of the same.
Christian, don’t profane you “name” by resorting to that lousy talking point.
You can’t make this war right by comparing it to Iraq, and your use of that name offends me quite personally.
I am a Christian, and you dcertainly do not speak for me. While I would never advise someone to get an abortion, I would also never excuse this war’s terrible toll.
That is such sheer hypocrisy. Please, pick a different name, many of us are quite offended that you claim that name as if you own it.
Didn’t it seem at least a lITTLE bit arrogant when you picked that term?
“You can’t make this war right by comparing it to Iraq,”
I meant “abortion” not Iraq, but it is an interesting error…
downright Freudiavellian
I’m walking on by you, dude.
Posted by: CapnAmerica | August 04, 2007 at 11:29 AM
Promise? ::Clapping::
This just in from a place where guns are banned.
“People have started carrying guns personalised in different colours’
http://society.guardian.co.uk/youthjustice/story/0,,2140256,00.html
Borg Residens?? Lysell?? Beer?? I think I woke up in the middle of this movie… Former Borg resident here too!!
‘Where have we strayed from the capitalist ways.’
You know, I actually think the free-enterprise system would work, if the monopolists are forced to relinquish their fake capitalism.
Since when was the oil industry anything but monopolists? 1970?
Republicans, please don’t use the term capitalist or free enterprise to describe our current state of affairs, as long as you stomach no-bid contracts, book-cooking CEO’s and oil-company price fixing.
And anyone who doesn’t think they fix prices, as monopolists, when was the last time you could buy a gallon of gas at one place for half the price of the one down the street?
In EVERY free enterprise construct, there will ALWAYS be “50% off sales,” it is just part of free enterprise competition.
When was the last time you saw anything like that in terms of gas prices? Or even a 20% competition? At best it is a fewpennies different.
What other market can so easily maintain the same prices between competitors?
Biofuels are the best example, the free market was never open to them until very recently, in large part due to legislative inaction and occasionally, action.
Deny it all you want, you can’t change the truth.
THESE GUYS ARE NOT CAPITALISTS, THEY ARE MONOPOLISTS.
Sorry for shouting!
I just get fed up with these people claiming they are capitalists when they are really just no-bid book-cookers who use our state and federal taxes as a personal ATM.
Chas and Pendant, anytime you are around town, we’ll go have one of those warm beers and cold sandwiches…
Best sandwich in McPherson County, bar none…
And I hear the beer is only warm after midnight.
no bid book cookers… monopolists… corporate CEO Dollar Hounds… hmmmm sounds pretty darned Facist to me…. all “covered” with capitalistic style words….
JEP — Would that be at the old Swede Inn??? or somewhere new??
“Did you know he’s GASP! a DISABLED vet.”
So is my Dad, and he was wise enough to become a Democrat BECAUSE he is a disabled vet.
It was no small leap for him to change parties, his father, my grandfather, was on The Committee to Re-elect The President (Nixon’s “CREEP”).
I’ll never forget what happened when my grandmother heard the Nixon tapes.
After the third or fourth “BEEP” to cover up the “f” word, she just broke out into tears.
Afterwards, she was simnply devastated that these men she held in such high regard were nothing more than gutter-snipes.
Like I said, I’m not speaking from a lifetime of liberalism, I’ve “been there and done that”, in terms of Republican politics, and I’m very glad to be a Democrat because of it.
Swedish Crafts
“hmmmm sounds pretty darned Facist to me”
But don’t forget, Chas, we should NEVER compare them to Nazis, no matter how close thy were to Hitler…
That would be downright unamerican…
Swedish Pastries & Emporium101 N Main · Lindsborg, KS 67456
785-227-2680
OK JEP Got it!!
Been few years since I was a Borgian… But, memories still run deep!! Grad. ‘74
Swedish food – ugh – worse fare on the planet. Exception being some seafood dishes.
That would be the old “Svenske Conditori” ??? right??
Is this cronyism and political firings really the war we want our oversight agencies ran?Senate report faults SEC on hedge fund probe By Kevin Drawbaugh
49 minutes ago
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The Securities and Exchange Commission mishandled an investigation of suspicious hedge fund trading that led to the 2005 firing of an SEC attorney, a U.S. Senate report says.
ADVERTISEMENTThe report from the Senate Finance and Senate Judiciary committees, released late on Friday, ends a year-long inquiry into the dismissal of former SEC staffer Gary Aguirre.
Aguirre says he was forced out of the agency after a probe he was leading got too close to prominent Wall Street banker John Mack. His claims prompted three Senate hearings and drew heavy press coverage.
The final Senate report criticized SEC management of the investigation and expressed concerns about whether allegations of improper political influence had damaged the agency.
“The public airing of evidence in support of those allegations undoubtedly had an adverse impact on public confidence in the SEC,” the report said.
“However, the controversy is more than merely an issue of perception. Our investigation uncovered real failures that need real solutions,” the report said.
It recommended that the SEC, among other steps, standardize investigative procedures; make supervisors keep records on outside communications involving investigations; and improve the independence of its internal inquiry staff.
“We will follow up on the report and recommendations … with energy and urgency,” SEC Chairman Christopher Cox said.
“The agency’s commitment to prosecuting insider trading has never been stronger,” Cox said in a statement.
FOCUS ON PEQUOT CAPITAL
The lengthy report found numerous faults in the handling of the 2005 dismissal of Aguirre and the inquiry he headed into stock trades by hedge fund Pequot Capital.
Before he was fired from the SEC almost two years ago, Aguirre was leading an insider trading probe involving Pequot.
Aguirre has said his investigation led him to suspect that Mack, now chief executive of Morgan Stanley, tipped off Pequot while he was briefly involved with the hedge fund to the 2001 buyout of Heller Financial by General Electric Co..
Aguirre has charged that Pequot traded ahead of the deal and made an illegal $18 million insider-trading profit.
He has said publicly that he wanted to subpoena Mack, but was stopped by SEC supervisors because of Mack’s political clout. Afterward Aguirre was fired by the agency.
Morgan Stanley said late last year that the SEC had formally cleared Mack. Pequot said it, too, had been cleared. No charges have ever been filed in the matter.
The Senate report said, “Pequot’s trades in advance of the GE acquisition of Heller Financial were highly suspicious and deserved a thorough investigation.”
The report said that seeking Mack’s testimony “was a reasonable next step in the investigation.”
It said internal SEC e-mails backed Aguirre’s claims that his supervisors warned him it would be difficult to get approval to subpoena Mack due to the investment banker’s political clout.
It said, “The SEC fired Gary Aguirre after he reported his supervisor’s comments about Mack’s ‘political connections,’ despite positive performance reviews and a merit pay raise.”
Further, it concluded, “The SEC’s Office of Inspector General failed to conduct a serious, credible investigation of Aguirre’s claims.”
That would be downright unamerican…
Posted by: JEP | August 04, 2007 at 12:17 PM
==================
About as unamerican as when Rumsfeld tried it on those who disagree with BushCo“
Guess I’m dating myself, but does anyone else remember ‘gas price wars’?
I can remember 17-18 cents/gal…
Ahhh, I still see Capn still blaming trolls on me.
What a delusional, paranoid person.
Not terribly surprising that some on this blog might find swedish food unappetzing…. Ahem…. Walkin now… walkin on by!!!
Republican,
You must be very, very popular.
You are blamed for all of us.
Indeed T. Control.
With that said, there is no limitation on the size and span of the Socialist Libs and their conspiracy theories, especially regarding who trolls and who doesn’t.
Republican these libs crack me up:
“I suppose you just consider “DEMOCRATS” per se, a team of trolls?
That egocentric perspective is exactly why you conservative never understand.”
Posted by: JEP | August 04, 2007 at 11:02 AM
Ohh I LIKE this quote….
“A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion.” – Aristotle
Early start on the great debate this morning…
I see some good stats and links posted detailing the Social Secuirty problem, and also see those who refuse to believe the facts – following the Democratic Socialist party line “Social Security is Secure!”
Which generation of Americans will be the one to take the hit, and start solving the Social Security problem?
Not the oldest generation – they got theirs and they are taking any cuts. (Even if they are wealthy enough to affected by a Means Test, they still couldn’t care less what their own children and grandchildren have to face.)
The Baby Boomers, at least the Younger Boomers, will be the generation to face the problem (because they will have no choice), and we will solve the problem too.
I’ll do everything I can not to leave this problem for my 3 children and grandchildren (when they come along).
It would be very selfish to be in a position to take care of yourself (like many Seniors and Baby Boomers are) and leave this problem for the younger generations.
Socialist show their true colors when it comes to protecting their own back pocket.
The idea of spreading the solution across all generations is the best solution, but it ain’t gonna happen.
Hemslojd?
Attention all trolls! Attention all trolls!
All republican trolls on this blog are hereby reassigned. There is no real threat to freedom remaining. Strong conservative strength is present. Only lazy and tired unemployed, disabled, living off the government liberals present at this time.Please report to the following blog and provide backup to Troll2332467
http://www.democraticunderground.com
Troll Control will continue to monitor the blogs for future activity.
Troll Control out.
I was wondering what the hell could have possibly generated over 200 posts by noon- aside from Phelps, Kline, or any of the other haters. And lookie, it’s the troll AGAIN. I’m walking but damn it’s old.
Report, LIB Mother now awake. Surprised by conservatives who are able to wake up before noon!
Expect more LIBS to arise shortly, after the hangovers wear off.
And lookie, it’s the troll AGAIN. I’m walking but damn it’s old.
Posted by: political_mom | August 04, 2007 at 12:45 PM
Come on Mommy! There are some real posts out here with real opinions. Just because you do not AGREE with the conservative opinions, and do not feel confident to debate the facts, doesn’t mean you have label everyone a (ewwww scarey) “troll”.
Face it. You are afraid to debate unless the blog is utterly dominated by liberals.
So sad.
There is real debate on here? Where, god please let me at it! I scanned the last 20 posts and saw nothing of substance.
Unless of course it was that hangover and I just missed it.
Or it could be that I was out taking care of my grandparents.
Political_mom = biggest troller on the board
Just keep walkin P-Mom… another Blog day ruined!!!
Chas can you email me?o_serenity_now@yahoo.com
Awww Chas, your Blog Day is ruined.
That’s too bad.
You’ll have to find something else to do.
Like get a job!
Oh great Mom! I’ll email you too!
Dear Mom,
You won’t beleive what happened to me today…..
Lets see, something cool to talk about. Ok, how about Newt Gingrich suddenly sounding like a democrat?
Now that’s some scary crap. I might believe him if he had said this stuff like….years ago and actually rallied people to start speaking out against Bush back when it mattered.
Gee, you asked for a real discussion, but then turn around and run? What gives?
At least 10 years ago, I read a good Social Security solution proposal from the CATO Institute.
A link to their proposal from 2004 is below:
http://www.socialsecurity.org/pubs/ssps/ssp-32es.html
Here’s a summary of the current Presidential candidates and where they stand on the Social Security issue:
http://www.socialsecurity.org/
Well Max, I really can’t debate much on Social Security as I really don’t know much about the whole thing. But I do believe that birthing a whole bunch of babies is the WRONG way to go…as some have suggested. We need less population not more.
‘Twelve Reasons Why Privatizing Social Security is a Bad Idea’http://www.socsec.org/publications.asp?pubid=503
Public Support for Private Social Security Accounts:
New Poll Shows Support for “Stop the Raid” ProposalsIn an op-ed in Tuesday’s Washington Times, Gary Andres from Dutko Research argues Capitol Hill Democrats’ “do nothing” approach to Social Security will soon become a political liability as the debate moves toward the actual drafting of legislation.
Interestingly, Andres’s research also indicates significant public support for proposals to stop the raid on the trust fund by using it to finance personal accounts:
“Finally, we tested voter reaction to recent discussion about using the Social Security surplus to create personal accounts and found voters supportive (59 percent to 37 percent). Not surprisingly, Republicans are most favorable toward the proposal (76 percent). But a strong majority of independents (62 percent) support this approach, as do 40 percent of self-identified Democrats.”
http://www.socialsecurity.org/congressional/
I know Cosmos, I’ve seen your 12 Democratic Socialist talking points before.
These talking points totally ignore the report by the Social Security Trustees.
Nice try though.
REASON #2: Creating private accounts would make Social Security’s financing problem worse, not better.http://www.socsec.org/publications.asp?pubid=503#2
also there’d be very large administrative costs,
REASON #8: Private accounts would require a new government bureaucracy.
Well P Mom, if the Social Security fiscal crisis is NOT addressed soon, you may very well get your wish for less people.
Max,
Okay, refute EACH of the 12 points, instead of just calling them “Democratic Socialist talking points”.
http://www.socsec.org/publications.asp?pubid=503#2
Reason #1: Today’s insurance to protect workers and their families against death and disability would be threatened.
Reason #2: Creating private accounts would make Social Security’s financing problem worse, not better.
Reason #3: Creating private accounts could dampen economic growth, which would further weaken Social Security’s future finances.
Reason #4: Privatization has been a disappointment elsewhere.
Reason #5: The odds are against individuals investing successfully.
Reason #6: What you get will depend on whether you retire when the market is up or down.
Reason #7: Wall Street would reap windfalls from your taxes.
Reason #8: Private accounts would require a new government bureaucracy.
Reason #9: Young people would be worse off.
Reason # 10: Women stand to lose the most.
Reason #11: African Americans and Latin Americans also would become more vulnerable under privatization.
Reason #12: Retirees will not be protected against inflation.
#2 Creating Private accounts will allow the younger generation to retire before they die. Put a price on that if you want.
#8 Most of the process will be automated. Just like millions of Americans interact with their 401k plan today, with very little human intervention.
“#2 Creating Private accounts will allow the younger generation to retire before they die.”
See,REASON #6: What you get will depend on whether you retire when the market is up or down.
“#8 Most of the process will be automated.”
REASON #8: Private accounts would require a new government bureaucracy.”Many workers’ accounts would be so small that they would be of no interest to profit-making firms. “
Whatsa matter Cosmos, thought you had no time to list your desired income tax rates by bracket.
Ok, here ya go, I’m showing you mine, now show me your tax rates:
#1 & #2 (And see #2 above)Public SS would continue as it does now. Private SS accounts only divert a small part of the tax revenue. SS tax rates will be going up, but not as much as they would without private accounts. Remember-the youngsters won’t be receiving much if any Public SS retirement money.
#3 Dampening growth by adding more $$$ into the capital markets? Exactly the opposite would be the case.
#4 Since when does America look elsewhere for a model? No country is like the USA.
#5 The assumption the Democrats make is that people are too stupid to invest their own money. Yet the Government has failed to protect the SS surplus from being completely exhausted. Could private citizens do worse? Moral question, who should decide what to do with a persons own money? US Savings bonds should be one option, for those who are risk averse and/or too stupid to choose another investment options.
#6 True, markets fluctuate, but in the long term provide a solid +10% return on investments. What you get with Social Security depends on whether you reach age 62, 65, 66, or 67 or not, and then how long you live after that. With some Private SS, at least the widows/widowers get something to live on. Future Survivorship benefits of SS are as iffy as any of the future SS benefits.
#7 Investors (ie taxpayers paying into private stock/bond funds would reap the profits. And you can’t have it both ways. Either stocks/bonds are risky investments or they are profits for the rich.
#8 See above.
#9 Young people will get their private SS investments. That’s better then the little or nothing they will get from SS in 30-40 years.
#10 Totally unfounded. A reach may be that since men die sooner, men are more likely not to see any SS benefits at all. Since women live longer, they are more likely to get SS benefits. And actually the women are better off because their retirement age is the same as men’s even though they live longer.
#11 African Americans and Latinos die earlier than Whites, on average. This group is more likely not to reach SS retirement age, so Private accounts would benefit them very much.
#12 And they are now? Rates of return in stocks/bonds is much better than the negative returns of SS.
Max addresses none of the very fine points that JEP makes: if we don’t have price fixing on gas, why doesn’t it ever go on sale?
And if an essential commodity like gasoline is essentially a monopoly, then how can we claim to live in a free enterprise economy?
The one thing you notice about the right-wing that keeps “sounding the alarm” about the Social Security “collapse”?
It’s always just past the horizon of prediction: it will go bankrupt in 2040.
I’ll be almost twice my age in 2040. Nobody can predict that far out.
You also see how the socialist-haters mix and match their programs to paint the worst case. Rolling Medicare in with Social Security is an easy way to do that.
Medicare is a mess right now and has been since its inception. The doctor and drug lobby won’t let Medicare control costs so of course its spiralling out of control.
It’s like buying a car and letting the salesmen set the price, no dealing allowed.
“Sorry XXX, I don’t watch the Simpsons.”
Neither do I, but I am culturally aware and you’d have to live in a cave not to be exposed to the Simpsons. T-shirts anyone?
lhg,”It’s not all about you XXX, or me. The government doesn’t have the money. Lump sum! Don’t make me laugh!”
But upthread you said:”And you made my point, if the government were to give all my money back and forgoe my retirement, I’d take that deal.”
You’re kind of all over the place on this issue, aren’t you? What, you want payments? Isn’t that kind of like Social Security? Or maybe you think I shouldn’t get my money back. Kind of like screw the old for the sake of the young?
I never mentioned gasoline Capn.
If the price was fixed on gas, why doesn’t the price always stay the same or constantly rise?
Gas prices change up/down almost daily.
Oil prices changes continously througout the day. Just a disguise for the control I guess.
Every industrialized country in the world has the equivalent of Social Security.
Their populations are growing even more slowly than ours.
So why haven’t their systems failed and destroyed their economies?
Why? Because it’s not the huge program that the social security haters claim.
Let’s say you make 50K a year. You pay in 3,300 a year and your employer pays in 3,300 a year. That’s 6,600. There’s three people working for every retiree.
That’s 19-20 K generated for every retiree, which is just about the average yearly pay out for Social Security.
Not a problem . . .
Max–
That does not explain why Chevron’s prices are the same as BP’s which are the same as Texaco’s which are the same as QuikTrip’s etc. etc.
You didn’t begin to answer the question.
Ok, Capn says so. Those dang Social Security Trustees must be wrong.
It’s called competition Capn.
On a commodity like gas where there is no brand difference and brand loyalty, the cheapest station gets the business.
When one changes, they all change.
No other country on the planet has the responsibility for maintaining a strong National Defense. Why? Because we agreed to defend our NATO allies and other allies.
Bad decision? Maybe. But, reality is we must pay more than our share for defense as compared to other countries.
Imagine what we could do economically with a Defense Budget cut in 1/3.
But we don’t have a big brother to protect us either.
So, it’s very difficult to get to an apples to apples comparison with other countries.
First of all I do not buy into the “Social Security in trouble” stuff. I think the program is fine. And if it isn’t they need to raise- in fact eliminate- the earnings cap.
That’s 19-20 K generated for every retiree, which is just about the average yearly pay out for Social Security.
Not a problem . . .
Posted by: CapnAmerica | August 04, 2007 at 01:59 PM
Captain Crunch,
So where is the 19-20K today genious? Is it in bonds, is it in a vault in Fort Knox?
Nope. There is NO Trust Fund. They spend every dime.
P-Mom…. you got mail!!
“No other country on the planet has the responsibility for maintaining a strong National Defense. Why? Because we agreed to defend our NATO allies and other allies.”
That was in the era of the USSR. The USSR doesn’t exist anymore and the Europeans are quite well able to fend for themselves.
First of all I do not buy into the “Social Security in trouble” stuff. I think the program is fine. And if it isn’t they need to raise- in fact eliminate- the earnings cap.
Posted by: Kev | August 04, 2007 at 02:14 PM
You ignore the warnings from the Social Security Administration itself, and it’s director?
That director was appointed by George “fight em over there” Bush??? That would be one clue…
That director was appointed by George “fight em over there” Bush??? That would be one clue…
Posted by: Chas. | August 04, 2007 at 02:17 PM
I’ll give you that. But by your own standards you should be blaming Bushy and lamenting about the failure of SS.
I opted out of SS in l978… I didnt believe it would be there for me then, and I dont really see that anything has changed for the better in 29 years…
“You ignore the warnings from the Social Security Administration itself, and it’s director?”
He just parrots what Bush, Cheney and Hannity tell him to say. The FACT is that, yes, SS would be strained (but not broke) if every baby boomer walked off the job at age 65 and went to play horseshoes. That is because you would have millions of people drawing OUT and not paying IN. But what some folks fail to see is the FACT that this is not “your dad’s economy”. Back in the Industrial Age of the 50s, 60s and 70s, men went and toiled on factory floors at jobs they hated. They counted down the days until they hit that magic age of 65 and walked out the gates of the factory never to look back. The baby boom however is a different animal. Large numbers of these people are white collar professional people that LOVE their jobs. They live to get up and go to work everyday because they love what they are doing. They have no plans to retire at age 65. Most of them will work well into their 70s and many will probably be on the job until they die. That means that most of them will be paying into the SS system for a very long time and considering the way the US economy is booming, billions more will be comiong into SS as millions more new jobs are created and filled. So alot of the scare senarios you hear are just that- scare tatics to try and get you to go along the the Republicans destroying the last bits of the New Deal which they have always hated.
I have heard from “the experts”. The experts often don’t know what the hell they are talking about when the predict things but here goes a sampling: “the US economy may slow down and even tip into recession in 2008 because of the large amount of debt and the home mortgage problems”. Personally I think these folks are the same ones that predicted a “very active hurricane season” last year and then again this year (not a single one and the season’s half over). I don’t really think the US economy is anywhere near a recession BUT if it is, that might not be a bad thing either because it would be the final nail in the coffin of the Republican Party in 2008 and a recession might well be worth getting rid of them. In fact it would be worth it to me.
“But what some folks fail to see is the FACT that this is not “your dad’s economy”. Back in the Industrial Age of the 50s, 60s and 70s, men went and toiled on factory floors at jobs they hated. They counted down the days until they hit that magic age of 65 and walked out the gates of the factory never to look back. The baby boom however is a different animal. Large numbers of these people are white collar professional people that LOVE their jobs. They live to get up and go to work everyday because they love what they are doing. They have no plans to retire at age 65. Most of them will work well into their 70s and many will probably be on the job until they die. Kev”
Kev how can you speak for everyone? There are many, many Americans who still work manual labor and outdoors in the weather. Telephone Line repairmen for example. Do you really think they want to be climbing poles at 70?
But that’s besides you indicating that the rich white collars should be given preference over the poor day laborers.
I don’t believe you said that.
I wonder if El Rushbo will change his tune on storm ferocity, if a hurricane hits Eastern Florida, and wipes out his “southern command” of his precious EIB network…. which if you fill in the E, you have the BIB network… much more fitting for all the drooling he does LOL
“I have heard from “the experts”. The experts often don’t know what the hell they are talking about “Kev
I AGREE with you!!! I also don’t give a rats -ss about the republican party. They no longer represent me (but neither does the democrats). I DO care about MY pocketbook. I would think we would have that in common. At least I should have that in common with 77 million American babyboomers nearing SS.
I am being selfish, color me so.
And BECAUSE the “experts” always get it wrong, I want to ensure someone is being PRO active on protecting what I consider “mine”. At least so I can start computing my retirement date and portfolio.
But YOU should have the same interest. The same questions. The same desire to MAKE SURE SS is protected for YOU and YOUR children.
I shouldn’t claim for anyone to have the “same” opinions, but I’d think everyone has an interest in their own future financials.
Geez-o-weezo: At least ask your candidates where THEY stand on the issue before the election.
Here is what young American students are saying and voicing their concerns. We should ALL listen to our young people. They will be voting and I hope your candidates listen to them:
“A program is considered solvent when it is financially able to meet its obligations. Social Security was designed to be an investment in our future and a safety net during retirement. In not too many years, the program will not be solvent because the trust fund will not have enough money to pay out its promised rate of return on invested tax dollars.
Current reform options of tax increases or benefit cuts do not actually make the system solvent, but rather change the promises of Social Security. These solutions are a matter of semantics—the system is only more solvent under these changes because the system is fundamentally different and provides no rate of return.
Very often, people who strive for solvency forget that we as contributors deserve a good rate of return. And if we get only 75% of benefits, it doesn’t matter whether the system is considered solvent or insolvent–we’ll be getting the same low (or negative) rate of return.
It is clear that the system does need to be fundamentally changed, but in order to maintain solvency, the system must keep its original promise to provide a positive rate of return on worker’s tax money. Raising taxes or decreasing benefits are not desirable solutions to reform Social Security because they are not actual solutions, they just change what the program does.
Personal retirement accounts allow our tax dollars to be invested in our own future and, in the end, allow us to see a positive rate of return on our tax dollars.” Liz Morgan
http://www.secureourfuture.org/
Hmm, now the companies to which U.S. jobs were “outsourced” are “insourcing” the same?
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/08/06/100141303/index.htm?cnn=yes
Interesting happening Vaughn!!
P-Mom — You got mail!!
A N Kenny seems to think the rest of the country should keep paying her on her dead husband’s social security because she does not want to dip into her investments. Well, boohoo lady.
Didn’t you say when you worked you worked for cash but your husband was paid and this is where your current social security check comes from – his money?
When you worked for cash – did you realize that you were not paying your fair share into the Social Security System? And if you’re husband retired in 1979 – that would make you pretty up there in years currently.
It is people like you that are draining the Social Security System. You stated that you gifted the maximum of your withdrawals to your children but so what? Do you honestly believe anyone is going to feel sorry for you when you are getting a SS check from your dead husband’s contributions and you are sitting on investments that you ‘don’t want to dip into’.
I’m sorry lady – you are barking up the wrong tree if you are looking for sympathy here.
EMPOWERING WORKERS: THE PRIVATIZATION OF SOCIAL SECURITY IN CHILE
José Piñera
A specter is haunting the world. It is the specter of bankrupt state-run pension systems. The pay-as-you-go pension system that has reigned supreme through most of this century has a fundamental flaw, one rooted in a false conception of how human beings behave: it destroys, at the individual level, the essential link between effort and reward–in other words, between personal responsibilities and personal rights. Whenever that happens on a massive scale and for a long period of time, the result is disaster.
Two exogenous factors aggravate the results of that flaw: (1) the global demographic trend toward decreasing fertility rates; and, (2) medical advances that are lengthening life. As a result, fewer and fewer workers are supporting more and more retirees. Since the raising of both the retirement age and payroll taxes has an upper limit, sooner or later the system has to reduce the promised benefits, a telltale sign of a bankrupt system.
Whether this reduction of benefits is done through inflation, as in most developing countries, or through legislation, the final result for the retired worker is the same: anguish in old age created, paradoxically, by the inherent insecurity of the “social security” system.
In 1980, the government of Chile decided to take the bull by the horns. A government-run pension system was replaced with a revolutionary innovation: a privately administered, national system of Pension Savings Accounts.
After 15 years of operation, the results speak for themselves. Pensions in the new private system already are 50 to 100 percent higher–depending on whether they are old-age, disability, or survivor pensions–than they were in the pay-as-you-go system. The resources administered by the private pension funds amount to $25 billion, or around 40 percent of GNP as of 1995. By improving the functioning of both the capital and the labor markets, pension privatization has been one of the key reforms that has pushed the growth rate of the economy upwards from the historical 3 percent a year to 6.5 percent on average during the last 12 years. It is also a fact that the Chilean savings rate has increased to 27 percent of GNP and the unemployment rate has decreased to 5.0 percent since the reform was undertaken.
More important, still, pensions have ceased to be a government issue, thus depoliticizing a huge sector of the economy and giving individuals more control over their own lives. The structural flaw has been eliminated and the future of pensions depends on individual behavior and market developments.
The success of the Chilean private pension system has led three other South American countries to follow suit. In recent years, Argentina (1994), Peru (1993), and Colombia (1994) undertook a similar reform. In the four South American countries, around 11 million workers have a personal retirement account.
The Chilean experience can be instructive to countries around the world. Even the United States is beginning to seriously debate privatizing its 60-year-old pension scheme. It should be noted that the U.S. Social Security system is the largest single government program in the world, spending more than $350 billion per year (more than the U.S. defense budget during the Cold War).
José Piñera is President of the International Center for Pension Reform
Read his entire statement below:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj15n2-3-1.html
Those that would lose, or otherwise not have enough investment to fund retirement would then be dependent on the gov.
Gee whiz, CR, you’re just a little late with that post… geez, another troll talking to itself again…. just what we need…. ROFL
Max — If you were half as smart as you think you are, WSU could save a whole bunch of money and just hire you as faculty!! You always know everything about anything!!!
Let those who know what they are doing fix/not fix Soc. Sec.
It wasnt designed to be used as a living wage anyway!!
Hotdog,
I don’t think many people really want to get all worked up on the Social Security issue. Just look at the predominanty liberal posters on this board. Effort might be better spent trying to get get a camel to go through an eye of a needle.
However, it hasnt been all that long since $255 would adequately cover funeral costs…
Those that would lose, or otherwise not have enough investment to fund retirement would then be dependent on the gov.
Posted by: The Phantom | August 04, 2007 at 03:26 PM
That’s exactly what the present system allows for. I just hope the young Americans can afford the taxes to support it.
don’t think many people really want to get all worked up on the Social Security issue.
Posted by: American Way
The fact that they won’t even open their eyes to the problem is the really difficult part for me to understand. I’m willing to admit my elected politicans are not performing as I hoped they would, the old republican party, and faults. I don’t see one democrat breaking from the party line mold to look for improvements.
“Max — If you were half as smart as you think you are”, Chas
Chas is you were half as smart as you think YOU are, you might get hired with that application at Dillions as a bag boy. HE-HE!!
HELLO??? Social Security was put in place to insure that everybody got something… NOT that everybody had a living wage… The idea of savings, and investments didnt stop with the design and implementation of the Soc. Sec. Act —
Many have done well in personal savings and investments… Many havent… If you privatize Social Security, and tell people to go invest that amount on their own, a handful will do it… Many wont… Others wont know how…. Result??? Young folks now could end up with NOTHING if they dont have 401K’s or Pension Funds…
Now, Max, if that makes me one of your friggin Socialist boogey men, then SO BE IT!!!
If thats what it means to be a socialist, to insure that everybody gets SOMEthing…. then Hallelujah!!! Call me a Socialist!!!
Sorry, I have a job… dont need Dillons… except for bread milk and groceries ROFLMAO!!!
For what it’s worth, here is what the candidates have at one time stated about Social Security. Hope some of you will put your candidate on the spot and ask them to state their position and what they WILL do, if current projections for 2017 do come to pass:
WHERE THE CANDIDATES STANDWhile the presidential campaign has been dominated by Iraq, any candidate for president will eventually have to discuss their proposals for Social Security reform. Most candidates have not yet taken a detailed stance, but they have given hints about their position.
The RepublicansRudy GiulianiAlthough he has not endorsed any specific legislation or offered a detailed proposal, Giuliani has voiced support for personal accounts and contends that “people should have some choice” in the way the system is handled.
John McCainCalling Social Security an area subject to “political posturing” in his formal announcement speech, McCain has backed away from his previously strong position in favor of personal accounts. During his bid for the 2000 Republican nomination, the Senator advocated personal accounts, and he campaigned hard for Bush?s proposal in 2005. In 1999 he voted in favor of an amendment that would have allowed the Senate to consider using the budget surplus to establish personal accounts. McCain has said he will consider all options for ensuring the solvency of the system, including benefits cuts and tax hikes so long as they are part of a “compromise”.
Mitt RomneyRomney has not offered a proposal for Social security reform beyond calling for leaders from both parties to come together “having a full and complete discussion of various ways to bring the costs down.” One of his top economic advisors, Robert Posen helped craft Bush?s 2005 plan to reform the system through personal accounts. However, Posen also has supported tax hikes as part of a compromise.
Sam BrownbackBrownback is an avid supporter of personal accounts and in 2004 cosponsored the Sununu-Ryan plan that would have introduced system reform by allowing investment in personal accounts and would have placed limitations on the federal budget. Brownback opposes either benefit cuts or tax increases as part of a reform package. The Senator has made William Shipman his advisor on Social Security.
Mike HuckabeeA proponent of a national sales tax and the elimination of all federal and payroll taxes, Huckabee is also in favor of personal accounts and was a defender of Bush?s 2005 plan for partial privatization of the system.
Tom TancredoTancredo favors personal accounts and claimed to back Bush?s 2005 plan “100%.”
Ron PaulPaul contends that Congress must stop spending in order to best fix the problem of insolvency. Paul opposes personal accounts because he believes Social Security is unconstitutional. Instead, he believes that individuals should have total control over how to invest their money and is in favor of cutting payroll taxes to allow this to happen.
Tommy ThompsonTommy Thompson favors personal accounts, and supported Bush?s 2005 plan for reform.
The DemocratsJohn EdwardsEdwards does not support the creation of personal accounts, and has called Bush?s failed reform plan “a disaster.” He supports raising or eliminating the cap on wages subject to the payroll tax to cover the projected shortfall but rejects increasing the age of retirement. Rather than personal accounts, Edwards believes the government should “help people save,” by offering matching savings accounts outside Social Security.
Hillary ClintonUnlike her husband who as president sought to call attention to social security?s problems, Hillary Clinton has claimed that the most recent Social Security Trustees Report shows that the system is “affordable and sustainable.” She rejects the idea of personal accounts, claiming that the transition would be too costly. Instead, Clinton wants to promote other investment avenues for citizens outside Social Security.
Barack ObamaCalling Social Security both an insurance and retirement program, Obama opposes personal accounts. Denying that the system is bankrupt, he does not rule out raising the retirement age, cutting benefits or raising payroll taxes to maintain the system. Obama has proposed “Working Families Savings Accounts” on top of Social Security which would allow people earning up to $50,000 annually to invest in a retirement plan. Despite his announced position, it is interesting that one of Obama?s top economic advisers, Jeff Liebman, has supported personal accounts in the past, even coauthoring a plan for small personal accounts with McCain advisor Maya MacGuineas.
Bill RichardsonRichardson calls Social Security an insurance program and is not in favor of personal accounts. He has not offered a proposal to restore the system to solvency. He has called for “universal pensions,” similar to 401(k) programs, outside the Social Security system.
Dennis KucinichNot only does Kucinich opposes personal accounts, he denies that the system needs any reform at all. In fact, Kucinich actually calls for increasing Social security benefits, notably canceling scheduled increases in the retirement age.
Joe BidenBiden claims that personal accounts would only “exacerbate” the problem. He has, however, voiced support for personal accounts in addition to social security. He has not offered a proposal for restoring the system to solvency.
Chris DoddDodd is opposed to personal accounts. He has voiced support for raising the cap on income subject to the Social Security payroll tax. Dodd did not support the Social Security Lockbox, and voted no in 1999 to limit debate on the amendment that would have created the lockbox. He supports investment accounts outside of the Social Security system.
Mike GravelGravel advocates investing privately and supports allowing beneficiaries to leave any remaining surplus benefits in individual accounts to heirs after their death.
http://www.socialsecurity.org/
And hey, KAHN my job situation is really NONE of your business!!! Absolutely NONE…. So go crawl back in your hole with all of your talking trolls!!! AND LET THE BLOG BE THE BLOG!!!
Hey, I got an idea… Why dont you ask WE if they will set you up with a TROLL Blog where nobody will bother you all day??? Now THATS an idea!!
Who Actually Earns the Market’s Returns?
In sum, it seems difficult to escape the conclusion that we are looking ahead to a decade of lower returns in the financial markets, albeit a decade in which equities have the potential to provide a significant return premium over bonds. But please remember this: the returns I have projected are not of the real world. They are the theoretical returns delivered by the stock and bond markets, before the deduction of investment costs. That raises this crucial question: Just who is it that earns the returns generated in our financial markets?
Answer: Very few investors. So whatever returns the financial markets are generous enough to deliver, please don’t make the mistake of thinking you will actually earn those returns. Of course all investors as a group must necessarily earn precisely the market return. But they do so only before the costs of investing are deducted. After these costs are taken into account—all of the advisory fees, the transaction costs, the consultants’ costs, the operating costs, and the hidden costs of financial intermediation—the returns of investors must—and will—fall short of the market return by an amount precisely equal to the aggregate amount of those costs.
Beating the market before costs is a zero-sum game; beating the market after costs is a loser’s game. The great paradox of investing is that the very costs incurred by those managers who would help investors to beat the market, themselves constitute the reason that the managers as a group are destined to fail at the task.
Do costs matter? You bet they do! And they matter most of all in diversified investment portfolios. Why? Because while much of the value of most consumer goods is measured by intangibles such as taste and tone and prestige and image, both the returns and the costs of an investment account are measured entirely by that most measurable of all assets, dollars. For investors, costs matter most when they are (1) easily calculable, (2) directly related to returns, and (3) compounded over time. So pension funds, endowment funds, and foundations—all institutions all with notably long-term—in a sense, perpetual—investment horizons can hardly fail to consider the role of costs. For just as the magic of compounding returns over, say, a quarter-century, carries investment values to almost unimaginable heights, so the tyranny of compounding costs results in an almost equally unimaginable deterioration in these returns.
The Powerful Impact of Costs
Consider the impact of the costs entailed in the management of pension and endowment funds. On average, advisory fees, custody fees, and expenses, probably come to abut 0.7% per year of investment assets. When we add in portfolio transaction costs and opportunity cost (institutional accounts often maintain a modest cash position), the total cost for an average-sized institution are probably about 1.5% per year. (For larger institutions, 1% might be a more reliable figure. For mutual funds, all-in costs average a stunning 2½% to 3%.)
It must be obvious that in an era of lower returns, costs will play a particularly confiscatory role. If future stock returns are kind enough to average 7½% and future bond returns come in at 4½%, a 60/40 portfolio would produce a 6.3% annual return before costs, and the appreciation on an initial $10,000,000 portfolio over the subsequent 25 years would come to $36,000,000. In an era of subdued returns, not too shabby! But after costs of 1.5%, the return would be just 4.8% and the appreciation just $22,000,000—a shortfall of $14 million, nearly 40% less. (For an endowment or foundation making annual distributions of 5% of principal, of course, the nominal value of the portfolio would actually decline, and the real value likely seemingly impaired.)
So my message is simple: As you do your financial planning, (1) plan for an era of lower returns in the financial markets; (2) focus on minimizing the frictional costs of investing—all of them, but especially investment counsel fees and portfolio turnover costs. And (3) heed the logic of passive, index-oriented investing—not only in stocks but in bonds as well. Don’t take my word for it: Listen to Warren Buffett’s wise (and outspoken!) partner Charles Munger, who several years ago told a conference of endowment fund managers:
“For the obvious reasons . . . I think indexing is a wiser choice for the average foundation than what it is now doing in equity investment . . . particularly so if its present total croupier costs exceed 1% of principal per annum.”
I could go for allowing survivors to continue receiving Soc. Benefits after death… like a life insurance annuity would do… That sounds like a good plan…
HELLO??? Social Security was put in place to insure that everybody got something… NOT that everybody had a living wage… Chas
I don’t think anyone here is disputing the above. Maybe Max did somewhere, but I didn’t. The concern is a LOSS of the basic benefit, or reduction due to the projected financial position.
If you privatize Social Security, and tell people to go invest that amount on their own, a handful will do it… Many wont… Others wont know how…. Chas
You haven’t been following. If you elect privatized accounts, you would have your FICA withholding (7.% of wages), your employers portion (7.% of wages), or some combination of both into a private fund. If you own any mutual funds, 401*, or belong to an ESOP, you understand that once your dollars are withheld, then you select which funds, shares, etc. to invest in. You can’t just NOT invest in something. It’s mandatory once elected.
Result??? Young folks now could end up with NOTHING if they dont have 401K’s or Pension Funds…
Again, young employees I know are learning and more interested in investing particularly since the new law went into effect to direct some of their wages into the plan. They WANT to learn. Maybe you would be surprised how many young workers are involved with their 401K’s at a far earlier age than I would have been (had they had them available back in the day). They will learn and can make wise choices.
Maybe you are a socialist. Or maybe just in denial. But you should look into the problem because it is not going to go away.
Finally a comment from a magazine respected by liberals the world over:
By Robert J. SamuelsonNewsweekAug. 6, 2007 issue – If you haven’t noticed, the major presidential candidates—Republican and Democratic—are dodging one of the thorniest problems they’d face if elected: the huge budget costs of aging baby boomers. In last week’s CNN/YouTube debate, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson cleverly deflected the issue. “The best solution,” he said, “is a bipartisan effort to fix it.” Brilliant. There’s already a bipartisan consensus: do nothing. No one plugs cutting retirement benefits or raising taxes, the obvious choices.
End of story? Not exactly. There’s also a less-noticed cause for the neglect. Washington’s vaunted think tanks—citadels for public intellectuals both liberal and conservative—have tiptoed around the problem. Ideally, think tanks expand the public conversation by saying things too controversial for politicians to say on their own. Here, they’ve abdicated that role.
The aging of America is not just a population change or, as a budget problem, an accounting exercise. It involves a profound transformation of the nature of government: commitments to the older population are slowly overwhelming other public goals; the national government is becoming mainly an income-transfer mechanism from younger workers to older retirees.
Consider the outlook. From 2005 to 2030, the 65-and-over population will nearly double to 71 million; its share of the population will rise to 20 percent from 12 percent. Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid—programs that serve older people—already exceed 40 percent of the $2.7 trillion federal budget. By 2030, their share could hit 75 percent of the present budget, projects the Congressional Budget Office. The result: a political impasse.
The 2030 projections are daunting. To keep federal spending stable as a share of the economy would mean eliminating all defense spending and most other domestic programs (for research, homeland security, the environment, etc.). To balance the budget with existing programs at their present economic shares would require, depending on assumptions, tax increases of 30 percent to 50 percent—or budget deficits could quadruple. A final possibility: cut retirement benefits by increasing eligibility ages, being less generous to wealthier retirees or trimming all payments.
“I do care about my kids and grandkids though.” What about OUR kids and grandkids, or are yours the only ones that matter…
Hotdog1,
Your Chile column uses 1995 and earlier data. Try a more recent, Dec. 2004 analysis.
‘REASON #4: Privatization has been a disappointment elsewhere.’http://www.socsec.org/publications.asp?pubid=503#4
“Other cautionary points made in the World Bank report and other studies about the experience in Chile:
* Investment accounts of retirees are much smaller than originally predicted – so low that 41 percent of those eligible to collect pensions continue to work.
* Voracious commissions and other administrative costs have swallowed up large shares of those accounts. …”
More at link, plus problems with U.K’s system.
Cosmos thanks for updated information. Do you have anything more recent from the Congressional Budget Office? This would be a great article if updated. Details/comparisons of many nations systems – and caution not to directly try to compare apples to oranges.
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdoc.cfm?index=1065&type=0&sequence=1
Apples and Oranges get compared on the Blog every day as it is LOL
Chas,
Went to your link. It’s not a government site with official information. Looks to be a democrat run think tank.
Thanks anyway.
Oops. Cosmos, not Chas. sorry. Trying to read and type at the same time and I know better.
Hotdog, that link from Cosmos is no democratic think tank… that is the real CBO.gov web site…
Uh Chas, I don’t think so:
About The Social Security Network
First launched in 1997, the Social Security Network has served as an important resource for information and research on the Social Security program and the debate about its future. Featuring research conducted by The Century Foundation on Social Security as well as broader issues of retirement security, the site strives to present the best facts and analysis available to academics, policymakers, journalists, and the public.
About The Century Foundation
The Century Foundation conducts public policy research and analyses of economic, social, and foreign policy issues, including inequality, retirement security, election reform, media studies, homeland security, and international affairs. The foundation produces books, reports, and other publications, convenes task forces, and working groups and operates seven informational Web sites. With offices in New York City and Washington, D.C., The Century Foundation is nonprofit and nonpartisan and was founded in 1919 by Edward A. Filene. Learn more about our mission at The Century Foundation’s Web site, http://www.tcf.org.
Not to discredit ANY information from any source on the looming issue of social security reform.
Although a disgruntled republican conservative at heart, I have broken party loyalty to any party. I also project we will have democrats Hillary as Pres and Obama as Vice.
What I am hoping is that those of you who so strongly support that party – please please QUESTION their decisions and please ASK them to admit at least that SS will in fact require some sort of”fix”.
That is the most I can hope for.
That you don’t blindly follow your party, as you suspect the red’s follow theirs.
I’m gone for the day. I picked up early on this subject and probably beat the drum enuf.
A big market concern now is that when boomers pull out their 401’s and investments the market is going to take a severe hit.
At a time when companies are backing away from guaranteed retirements, all we need is for the masses to be dependent on a fickel market.
A big market concern now is that when boomers pull out their 401’s and investments the market is going to take a severe hit.
Posted by: The Phantom
Perked my interest going out the door.
I’d be interested in reading a source on this if you have one.
77 million boomers, 1/4 to 1/5 of the US population, which I am a part of, cannot just “pull” out of the market. In my own case there are many reasons for this:
1) What I pull out annually gets taxed.2) My total AGI would go sky high and taxes would take a HUGE hit. Loss of up to 35% fed/7% state.3) Captial Gains taxes are part of this, still at 15% long term?4) I would have in effect closed all my investments for the future.5) Just where are 77 million of us going to put that kind of money?6) I don’t understand the concern. I can keep my funds in my 401K and continue earning interest and set up auto withdrawals. I’m not forced to close it.7) Most of us will “roll” the 401K into some other investment vehicle invested in the “market”.Annuities are popular, but it could be IRA’s too. So the money stays in the market.
Be interested in what you have on this.
“Bin Laden may as well surrender himself to the U.S., as bush has repeatedly told the world “he can run, but he can’t hide.”
bin laden pretty much walked into paki-land and is there hanging out.it’s like he’s on a working vacation.
compared to the president, congress, senate, and iraq “lawmakers” who go on non-working vacations.
we blew up the wrong country and have spent thousands of lives and billions of dolalrs of tax money to… what is this all about again???
“The 2030 projections are daunting. To keep federal spending stable as a share of the economy would mean eliminating all defense spending and most other domestic programs (for research, homeland security, the environment, etc.). To balance the budget with existing programs at their present economic shares would require, depending on assumptions, tax increases of 30 percent to 50 percent—or budget deficits could quadruple. A final possibility: cut retirement benefits by increasing eligibility ages, being less generous to wealthier retirees or trimming all payments.”
tell me again how the BILLIONS bush has blown in iraq figures in this funding shortage deal??
tell me again how the BILLIONS bush has blown in iraq figures in this funding shortage deal??
Posted by: bush sucks | August 04, 2007 at 05:00 PM
Don’t have a clue and maybe Bush does suck.
But Bush bashing is not going to resolve this problem. The next four years will belong to the democrats. Are we going to spend it blaming Bush for the nations ills – or are we going to solve problems?
Oh Phantom, hello? You still there? Did you see my questions/request? It’s been awhile.
I gotta go, but if you can post a link to the market deal, please do and I’ll check back tomorrow.
Thank-you
I see the kook JM is still active in his various schizophrenic nics. Funny how he talks about those who are disabled and don’t work. Considering that he himself virtually lives on this blog!
It’s ok, I got HIS number.
Hey kook? Meltdown and tell us again how your wife ditched you and took your kid. Smart woman that one.
Here’s one article about it, I have to run too. Get ready for the concert.http://www.fedsmith.com/articles/articles.showarticle.db.php?intArticleID=404
“The next four years will belong to the democrats.”
After the infrastructure scandal joins up with all the rest of the scandals, it may be more like 40 years.
Which Republican Party will it be? The hard working, thrifty, moral-issue, anti-immigrant Republican patriots who want things to go back to the 50’s, or the gay-cruising, wife-beating, serial-marriage, book-cooking, budget busting, illegal-immigrant-dependant big-money Republican new world orderers.
Lots of qualifiers and caveats. Can any of you argue against the likelihood that they can not exist much longer under the same umbrella? Or are you all such hypocrites you will elect the very people who represent everything (gay-cruising, wife-beating, serial-marriage, book-cooking, budget busting, illegal-immigrant-dependant big-money Republican new-world-orderers) that most of you despise, much more than us “liberals.”
Which Monica were you referring to? The constitutional liar or the little sexpot?
Which one lied to Congress?
ihg = JM
JM = kook
Oh and for the record? I was part of this blog from day one. Until recently, I was a regular poster here. I was present for the farmgrrls very first post.
She has never trolled. Not ever.
Give us a rant in pirate lingo like ya did before JM Tell us about how the editors are hiding under your bed!. It’s more entertaining
“Just where are 77 million of us going to put that kind of money?”
I have a great idea…Liesure Time!
One of the least envioronmentally detrimental “commodities” out there.
As a former hunting outfitter, I know how liesure time can provide a very dynamic effect on our economy. I can vouch quite personally for it.
In Dec. 1983, I was featured in a national magazine about my Kansas guide service, and I got letters from all over the world, including Prince Charles, Aramco Oil Co., Sam Walton, and Lee Iacocca, I keep them in a scrapbook just in case one of the trolls thinks I’m exaggerating.
When people have the resources to travel and recreate, it means the economy is healthy.
And if there is one place most of us would like to spend that retirement, it is doing those things we always saved for weekends and holidays, much more often.
Give the American middle class a healthy flow of cash, and they will make the entire world economy thrive, beyond anything the royals or the rich could have ever managed when they represented the consumer class.
A shrink friend of mine has just read through today’s Thread here… His humble opinion is that there are a few very sick puppies blogging here…
JEP, I think that is a very valid point… From my travels on the highways, and the number of Motor Homes, and huge RV’s I see out there, I think they are doing a lot of what you are talking about!
I have told my wife for years, someday one of our retirement homes will have wheels on it..
I have this fantasy about having a little, leased garden acreage with parking for an RV, in about four different geographic areas, starting in northern Minnesota or Wisconsin, and working south through Iowa and Kansas, then on down to South Padre in Texas or maybe Key West.
The scheme is to drive south (or north) with the seasons, harvesting the fat of the land from those little garden plots..
I did say “fantasy”, it wouldn’t be a simple thing to accomplish, but it is a very satisfying one to imagine.
My point is, I think, that we all aren’t planning to retire into old-folk’s homes when we “cash in” those 401K’s and other retirement moneys. And that time we spend between retirement and the loosing of these mortal bonds culd make us the biggest consumers of leisure time since the Cherokees.
Some of us can expect to live to a hundred. More than ever before.
And giving that class of retired, vacationaing and recreating consumers the kind of resources to keep the economy heated up is one good way to make certain our next generation has a free-market economy worth keeping.
Chas, from an earlier comment, you mentioned that apples and oranges tend to get compared here.
I think it’s more like apples and cranberries…
“since the Cherokees…”
Pre-trail-of-tears.
cranberries works too…
Hey Jed,
easier than you might imagine. There are a lot of ‘full-timers’ out there, living in their RV’s.
You can go big or small, depending on your situation.
But I wouldn’t bother about getting tied down with ‘leased acreage’. Go where the whim takes you!
Hank
Hank,
I homesteaded for a couple years long ago, and gardening is one of the things I really enjoy, along with fresh produce (where have all the orchards gone?)
Even if I didn’t plant the garden, it would be interesting to be able to park my RV where I can go out and pick that produce.
Also, check these photos out, here’s some serious epicurean survival rations, if they don’t eat you first…
http://jep-betweenthelines.blogspot.com/2007/08/food-for-road.html
Chas, you have mail
Thanks P-Mom… I got it!!
Hey Jep,
I enjoy gardening too! Didn’t get one in this year. When we were home it was raining and when it wasn’t raining we were on the road with the dogs.
There are a lot of places that you can stay in an RV that are free or minimum charge. . .if you don’t need hookups.
Joyce and I have been all over with our dogs and we’ve found a lot of neat places that are free or at least cheap along the way.
Nothing in the world depreciates faster than an RV. There are a lot of pretty good deals on used motorhomes.
My fantasy:
http://www.newellcoach.com/flash.html
Modest little coaches made in Oklahoma.
Hank
“Kev how can you speak for everyone? There are many, many Americans who still work manual labor and outdoors in the weather. Telephone Line repairmen for example. Do you really think they want to be climbing poles at 70?”
The phone company offers full retirement at 30 years regardless of age and yet it is NOT uncommon to find people that are working there with 35, 40 and even 50 years of senority. There are lots of jobs there besides climbing poles.
The markets are a good investment and I still think we will crack 15,000 before Christmas but your best investment is real estate- a virtually no risk investment that will always beat inflation.
Hank, I hope when you said “modest little coaches” you had the sarcasm button turned on… Those things are ridiculously high priced!! Geez!!
Hotdog posts this from the Cato Institute, the main libertarian think tank in the country:
“In 1980, the government of Chile decided to take the bull by the horns. A government-run pension system was replaced with a revolutionary innovation: a privately administered, national system of Pension Savings Accounts.
“After 15 years of operation, . . . ”
Hey, genius, 15 years after 1980 is 1995, which was 12 years ago.
What I read in the Wall Street Journal is that Chile’s privatization plan has worked out well for rich people and screwed everybody else.
Surprise, surprise.
Average wage earners are begging to go back to the old system.
Isnt Chile one of those nice friendly places where they change dictators by murder???
As far as what the Soc. Security board of trustees says, the year before Bush made “piratization” a priority, the trustees sent out their usual yearly report saying that “social security is secure.”
Bush politicized this issue (read: lied and threatened) just like they do about everything else.
Remember “tons and tons of WMD’s that could strike an American city in as little as 45 minutes”?
Yeah . . . even if Bush is right about Soc. Security, you’d have to be a damn fool to believe HIM.
“and I still think we will crack “15,000 before Christmas”
Maybe. It has a lot of rioom to grow, if the investor confidence is stable.
For sure, by November 2008, there will be a major upward spike. If it hasn’t climbed over 15,000 by then, it will very shortly thereafter.
When Dems win a big election, the stockmarket soars.
Must be coincidence, huh? Certainly couldn’t have anything to do with consumer confidence…
Chas.
In the case of Allende, they had a little help from us.
Nevermind that Pinochet later was convicted for crimes-against-humanity.
Thank God he wasn’t a (sputter, sputter) SOCIALIST!
“Hank, I hope when you said “modest little coaches” you had the sarcasm button turned on…”
…no kidding, I looked too, those are mansions on wheels.
Do you show dogs, Hank? What breed(s)? When I was running my guide service, I raised and trained Springers, Shorthairs and a couple Labs.
Oh, and a weimaraner that ate the birds before we could get to them… great pointer, but you had to run to the bird before the dog “retrieved” it, or all you ended up with if the dog got there first was the legs and feet.
And that was a pheasant, not a quail!
I don’t hunt these days, simple reasons, just don’t feel the need to kill a bird any more, just for sport.
But, working a field over well-trained dogs is enough by itself, even if you don’t shoot the birds.
We had a couple national caliber dogs, one of my shorthair bitches was a veritable superdog, (with a penchant for dropping half-breed pups) and one of my guides had a Brittany that whelped two national derby champions.
So I have had some top notch dog work performed in the field in front of me, and it was an incredible experience.
“What I read in the Wall Street Journal is that Chile’s privatization plan has worked out well for rich people and screwed everybody else.”
Wall Street Journal!?
watta bunch a’ (gulp!) SOCIALISTS!!!
That’s what you get for reading those left-wing publications.
Curious, how the R’s always seem to defend their arguments with obscure or arcane references?
That Cato institute caveat was a great example.
Then they claim we won’t debate them on the merits of their confusion, or outright deception.
Then they claim we won’t debate them on the merits of their confusion, or outright deception.
Posted by: JEP | August 04, 2007 at 11:38 PM
That’s exactly what you just did.
You didn’t argue anything on the merits.
Just more gumming on your part.
Upon review of today’s posts, I think I did a good job setting up Jeb as a new independent poster.
Not bad from the troll of all trolls. The expert in my field, if I do say so myself.
Do the following quotes sound like something someone NEW to the blog would post?
WOW, I’ve tried for years to get on a redneck blog and have someone call me a troll, but they never let me post more thanonce.
And here, while it is by nomeans a “redneck blog,” with such an eclectic mix, IT FINALLY HAPPENED!
I have been called a troll!
Thanks, I really needed that, I was beginning to think I’d never be recognized.
I’m so proud!!
Posted by: JEP | August 04, 2007 at 10:43 AM
What you see is what you get…
Posted by: JEP | August 04, 2007 at 10:53 AM
so why are all you republican Trolls so mysterious and obscure?
Who are you, really?
Or are you afraid to tell us your real story?
HYPOCRITES!
Posted by: JEP | August 04, 2007 at 11:12 AM
I thought this was a nice touch for a lying sack of shit. And he already knows Captain whatever:
JEP is a new poster, as far as I know.
Started last night…
Posted by: JEP | August 04, 2007 at 10:24 AM
I have to say, it is an honor to be mistaken for Captain America!
Posted by: JEP | August 04, 2007 at 10:25 AM
O.K., you guys got me. I lied. I’m really someone else. A figment of Chas and Capt American’s imagination.
Leave me out of this! I have my resume in at Dillions and I don’t want to screw up my interview as a bagboy.
I confess, I am, I’m a, a TROLL!!!YOu can check my email and my url, and my, my IP address.
I just can’t live with myself anymore.
Stop it JEP, so you are a troll. At least you can get over that.
I’m a jackass and I have to live with that!!!
This was a real nice touch:
JEP — Would that be at the old Swede Inn??? or somewhere new??
Posted by: Chas. | August 04, 2007 at 12:05 PM
Swedish Crafts
Posted by: JEP | August 04, 2007 at 12:15 PM
Like they good old boys just Happened to know each other from back in the day. Chas graduated from HS (probably a dopper and drop out) in the same town in 1974.
Come on guys! We were not born yesterday.
Go cry – but the truth hurts and hopefully there is SOMEone with brains at WEBLOG.
Have a nice day – you bunch of self-righteous trolls.
Maybe the Troll Meister will short out it’s keyboard, and sizzle thru the Night……..
Of course you all know, if I post here, I invclude the lnk to my website, so every post up above without that link was done by someone else…
I wonder if the Eagle staff knows that there may be some complicity imlications if they let posters (whose IP address the Eagle staff sees whent he posts are made) use other people’s screen names, once they are aware that is occurring?
It has not reached the point of “impersonation” yet, but I would suspect that me, Chas and the Capn could, because we do expose our websites and our real selves with our screen name links, could take this clown to court.
There’s no precedent yet, but I assure you, I will never, have never and don’t think anyone else should pose as anything but themselves.
This confused olod man and all his sock-puppets is such a hypocrtite, using this place as a personal anger-therapy exercise.
I would hopoe the Eagle’s staff might find a way to remove posts that are clearly not from the names they claim…
SO, no doubt, when you see a post from JEP that does not lnk to the website, it is not me.
JEP, use the email addy at the top left of the blog page and report identity theft to the WE editors and ask them to remove the post that stole your identity.
They will do it, but only if you ask. I hope if enough folks ask enough times, the WE editors will get tired of it.
Hope springs eternal, but past experience says the WE editors dont give a damn if the troll takes over their blog.
Good luck.
JEP I sent it all to them earlier… I think you got a copy of what I sent…
Noted for the record:
It doesn’t take a Rhodes scholar to spot the psycho-crap, clearly by one deluded person, starting with http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/08/open-thread-84.html#comment-78436356
and ending withhttp://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/08/open-thread-84.html#comment-78436922 .
If I get time (right), I’ll review the options available on Typepad and have a chat with Phillip about it (Tom, Sol, anyone else, please feel free to steal my thunder).
RE: warm beer in the Borg. Ahem, you guys don’t drink as much beer as I do, obviously.
Two words. Ol Stuga
119 S Main StLindsborg, KS 67456-2417United States
Phone: (785) 227-8762
Just kiddin’, Mark. The beer is icy cold, the sandwiches can’t be beat, and – most importantly – neither can the characters and their conversations. I have had some GREAT times in the Ol Stuga. And I know a guy in Tulsa who played in the Ol Stuga Open this year, said it was as memorable as ever.
Signed,Former outfielder, Swedish Painters
Feel free Rage to do so.
Then when you and others find out it isn’t me doing all the trolling, I expect an apology from each and every one of you.
How about if you’re only doing some of the trolling?
Will you apologize to us?
you got those star/finish links exactly right… I sent that whole section to PB, but dont know if he will do anything…
How about if you’re only doing some of the trolling?
Will you apologize to us?
Posted by: CapnAmerica | August 05, 2007 at 03:06 PM
No, he will get a medal.
Hello!
How are you?
hello, i’m lizzy!
is hill. it a on from keep no,” his “though some field to around on But and the the may corn and planted be is high. side a after farms your you to be a green Hal, What mean time that gardens is of warm begins enough.” your so to grow, over, yellow ground hoed called the corn in of here I the “However planted, is corn from That done blowing for corn very will in tall, that made. the West are sometimes so was eat it meal for weather ten twelve to such feet be we may or fully little sort or corn, corn now cob which is it beans as is Spring kind going plant, hill. sweet Oh, and the grows for is the That not laughed stalks grow boiled. high. corn, and in
day corn after The from father, is
As far as what the Soc. Security board of trustees says, the year before Bush made “piratization” a priority, the trustees sent out their usual yearly report saying that “social security is secure.”
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/trsummary.html
Read it and weep. Where anyone got SS is secure is NOT from the Social Security Trustee Report, and the Trustees have been issuing warnings for many years, but Congress has no desire to fix the problem until it blows up in their faces.
From the report:
The financial condition of the Social Security and Medicare programs remains problematic; we believe their currently projected long run growth rates are not sustainable under current financing arrangements. Social Security’s current annual surpluses of tax income over expenditures will soon begin to decline and then turn into rapidly growing deficits as the baby boom generation retires. Medicare’s financial status is even worse. Medicare’s Hospital Insurance (HI) Trust Fund is already expected to pay out more in hospital benefits this year than it receives in taxes and other dedicated revenues. The growing annual deficits in both programs are projected to exhaust HI reserves in 2019 and Social Security reserves in 2041. In addition, the Medicare Supplementary Medical Insurance (SMI) Trust Fund that pays for physician services and the new prescription drug benefit will continue to require general revenue financing and charges on beneficiaries that grow faster than the economy and beneficiary incomes over time.
The drawdown of Social Security and HI Trust Fund reserves and the general revenue transfers into SMI will place mounting pressure on the Federal budget. In fact, this pressure is already evident. For the first time, a “Medicare funding warning” is being triggered, signaling that non-dedicated sources of revenues-primarily general revenues- will soon account for more than 45 percent of Medicare’s outlays. By law, this warning requires that the President propose, and the Congress consider, remedial action.
We are increasingly concerned about inaction on the financial challenges facing the Social Security and Medicare programs. The longer we wait to address these challenges, the more limited will be the options available, the greater will be the required adjustments, and the more severe the potential detrimental economic impact on our nation.
Social Security
The annual cost of Social Security benefits represented 4.2 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in 2006, is projected to increase to 6.2 percent of GDP in 2030, and then rise slowly to 6.3 percent of GDP in 2081. The projected 75-year actuarial deficit in the combined Old-Age and Survivors and Disability Insurance (OASDI) Trust Fund is 1.95 percent of taxable payroll, down from 2.02 percent in last year’s report. This decrease is due primarily to revisions in key assumptions and to changes in methods. Although the program passes our short-range test of financial adequacy, it continues to fail our long-range test of close actuarial balance by a wide margin. Projected OASDI tax income will begin to fall short of outlays in 2017, and will be sufficient to finance only 75 percent of scheduled annual benefits in 2041, when the combined OASDI Trust Fund is projected to be exhausted.
Social Security could be brought into actuarial balance over the next 75 years in various ways, including an immediate increase of 16 percent in payroll tax revenues or an immediate reduction in benefits of 13 percent or some combination of the two. Ensuring that the system is solvent on a sustainable basis beyond the next 75 years would require larger changes. To the extent that changes are delayed or phased in gradually, larger adjustments in scheduled benefits and revenues would be required that would be spread over fewer generations.
Medicare
As we reported last year, Medicare’s financial difficulties come sooner-and are much more severe-than those confronting Social Security. While both programs face demographic challenges, the impact is greater for Medicare because health care costs increase at older ages. Moreover, underlying health care costs per enrollee are projected to rise faster than the wages per worker on which payroll taxes and Social Security benefits are based. As a result, while Medicare’s annual costs were 3.1 percent of GDP in 2006, or about 72 percent of Social Security’s, they are projected to surpass Social Security expenditures in 2028 and exceed 11 percent of GDP in 2081.
The projected 75-year actuarial deficit in the Hospital Insurance (HI) Trust Fund is now 3.55 percent of taxable payroll, up slightly from 3.51 percent in last year’s report. The fund again fails our test of short-range financial adequacy, as projected annual assets drop below projected annual expenditures within 10 years-in 2013. The fund also continues to fail our long-range test of close actuarial balance by a wide margin. The projected date of HI Trust Fund exhaustion is 2019, one year later than in last year’s report, when tax income will be sufficient to pay only 79 percent of HI costs. HI tax income falls short of outlays in this and all future years. The program could be brought into actuarial balance over the next 75 years by an immediate 122 percent increase in the payroll tax, or an immediate 51 percent reduction in program outlays or some combination of the two. As with Social Security, adjustments of greater magnitude would be necessary to the extent changes are delayed or phased in gradually, or to make the program solvent on a sustainable basis beyond the 75-year horizon.
Part B of the Supplementary Medical Insurance (SMI) Trust Fund, which pays doctors’ bills and other outpatient expenses, and Part D, which pays for access to prescription drug coverage, are both projected to remain adequately financed into the indefinite future because current law automatically provides financing each year to meet next year’s expected costs. However, expected steep cost increases will result in rapidly growing general revenue financing needs-projected to rise from 1.3 percent of GDP in 2006 to 4.7 percent in 2081-as well as substantial increases over time in beneficiary premium charges.
The Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 requires that the Medicare Report include a determination of whether the difference between total Medicare outlays and dedicated financing (such as premiums and payroll taxes) exceeds 45 percent of total outlays within the first 7 years of the projection period (2007-2013 for the 2007 Report). The Act requires that an affirmative determination in two consecutive reports be treated as a “funding warning” for Medicare that would, in turn, require a Presidential proposal to respond to the warning and expedited Congressional consideration of such proposal. The 2007 Report projects that the difference will surpass 45 percent in 2013 and therefore makes a determination of excess general revenue funding. Because the 2006 report also made such a determination, a “Medicare funding warning” is hereby triggered that requires the President to propose legislation that responds to this warning within 15 days of the submission of the Fiscal Year 2009 budget and for Congress to consider the proposal on an expedited basis. This requirement will help call additional attention to Medicare’s impact on the Federal budget.
Conclusion
The financial difficulties facing Social Security and Medicare pose enormous, but not insurmountable, challenges. The sooner these challenges are addressed, the more varied and less disruptive their solutions can be. We urge the public to engage in informed discussion and policymakers to think creatively about the changing needs and preferences of working and retired Americans. Such a national conversation and timely political action are essential to ensure that Social Security and Medicare continue to play a critical role in the lives of all Americans.
snippy
Chile’s plan has some issues, but 30+ countries have instituted similar plans.
If PAYG systems (SS and private defined benefit plans) are so great and perfect, how come companies are switching to defined contribution plans in record numbers? It is because it is costing too much to maintain these plans as more and more people retire. You are looking at 100+ million retiring over the next 15-20 years and another 50 million soon after. These will strain the current SS to the breaking point. Only half of those retiring will be replaced with younger workers.
PAYG systems do not work longterm. They only work as long as your young healthy population pool is significantly large enough to pay for the older and unhealthy pools. Check FDR’s original plan and the CES recommendations. As mentioned previously, other industrialized countries are facing shortfalls in their systems and we need to learn from their mistakes.
Conclusion
The financial difficulties facing Social Security and Medicare pose enormous, but not insurmountable, challenges. The sooner these challenges are addressed, the more varied and less disruptive their solutions can be. We urge the public to engage in informed discussion and policymakers to think creatively about the changing needs and preferences of working and retired Americans. Such a national conversation and timely political action are essential to ensure that Social Security and Medicare continue to play a critical role in the lives of all Americans.
As noted above, it is possible to do something, but doing nothing is not an option. Doing the wrong thing (as done in the 70s and 80s) only prolongs the issue and passes it on to YOUR grandkids, but hey you will be dead by then so no problem.
Reviewing suggestions made the candidates show they do not go far enough. They made add a few years, a decade or two, but the problem will still exist.