President Obama was met by second-guessing when he announced earlier this year that he wanted to reform entitlement programs. After all, President Bush pushed hard for reform and got nowhere in Congress, including with his own party. And doesn’t Obama have enough on his plate already?
But a report this week by the Social Security and Medicare Board of Trustees showed why reforms are needed now. It warned that, because of the recession, Social Security and Medicare could be insolvent by 2037 and 2017, respectively. And Social Security Commissioner Michael Astrue noted, “The sooner we get on with the task of reforming the system, the easier it will be to make the tough choices.”
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
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- American_Way on Open thread 11/22
- American_Way on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
168 Comments
Ahahaha!
Guess the Capn will have to eat his words about reforming Social Security and Medicare being a Republican mantra.
It appears the new administration has the same thoughts as the old administration.
Giving away “Federal bailout funds” like there’s no tomorrow, as though there is a bottomless barrel, needs to stop immediately. Ask loudly: WHERE IS THIS BAILOUT MONEY COMING FROM?
Answer: China, Japan and individual investors from foriegn countries. The U.S. pays 5% or more annually to borrow this money and probably won’t ever pay off the principal. This predicts the end of the vaunted U.S. economy.
Borrowing at all levels by government and corporate business … and probably by individuals … must stop immediately.
That’s fine. I’ll call the White House, as I did a few weeks ago, to pass the message along that if President Obama colludes with the Pete Peterson Foundation and all the other false friends/advocates of “entitlement reform”/would be destroyers of Social Security, that I and many, many others will do everything possible to destroy his Presidency and his legacy.
We will not be bum-rushed into “fixing” Social Security by the same disingenuous libertarian zombies who have spent the last thirty-five years trying to destroy it.
I’ve been posting on the looming problem with Social Security literally for years (along with others). This is nothing new: The social security board of directs have been predicting as much for years.
The 2009 annual report is more grim, moving up the date expenses will exceed revenue. In fact, it is probably too rosy: The entire board is composed of Obama appointees (who want to look good).
Democrats haven’t really had their heads in the sand on this issue as I said yesterday. They have always KNOWN the truth.
But democrats chose to use “Republicans will cut your social security!” as a campaign fear tactic.
To do so, they had to deny the truth. (which means they lied.)
Not it comes home when democrats hold all the cards.
Suddenly SS is an emergency.
This provides the Obamaniacs cover to rush through whatever legislation they want.
56 million Americans are drawing benefits.
77 million baby boomers, who have worked their entire lives and contributed to the program are starting to retire.
So, not only have their personal retirement nest eggs declined in value – Obama’s gonna hit them with a double wammy: HE IS GOING TO CUT THEIR SOCIAL SECURITY!!!!!!!
Reform? The only way to “reform” it is to raise taxes and/or cut bennies. Hell of a system.
Did anyone look closely at the actual Social Security release?
“The projected point at which tax revenues will fall below program costs comes in 2016 — one year sooner than the estimate in last year’s report.
“The projected point at which the Trust Funds will be exhausted comes in 2037 — four years sooner than the estimate in last year’s report.”
But I believe these estimates are based upon a too rosy “guesstimate” of projected
future economic activity and data:
-Productivity (Total U.S. economy) will soar in 2010-2011. (not seen for years)
-GDP Price Index will double in by 2013. (haha)
-And that the real GDP (gross domestic product) will reach 4.3 in 2011.
-And total employment in 2012 will reach levels not seen since 2000.
In just a couple of years: The US will be as robust as we were in the 1990’s!
Could it be that because the ONLY members of the SS Board of Trustees
are all Obama appointees?
The Board of Trustees is comprised of six members. Four serve by virtue of their positions with the federal government: Timothy F. Geithner, Secretary of the Treasury and Managing Trustee; Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social Security; Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services; and Hilda L. Solis, Secretary of Labor. The two public trustee positions are currently vacant.
http://www.ssa.gov/pressoffice/pr/trustee09-pr.htm
Entitlement programs don’t work. Huh. Color me shocked.
You mean we couldn’t trust our elected officials to tell us the truth and keep their fingers out of the pot. Color me shocked again.
Obama should wait and see what the world looks like in 2010 before putting either program on the table. Voters need to decide if they want to keep borrowing money to engage in never-ending military excursions abroad. Politicians need to decide if they want to continue to allow loansharking banks to gouge the public with 20 percent and higher interest rates on credit cards, thereby undermining savings accounts.
Meanwhile, every time the subject of reforming Social Security comes up, some Washington politician with the ultimate cushy gig and servants (I guess they call them “aides”) proclaims that “people want to work longer nowadays.”
Doing what? Bagging groceries? Companies tend to target the 55 and older age group when layoff time rolls around. Subsequent to losing their jobs, older workers may not have an easy time getting hired again. If the retirement age continues to be raised, therefore, people in their 60’s may increasingly be confronted with dicey intervals in which employment is hard to come by and retirement benefits are unavailable.
If Washington politicians want to talk about reforming the Social Security system, the entire system and spending strategies on wars and everything else must be addressed in the same discussion. If anything has been made clear in the last year, it’s that we live in an interconnected world and financial decisions in one arena have an impact on the choices that are available in other arenas.
“proclaims that “people want to work longer nowadays.”
Excellent point Royall.
It is easy for a fat politician to sit in their rich office spaces to say we want to work longer.
It is much harder for a blue-collar old man or woman to continue doing physical labor. I don’t want any 70 year old painters on ladders in my house!
This goes against the grain of those who claim to support the poor people.
It’s not the entitlements that need reformed. It is the Reagan and maybe also Kennedy tax cuts for the rich which we can no longer afford. They WERE nice for those that they helped. But as a society we can no longer afford to coddle the rich.
Entitlements along with every thing else in the economy is reeling, recessions take their toll, this bush recession is extremely bad.
A never ending battle. The producers vs the folks who won’t pull their own weight.
American_Way
Posted May 14, 2009 at 6:40 am | Permalink
So, not only have their personal retirement nest eggs declined in value – Obama’s gonna hit them with a double wammy: HE IS GOING TO CUT THEIR SOCIAL SECURITY!!!!!!!
—————————————————-
He won’t have to. Packaged with his Health Care “reform” people will be dying younger.
Take s.s. receipts out of the general fund, raise the contribution rate, or amount subject to s.s. tax, programs reformed, problems solved.
“The producers vs the folks who won’t pull their own weight.”
How do you mean that Outlander?
In the case of SS workers from their earliest job as a kid to old age have without choice had their hard earned money taken away and put into the mysterious SS Trust Fund. Since 1990, that’s over 15% of annual income (up to the benefit base).
We could have done much with that money. We could have spent it, or invested it.
Now, as we reach the happy golden years, after years of saving and investing and being financially prudent – Obama is going to pull the rug out from under the program for all of us.
This might be fine: If older Americans had time to recover (and save even more). But those nearing retirement have already had their nest eggs depleted, and how many years will they have to keep working (to pay even more taxes and FICA)?
Not sure the folks who have paid in a life time of their earnings into SS are not pulling their own weight.
This isn’t food stamps we are talking about and it’s not unemployment (which interesting Obama and congress INCREASED funding for).
This is folks own money.
“raise the contribution rate”
Is that your answer for everything? Simply raise taxes?
At some point very sooon our poor kids are going to be paying a heavy burden. With Obama’s 1.8 trillion dollar record spending (4 times Bush’s), some one is going to have to start paying the bills.
Remember all the other taxes and proposed sin taxes (soda for example) are going to take a toll.
Don’t misunderstand Amway. Social Security is a great, necessary program that adds a lot of stability to our lives.
I was replying to BJ’s usual knee jerk solution to everything.
Understood outlander.
But I sometimes wonder why anyone would bother.
He seeks to flame. That’s his entire purpose on the blog.
The easiest target will be for Obama to eliminate or at least greatly raise the point at which SS withholding stops (something like $100k now), which will tax “rich people” and business, his two favorite targets. Then he’ll claim he’s saved billions by eliminating the medicare administration subsidy paid to big insurance companies, but then who administers the insurance/claims and how much does it cost when govt takes over? He’ll save any raises of the eligibility age or tax rate on all workers until after the ‘10/’12 elections, because he knows the seniors would crush him for increasing working age & everyone else would crush him for raising taxes on the other 95% of workers plus the 50% that pay only SS/Med today. He’ll grab what he considers the low hanging fruit, the rich.
Still don’t understand why they don’t grab the lowest hanging fruit, being US dollars held in foreign accounts. Even Clinton figured out how to offer tax discounts to repatriate that money and make it look like a tax revenue boon. Plus, once they bring it back here, they’ve got to put it somewhere, which means banks, stock exchange, cheap “assets” like real estate, etc. All of which would do wonders for the economy.
Calculate how much has been ‘borrowed’ by the govt. from the s.s. fund, and create a special tax to repay the borrowed amount into a s.s. lockbox.
Check out the disparity between the richest of the rich and the average working person and then come tell me it is the entitlements need reformed.
We need to do away with the idea of trickle down economics that has been crippling this country since Reagan inflicted it on us. And THAT s.o. b. collected his Social Security arrogantly even though he had no need for it.
“(something like $100k now)”
For earnings in 2009, this base is $106,800.
And just for FYI: There is no cap/base on Medicare.
“We need to do away with the idea of trickle down economics”
That’s correct. We need to stop taking the money from all those taxpayers paying in, and stop giving it to the bottom.
That’s called trickle down…
And THAT s.o. b. collected his Social Security arrogantly even though he had no need for it.
—————————————————-
Exactly what’s wrong with “entitlements”.
He was entitled afterall.
“even though he had no need for it.”
“He was entitled afterall.”
If you don’t want rich people “entitled” to receive a benefit for their “contribution” to a program which was designed for all Americans – stop making them pay in.
It is that simple.
“Entitlement is a guarantee of access to benefits because of rights, or by agreement through law. It also refers, in a more casual sense to someone’s belief that one is deserving of some particular reward or benefit.”
I agree with you Amway. It’s BJ’s eat the rich mantra that I’m tired of.
Amway – I understand that Medicare (1.45% from employee, then matched by employer) continues on after SS (6.2% from employee, then matched by employer) stops at $106K (thanks for the exact #, couldn’t remember it for sure). My point is, he’ll just raise the $106K number to at least double that first as the attack on the “rich” continues. That buys him a lot more votes from the receivers of benefits than reducing/freezing benefits would get him. Btw, they’ve already been talking about eliminating benefits to those who “can afford” to not take them, ie, the “rich” or those who played by the rules and saved like they should. Same strategy. Btw also, what they conveniently leave out, is the part where folks like Buffet/Soros pay very little income or SS/Med tax because they have little payroll income and mostly cap gains income, so he/his company don’t have to deal with the 1.45% (2.9% combined) medicare that goes on indefinitely.
“American_Way” struts –
“I’ve been posting on the looming problem with Social Security literally for years….)”
And you have always been wrong.
Yeah, we’re gonna believe you now.
You’re due to get something right some day.
The “eat the rich” mantra is nothing new. It’s been a part of progressive’s (or “democratic socialist” in BJ’s case) rhetoric for more than a century…TR, WW, FDR, etc. Obviously the core of the union movement. They want all the benefits of capitalism without any of the risks (ie, putting up capital, govt regulation, dealing with shareholders, having ANY personal responsibility for safety, etc, etc, etc).
I agree with you DFB. I just posted the number for you. Thanks.
To me when a politician says “entitlement reform”, it means “entitlement cuts”. I have worked since 1975- my 2nd year at East High School. I have not suffered a single day wiithout a job since then and I have paid big sums into Social Security. I expect that, if I am blessed long enough to live until 63, to collect from it. I don’t buy how this is bankrupting anything. They can raise the SS tax to rich people making over $100,000 a year and they can cut spending in other areas- like bridges to nowhere and new multi million dollar planes and ships that the military did not ask for, does not want or need. But we need to send a loud message that we are not going to accept any cuts in SS.
Before you continue bad mouthing the evil rich, please remember that Social Security is already a progressive entitlement program. Consider that the rich (and middle class actually) are paying in more than they will receive in benefits for Social Security today.
But more importantly, the upper two-thirds paying in – are helping provide higher benefits for those less fortunate. Instead of thanking them I’m seeing posters calling those already “helping” (subsidizing) the poor undeserving of benefits.
In fact, some not only call them names and “evil” at the same time you are demanding the upper two thirds PAY MORE. Ungrateful or unknowing?
For people with lower than average earnings,
the ratio of the lifetime benefits they receive from Social Security to the lifetime payroll taxes they pay for the program is higher than it is for people with higher
average earnings. In that sense, the Social Security system is progressive. For people in the bottom fifth of the earnings distribution, the ratio of benefits to taxes is almost three times as high as it is for those in the top
fifth.
The Social Security system is progressive: the ratio of lifetime benefits to lifetime taxes declines significantly as lifetime
earnings rise. As shown in Figure 1, the benefit-to tax ratio is above 100 percent [heck it’s over 200 percent!] for the bottom earnings
quintile (that is, the 20 percent of individuals with the lowest lifetime earnings) in all birth cohorts; that is, on average, those individuals receive lifetime benefits that exceed
their lifetime taxes. The ratio is close to 100 percent for the middle earnings quintile in all birth cohorts: on average, those individuals receive benefits that are roughly equal to their lifetime taxes. The ratio is consistently
less than 100 percent for the highest earnings quintile: on average, higher-earining individuals receive less in Social Security benefits than they pay in taxes over their
lifetime. The ratio for the bottom quintile is almost three times that for the top quintile.
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/77xx/doc7705/12-15-Progressivity-SS.pdf
Social Security and Medicare were two of the greatest programs ever designed. Leave them alone.
“were” is the operative word Kev.
They are going broke.
By leaving them alone would you just be ignoring a problem?
But you still will have to fund the shortfall if nothing is done until the year it happens 2017 or sooner.
Still ignore it Kev?
Do nothing?
Will that make the problem go away?
BeeJays answer for fixing everything
Tax the rich, feed the poor
Till there are no rich no more?
Democrats haven’t really had their heads in the sand on this issue as I said yesterday. They have always KNOWN the truth.
But democrats chose to use “Republicans will cut your social security!” as a campaign fear tactic.
To do so, they had to deny the truth. (which means they lied.)
_____
I don’t agree with AmWay on much, but he’s dead on right here.
But then there’s this:
This is folks own money.
Actually, it’s not. When we stop thinking of SS as a pension fund (which it isn’t) and rather as a transfer payment from those working to those retired (which it is) we’ll begin to understand the problem. Many if not most Americans still don’t understand that the vaunted SS “trust fund” has no actually money in it. It’s only T-bills – IOUs that will have to be cashed in and paid for with – and this is important – general fund tax dollars. THERE IS NO RESERVE OF MONEY for paying out benefits – and there hasn’t been for years. When the time comes that receipts don’t exceed outlays – currently, if what I read above I correct, expected to be 2016 (not too far away), then the difference will have to be made up with tax dollars from general revenues.
Democrats, of course, have known all this too. They’ve just chosen to play fear politics with the program instead of taking part in actually reforming it. The chickens may come home to roost; it would be entirely appropriate for them to roost on a democratic administration.
BTW, OBama is again redefining the “rich” if he lifts the current SS cap of on earnings in 2009, this base is $106,800.
If you make over $106,799, I guess you are rich and need to pay more.
Sounds good to me.
“Social Security and Medicare were two of the greatest programs ever designed. Leave them alone.”
Kev, since you didn’t respond, perhaps I misunderstood your post.
Did you mean that in the same context as people say:
Don’t mess with Texas?
How many years in the past has social security “paid out more than was paid in” like what is said to happen in 2016?
Four years.
Social security is closely tied to the economy as a whole. When incomes rise, SS takings rise too (up to about 100K).
So predictions are pretty worthless because very small percentage differences in growth can mean huge differences in social security pay-outs.
The CONs always take the most dire predictions, which is why they’ve been saying for decades–even when SS first started–that it’s unsustainable.
It’s not. It works. It’s been proven to work.
When repubs talk ‘reform’, it means cuts or disqualification, When dems talk reform, it means making the program solvent through effectiveness or contribution increases.
Repubs better think twice about what they wish for.
Instead of borrowing for Iraq, the U.S. could’ve been borrowing for its own citizens, but that’s not the repub way.
“This is folks own money.
Actually, I meant this in comparison with other programs such as welfare, food stamps, etc…
We pay in to Social inSecurity. The so-called “trust fund” was supposed to have value from all Americans paying in.
It would have had “value” in it had it not been filled with worthless IOU’s.
That it is a pay-as-you go system includes the promise that I paid for you and now you will pay it for me. NOT, sorry, I ran out of money funding the bloated annual budget.
The “Trust” is just another ponzi scheme.
Politicians have used it to augment the general fund since LBJ had to fund the Vietnam War.
The CONs always take the most dire predictions,
Sorry, the entire SS Board of Trustees who made the predictions are Obama appointees.
Capn says -”The CONs always take the most dire predictions, which is why they’ve been saying for decades–even when SS first started–that it’s unsustainable.
It’s not. It works. It’s been proven to work.”
And the only reason it works? The rate of taxation keeps going up. And the only way for it to remain viable is to continue to raise taxes.(and the age of eligibility and/or cut benefits)
A program which can only remain viable by ever increasing taxes or decreased benefit is Capn’s idea of a great program.
Consider that the rich (and middle class actually) are paying in more than they will receive in benefits for Social Security today.
FALSE.
The average SS recepient receives back all the money they’ve paid in within seven years.
When dems talk reform, it means making the program solvent through more spending or and tax increases.
“Consider that the rich (and middle class actually) are paying in more than they will receive in benefits for Social Security today.”
I guess you know more than the Congressional Budget Office CapnAmerica?
Go click on my source.
“A program which can only remain viable by ever increasing taxes or decreased benefit is Capn’s idea of a great program.”
Excellent point on democrats in general.
Hud–
When was the last time the taxes were raised for SS?
I believe it was in the 1980’s.
AmWay–
I searched your CBO report.
I didn’t see where it said that higher earners “never get what they paid in back.” Obviously, it would depend for one thing on how long they live.
Are you confusing the fact that low income earners get proportionally more of their income back (like 90 percent) compared to high income earners who get less (30 percent).
Eventually, high income earners will get everything they paid in plus more if they live long enough.
Of course he’s still got the strategy open to tax & regulate weed to save the elderly, like his tax on tobacco to save the children. Afterall, they got their mandate tacked onto Bush’s stimulus bill that added “mental health” care (specifically including drug rehab as mental health care) to be included specifically in health insurance products starting in ‘10 if I remember right. Then he can claim that the drug users get their benefit out of the weed tax by getting govt drug rehab via universal healthcare. It’s brilliance in action! How could anything go wrong with that plan?!
CapnAmerica
Posted May 14, 2009 at 11:22 am | Permalink
How many years in the past has social security “paid out more than was paid in” like what is said to happen in 2016?
Four years.
—–
Translation: (Capn sticks fingers in ears, closes eyes tightly) “LaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLa.”
Why am I not surprised.
Of course, in the midst of this self-imposed ignorance, he’ll blame eeeeeevil Republicans (using, I’m sure, that highly original and devastating “rethugliCON” label, or something similar, even as he claims to take the high road) for wanting to kill SS and leave seniors to eat cat food and die.
Right. No political gamesmanship there.
It’s simple math, Capn, simple democraphics. This was inevitable, sooner or later; the current recession simply moved up the day of reckoning. Robust recovery (uh, right – with Obama’s deficits and the interest payments that will be needed to service those debts, does anyone expect a robust recovery?) would put the inevitable off for a while. But it would still come.
But no matter. Capn still has his fingers in his ears.
The CONS always take the most dire predictions, which is why they’ve been saying for decades–even when SS first started–that it’s unsustainable.
Wow. See just how effective that label is – I’m cut to the quick already!
Capn, the only responsible action is to take the most dire predictions. Remember? Assume the worst, hope for the best? If the predictions turn out to be wrong, we’re fine; in fact, we’re in great shape, and can give greater benefits or reduce future taxes (or perhaps reduce future increases). If they’re right, of course, well, then you’ll be thankful that the “most dire predictions” were taken.
It is, in fact, unstainable, as currently funded and operated. Only you refuse to recognize same. By your own assertion, Capn: The average SS recepient receives back all the money they’ve paid in within seven years.
If true, that is exactly the problem, in part. Just how long do you think the program can sustain itself at that rate? And how do you justify continuing to let people believe that they are getting back “their own money?” Call SS what it is, Capn – a transfer payment, from the working to the retired. Recognize that the “trust fund” is a hollow shell. Just be that honest. Try.
“Social Security and Medicare were two of the greatest
programsPonzi schemes ever designed. Leave them alone.”—KevFrom his posts BlowJ continues to prove he is the greatest parasite ever visited on this earth.
“Eventually, high income earners will get everything they paid in plus more if they live long enough.”–Capn
And there in lies the rub….they don’t!
“A never ending battle. The producers vs the folks who won’t pull their own weight.”
Riiiiight. Pull those people out of the retirement and nursing homes and tell them to start pulling their own weight again.
You did read the head of the thread, didn’t you outlander?
Sigh. And you didn’t read below my post didya, Aggie?
Also, you will find that same line of thought continued in the thread. You can participate if you wish, or you can btch and moan and criticize. .
Nothing from the CONs but 30-year-old boilerplate screeds against Social Security and Medicare.
Remember when George WMD Bush ran for Congress in 1978 claiming Social Security would be defunct by 1988?
But then, when was Shrub ever wrong?
Social Security is biased against Black people.
Why do Libs hate them so?
Too bad it isn’t Bush saying it now monkey. It is Obama apointees.
Social Security Board of Trustees: Economic Downturn Leads to Worsening of Long-Range Financing Outlook
http://www.ssa.gov/pressoffice/pr/trustee09-pr.htm
Boxlock–
Take a guy making 100,000 a year. He pays 12.4 percent of his income into the system (6.2 himself + 6.2 his employer) for 35 years (35 years is what SS uses to determine pay-out).
(For the sake of argument, let’s assume that inflation has already been factored into these equations.)
100K x 0.12 x 35 = 420K
http://www.finance.cch.com/sohoApplets/SocialSecurity.html
According to the above website, this individual’s monthly SS check would be 2,179/mo or 26,151 per year.
Okay, fifth graders, how many years of retirement does it take for our high-income worker to get his 420,000 dollars back?
Did you say 16 years?
Because that is correct. Anything over 16 years is gravy . . .
“When was the last time the taxes were raised for SS? I believe it was in the 1980’s.”
Congress legislated some minor programmatic changes in Social Security benefits, along with an increase in the total payroll tax rate to 15.3 percent by 1990.
Rates over time:
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/taxRates.html
You’ll notice, folks, that MH doesn’t respond with any, ya know, facts. Or logical argument.
Nope. Just the “screed” meme. Oh, and that devastatingly effective CONs – note the highly original all caps – label.
When the facts are against you . . . . well, you rely scary memes and labels. Touching, isn’t it?
“AmWay–
I searched your CBO report.
I didn’t see where it said that higher earners “never get what they paid in back.” Obviously, it would depend for one thing on how long they live.”
Capn: Not sure what your mathematics are all about. It is right there in my post and in the official report from the Congressional Budget Office:
“on average, higher-earining individuals receive less in Social Security benefits than they pay in taxes over their lifetime.”
Maybe CBO needs to redo their thinking with your numbers.
But yes, I agree, if I live to be 200, I will make out like a fat cat on SS.
GMC–
The long-term projections for Social Security do indeed concern me. Government cannot run unsustainable programs forever.
But let’s establish a few givens–
1. CONs have hated Social Security from Day One. CONs on the early 30’s Supreme Court struck down several pieces of legislation similar to Social Security and probably would have done the same to it had not FDR “packed the court” before they had the chance.
It’s hard to take seriously the message of “reform” from people who hate the program and want to destroy it.
2. The US military spends almost as much of the US budget (about 20 percent) as Social Security. In fact, one can make the case that when interest on debt for military and long-term health care of all the wounded we’re creating now in Iraq and Afghanistan are included, it’s actually higher than Social Security.
Strangely, no CONs seem concerned about lowering this equally large and equally unsustainable cost for the military.
3. Every industrialized country in the world has their version of social security. If they can do it, then the richest country in the world can do it too.
4. Privatization of the type Bush proposed would do absolutely nothing to making Social Security more viable. Bush officials admitted this. In fact, it would plunge the system into immediate default.
*****
To sum up, I think that Social Security should be analyzed and perhaps tweaked by a bi-partisan group interested in its long-term health.
Perhaps in view of longer lifespans, the retirement age should be increased . . . especially for, say, teachers and lawyers and consultants and such.
But in no way does it need to be scrapped or privatized.
Social Security is insurance, not an investment program.
Comparing Social Security to long-term investments misses the point.
You don’t pay for automobile insurance and go out and get in an accident just so it will pay.
You don’t pay health insurance premium in hopes you get cancer or something just so you can cash in.
The boilerplate CON arguments against Social Security are based on lies of premise.
Why should I bother refuting each one yet again again simply because CONs have nothing else to spew, “GMC70?”
(But thanks for your taxpayer-financed contribution to WE Blog, “GMC70.”)
BTW, for the record, I didn’t say I was against SS.
I would have opted out, if allowed, or if allowed I’d participated in a personal retirement account.
I didn’t even speak out AGAINST the fact that SS is progressive and I don’t mind helping out the poor.
(So don’t include me with your broilerplate screed)
I have been an advocate of reform since I’ve been posting here.
Until this thread: Many libs have DENIED there is even a problem. THAT was also my concern.
And I don’t believe the solution is to sock it to the rich or raise the retirement age. Everyone receives benefits, everyone needs to be part of a solution.
Raising the retirement age is difficult for those near retirement. They have made plans and it is too late to adjust in many cases (they cannot recover). Also, I believe old people in poor health should not have to work longer. They will end up increasing the number of disability filings.
If they raise the age, in effect, we will all have to work more years, pay more in taxes and FICA, and receive less benefit. That is, a CUT in benefits.
Take a guy making 100,000 a year. He pays 12.4 percent of his income into the system (6.2 himself + 6.2 his employer) for 35 years (35 years is what SS uses to determine pay-out).
(For the sake of argument, let’s assume that inflation has already been factored into these equations.)
100K x 0.12 x 35 = 420K
http://www.finance.cch.com/sohoApplets/SocialSecurity.html
According to the above website, this individual’s monthly SS check would be 2,179/mo or 26,151 per year.
Okay, fifth graders, how many years of retirement does it take for our high-income worker to get his 420,000 dollars back?
Did you say 16 years?
Because that is correct. Anything over 16 years is gravy . . .
———-
Not really. The time value of the money compounding over that time period would make it a lot, I mean a LOT, more.
Outlander,
Or a lot less if you invested in Enron or GM.
Anyway, as MHawk has rightly pointed out, this is “old age insurance.” It’s not an investment.
The gov’t already has excellent tax sheltered plans like IRA’s, Roth IRA’s, 401k’s, etc for people to invest for their retirement.
Not the same thing at all.
“then the richest country in the world can do it too.”
Therein is CapnAmerica’s problem. He thinks we still have some money trees somewhere.
He doesn’t know we are picking from trees in China.
Every other industrialized nation has social health care too, but you don’t see us all running there to get a hospital to look at us do you? Why do you think all those other countries have taxes like they do? Personally, I would like to decide how to spend MY hard earned money, not the government. If this administration gets its way, we will all be in the poor house, but we will get a lousy little check each month when we are almost dead, if we live that long because the nationalized health care system will never be able to keep us alive long enough to collect SS.
If you want to call it old age insurance, then give us the option to OPT out. We have the right to decide if we want to invest in 401K’s and the like, but the government TELLS us to invest in thier old age insurance. Even if it is the worst insurance policy to be found. I would rather take my chances and invest in a system ran by competent folks, and not our government that can’t balance a check book to save their own lives.
“outlander” shares his 20/20 hindsight –
“The time value of the money compounding over that time period would make it a lot, I mean a LOT, more.”
Yeah. Maybe. If you picked right.
In 1965 Minnie Pearl Fried Chicken franchises sold for the same price as a McDonald’s hamburger stand.
In 1993 you could have built a well-balanced portfolio with WorldCom, Enron, pets.com, and Bear Stearns.
Any time we get into a discussion of Social Security, you CONs cherry-pick investment results while perpetuating the Big Lie that Social Security is an investment program. It’s not. Never was. Never was intended to be.
Go out and get cancer, “outlander,” so your health insurance premiums will pay off. Do you carry automobile insurance? Go get in a wreck so you can recap your investment.
Social Security is insurance.
Quit lying about the subject at hand.
Also, if private investment is so much better than gov’t pensions, how is Chile doing?
Let me answer that–
They’ve had negative returns, high fees, evasion and under-reporting, and inadequate coverage.
It was so good that the ruling military junta made everybody do–EXCEPT for the military.
http://www.socsec.org/publications.asp?pubid=332
Bodri–
Dude. Why do you think Social Security got started anyway?
Just because the gov’t wants your money?
It got started because we had a test of your theory. Before Social Security, the gov’t didn’t take anything out. You could save it all for your old age.
How’d that work out?
40 to 50 percent of retirees lived in poverty.
Sometimes you have to use gov’t to help everybody, not just Dick Cheney.
40 to 50 percent of retirees lived in poverty.
_____________________________________
And who’s fault was that?
Galveston County: A Model for Social Security Reform
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba514
—————-
Very interesting ‘experiment’ where privitization worked well.
MH. Dummy. I simply refuted a false, simplistic economic calculation from CapnA in which HE was trying to show what a good investment SS was. Use the ultra safe T bill rate and it is still a dramatic difference.
Fact is, you get a p*ss poor return on your SS contributions. But it is necessary because folks won’t invest themselves. So it provides stability to society. And old folks can have some dignity.
Also, if private investment is so much better than gov’t pensions, how is Chile doing?
__________________________________
Chile? Couldn’t you find another craphole to cite?
Yup, see what I mean?
“Grandma deserves to starve to death.”
CONs . . .
The gov’t already has excellent tax sheltered plans like IRA’s, Roth IRA’s, 401k’s, etc for people to invest for their retirement.
________________________________________
Too bad the goverment takes my money from me.
Maybe I could invest in those.
outlander claims: I simply refuted a false, simplistic economic calculation from CapnA in which HE was trying to show what a good investment SS was.
1. You refuted nothing. My figures are valid.
2. I was NOT trying “to show what a good investment Social Security” is. I was simply pointing out that if a high-income earner lived for more than 16 years after they took full retirement, they would get back everything they paid in.
Apparently, a lot of them don’t live that long, if the CBO is to be believed, so the average “return” is negative for high-income earners.
Fleet–
If you can’t invest because of taxes, then you’re spending too much.
GOvernment employees have funds they contribute to in their 401K’s (which have a different name than 401K), which have lost money since the Obama recession like everyone else. But they didn’t loose as much and a little safer than mutual funds, are doing well LONG TERM (for which they are designed) and are recovering nicely now.
Allowing partial amounts to go into personal accounts would be a good thing. In fact OBAMA has proposed that for poor people!
Money placed on YOUR social security number in YOUR retirement plan is money CONGRESS CAN NO LONGER SPEND WITH THE GENERAL FUND.
The SS has become Congress slush fund so they don’t have to come to grips with their excess spending (both parties).
They are about to loose their play money (our future). Further, they will have to raise taxes by 2017 to make up for the shortfall. (if not sooner).
“#
40 to 50 percent of retirees lived in poverty.
_____________________________________
And who’s fault was that?
#
The robber baron economy of the time. And we were ALMOST back there again. But now, things are going to be different. If you’ve won life’s lottery, you OWE back. Whether you want to pay up or not.
if a high-income earner lived for more than 16 years after they took full retirement,
So that is why Obama wants to ration health care…
Also, Fleetwood–
The UK experimented with “privatized” accounts too under Thatcher (if I remember correctly).
It didn’t go well . . .
which have lost money since the Obama Bush recession like everyone else.
There. Fixed it.
you OWE back.
And what do you use to support that statement? How is it one OWES for their success?
Cap and so your thought is that the government knows better right? If you make a mistake, or bad decision and not save, as in this case, then it’s only right to have someone to “watch over you” and make you make the right decision? Not to mention how well government (Dem or Rep) has done in tracking our best interests? Do you know believe that with freedom comes responsibility? We all ought to be responsible for our own actions, good or bad. I don’t need a big brother, I have one already.
Further, they will have to raise taxes by 2017 to make up for the shortfall.
Or . . . they could cut spending, like on the huge entitlement program for the rich–the military.
for the rich–the military.
You ignorant b@stard. Tell that to an E-4 with a wife and two kids.
Damn you’re dumb.
We all ought to be responsible for our own actions, good or bad.
That’s half right, Bodri.
We also live in a society and we should be concerned for the common good. The majority want Social Security in our society.
If you don’t want it, feel free to move overseas where you will be LEGALLY exempt from all US taxes including Social Security.
You also won’t be able to draw Social Security either.
Good luck.
Capn do you really think we should weaken our military?
In a real comparison between SS and a working plan with a 30 year history:
Galveston vs. Social Security. Upon retirement after 30 years, and assuming a 5 percent rate of return – more conservative than Galveston workers have earned – all workers would do better for the same contribution as Social Security:
Workers making $17,000 a year are expected to receive about 50 percent more per month on our alternative plan than on Social Security – $1,036 instead of $683. [See the Figure.]
Workers making $26,000 a year will make almost double Social Security’s return – $1,500 instead of $853.
Workers making $51,000 a year will get $3,103 instead of $1,368.
Workers making $75,000 or more will nearly triple Social Security – $4,540 instead of $1,645.
Galveston County’s survivorship benefits pay four times a worker’s annual salary – a minimum of $75,000 to a maximum $215,000 – versus Social Security, which forces widows to wait until age 60 to qualify for benefits, or provides 75 percent of a worker’s salary for school-age children.
In Galveston, if the worker dies before retirement, the survivors receive not only the full survivorship but get generous accidental death benefits, too. Galveston County’s disability benefit also pays more: 60 percent of an individual’s salary, better than Social Security’s.
Sol–
Oh, no. I’m not talking about the people in the military. They’re working class, and hence the fat cast treat them like expendible slaves they are.
Sure, every once in awhile, we wave flags and sing songs and pin medals on the slaves’ chests, but that is just bread and circuses for the plebians.
I’m talking about Halliburton and the people who run it (Dick Cheney). It made BILLIONS on gov’t contracts. Look at Star Wars defense. It doesn’t work and has never been used, and out gov’t has spent hundreds of billions on it, all funnelled to fat cat industrialists.
Capn it sounds like your solution to SS is to blame the rich, the wealthy, and the politicians who are red.
Not sure how good a solution that will be.
Oko–
Hell, yes.
No other industrialized country in the world spends more than about 2.5 percent of GDP on its military.
If you add up interest on the debt, past military, off the books military operations going on right now, plus the official DoD budget, the US spends a whopping 6 percent of GDP on the military.
We spend more on our military than the entire rest of the world combined.
It’s insane and totally unsustainable.
Capn:
1) That 30’s era Republicans and a court 60+ years ago objected to the program means nothing. NO ONE, and I mean NO ONE, seeks to scrap SS. That’s the ultimate straw man, and we both know it. That’s the pure fear politics your party has relied on for years, if not decades.
2) This isn’t about military spending, and the wisdom, or lack of, spending for same. If you want to go there, fine. I suspect we’d agree a lot more than you imagine. But that’s changing the subject.
3) This is the “But mommy, all the cool kids have one” argument. Cripes. First, see #1. Still a strawman. Second, the fact of the matter is, as presently operating, it is going bust. And it will take more than just “tweaking” to change that.
4) Your objection to what was in part mislabeled as “privatization” was noted, and the idea died. Fine. What is your alternative? And let’s start with two basic facts; until we understand these, we get nowhere. Unlike your “givens,” however, these are actual facts:
First, SS is not a retirement program. And it’s not, as MH characterizes it, insurance, though that’s closer to reality. It is, in fact, a direct transfer of wealth from those working to those retired. Characterizing it as anything else is essentially dishonest.
Second, the “trust fund” is a hollow sham, and cannot be relied upon to give us any cushion. There is nothing in it; it’s already been spent. The Treasury securities that “guarantee” SS’s trust fund will have to be redeemed by general fund tax revenue. That necessarily comes out of other spending, or additional revenue. There is no trust fund, and hasn’t been for some time.
Rather than continuing to play fear politics – as has been your party’s mantra for some time, and which you continue to do – don’t you think it’s time to pull your fingers out of your ears, face reality, and do serious reform?
“Capn, it sounds like your solution to SS is to blame the rich”
Blame them for what.
I don’t know what you’re talking about.
Note Cap you said SHOULD be concerned for the common good (though I would like to know who gets to decide what this is) but in this administration it is becoming a HAVE TO take care of everyone society where there is no responsibility. Because we are becoming a society where government knows best. They tell us what is bad to watch, what is bad to eat, what is bad to do, and if we don’t listen they pass laws to control it. Case in point the suggestion made to tax sugar drinks just as they have done on alchohol and cigs. Just another way of controlling us. Next will be junk food. How far does it have to go before this nation wakes up and sees Big Brother is not longer just watching?
treat them like expendible slaves they are.
Glad to know how you feel about the brave men and women that defend your right to bad mouth them.
Ignorant b@stard.
Capn I have shown you evidence that some privatization has worked in the past. That the model our government insists on holding onto isn’t working and hasn’t worked since the sixities when the birthrate started to go down. In the fifties there were over 15 active workers per retiree. Now there are less than 3 per retiree.
This didn’t happen overnight. It has been very apparent for years and many have tried to fix it years ago. Democrats refused to act. Now that they are completely in charge they are attempting to ‘fix’ it by taxing the rich, cutting payouts to the ‘rich’, etc..
Not a well thought out answer anywhere.
You refuse to debate the merits of anything that will actually help the SS problem.
Blame the rich.
Tax the rich.
Give to the poor.
Redistribute the wealth.
Punish risk takers.
Reward slackards.
Those are the problems not the solutions.
“outlander” makes the case –
“MH. Dummy.”
Yeah?
Well you’re stinky.
So I win the debate.
If you can’t invest because of taxes, then you’re spending too much.
____________________________________
Should be: If you can’t invest because of taxes, then you’re TAXED too much.
Say you’re 21 and get killed in a motorcycle accident.
You leave a stay-at-home mom and a toddler behind.
Your widow will qualify for Social Security benefits for life and your toddler will be supported ’til age 18.
Sounds like a pretty good insurance plan to me.
Go shop for that plan in the commercial market.
#
Monkeyhawk
Posted May 14, 2009 at 3:25 pm | Permalink
“outlander” makes the case –
“MH. Dummy.”
Yeah?
Well you’re stinky.
So I win the debate.
————
Pretty restrained response Monkey, I thought, after you called me a liar.
NO ONE, and I mean NO ONE, seeks to scrap SS. That’s the ultimate straw man, and we both know it.
I disagree. Bush’s privatization plan to me and millions of others represented scrapping social security.
*****
Re: all industrialized countries have social security
This is the “But mommy, all the cool kids have one” argument. Cripes. First, see #1. Still a strawman. Second, the fact of the matter is, as presently operating, it is going bust.
Again, I beg to differ. You call it a straw man. I call what you say “a false analogy.”
Other countries are models that we can use to see what works and what doesn’t. The Netherlands has “hash bars,” and that seems to work for them–it doesn’t me we’d benefit from having them here.
But when EVERY other country has made their social security work, then I think that is very telling that it can be made to work here too.
It is, in fact, a direct transfer of wealth from those working to those retired.
I basically agree with that. Just as nearly everything that the gov’t does is a “direct transfer of wealth from those working” to somebody else.
So what?
State aid to education is a direct transfer of wealth from those working to students. State aid to the prosecutor’s offices, let’s say, is a direct transfer of wealth to enforce laws. State aid to build highways only benefits people who drive–it’s a transfer of wealth.
Social security is a transfer of wealth . . . with the big proviso that YOU (and me and everyone else) will benefit from it if we live long enough.
Monkeyhawk, have you heard of Life Insurance? Where do you think that money goes, if you are killed in an accident. Sounds pretty much like the same thing, except you get paid more and quicker.
Having said that, if you die at 21, how much did you contribute to SS. Who pays for all the money over the years that goes to the wife?
It is sad, yes, but does it make the check book balance, unfortunately no.
SS isn’t the elephant in the room, Medicare is. They’re both insurance policies based on projected lifespans and health costs. But SS is only something like $7-$9 trillion in the hole, while Medicare is something like $40 trillion in the red. The reason they’re both in the hole so bad is pure spending. So we can kick around reform ideas all day long, but unless they begin with spending cuts, they’re doomed. All it takes to get spending under control is for our true “big brother” to cut us off (China) and they’re already hinting that that day isn’t too far away.
Same reason I get sick of hearing about the “FairTax”, because any income tax reform is meaningless unless it’s coupled with a “FairSpending” precursor. Doesn’t matter whether the issue’s military, earmarks, entitlements, energy “investments”, subsidies, tax breaks, whatever, they’re all just diversion noise until spending as a whole is brought back to reality.
Your widow will qualify for Social Security benefits for life and your toddler will be supported ’til age 18.
—————————————————-
I don’t think that’s corect. The widow/er doesn’t collect benefits until they reach a retirement age.
I’ll tell you story of where major flaws lie in the system.
I know a 73 year old man who has a wife of 48 who works full time and earns a very good living. They have a 15 year old daughter. The man in addition to his pension receives social security. Because the 15 year old has a parent collecting SS, she also receives a nice check every month. Even though her mother is still working age and earns a very good living.
The problem here is the 15 year old girl basically getting her college paid for when the time comes(that’s what her parents do with the money) even though her mother earns in excess of six-figures.
I understand the reason for this provision (elderly parents raising a child) but there are major flaws in the system that allow this.
My point, “Bodri” is Social Security is insurance.
Please try to keep up.
Sol–
If you want to interprete my statement that “the fat cats treat them [soldiers] like expendible slaves they are” as demeaning to the military, then you are beyond reasoning with.
If it were up to me, soldiers’ pay and benefits would be immediately tripled, they’d be allowed to unionize, and everybody providing services to service personnel would be in the military and in the chain of command.
And every snot-puke CONtractor’s CONtract would be immediately cancelled.
That’s how much I hate the troops.
Dumb@ss.
#
Monkeyhawk
Posted May 14, 2009 at 3:39 pm | Permalink
My point, “Bodri” is Social Security is insurance.
Please try to keep up.
———————————–
Your point would be wrong.
Insurance cover losses caused by an outside event or events that is beyond the control of the insured.
Further, Social Security has no individual contract per individual, it is governed by Congress. It’s a government ran welfare agency.
“the fat cats treat them [soldiers] like expendible slaves they are”
Ignorant b@stard
It is, in fact, a direct transfer of wealth from those working to those retired.
I basically agree with that. Just as nearly everything that the gov’t does is a “direct transfer of wealth from those working” to somebody else.
—-
Good. Then we have a starting point for agreement. Now we just have to get the public to understand that.
Because they have been told, for decades, that SS was a retirement program that you paid into, and then drew back what you paid upon retirement. It’s not that; it never was. But that’s how it’s been sold, from the beginning.
Democrats have contributed mightly to that misconception, first, in the initial selling of the program, and secondly, in the continual scare tactics used as election fodder. Undoing that perception will take some doing. And it will take some acknowledging that the program is not what it was made out to be. It will further take recognition that all have an interest in fixing it, and that differing approaches to fixing it do not mean that those you disagree with are evil henchmen out to take grandma’s only means of support. It might even mean (gasp!) compromise.
But you’ll have to abandon the eeeevil Republicans strawman (and it is a strawman, no matter how much you protest otherwise) to accomplish anything. Demonizing the other side and scaring the elderly for political gain is not the way to get anything accomplished.
A tril. for Iraq could’ve gone a long ways in shoring up S.S.
Read that we’ll have to continue to support Iraq even after we leave because of oil prices. Maybe we should just purchase our oil from them .
And to continue you bad mouthing…
Sure, every once in awhile, we wave flags and sing songs and pin medals on the slaves’ chests, but that is just bread and circuses for the plebians.
You contempt for the men and women in green is obvious.
You contempt for the men and women in green is obvious.
Wat choo talkin about Willis?
There’s blue uniforms out there too. :D
And every snot-puke CONtractor’s CONtract would be immediately cancelled.
-Then you are going to have to re-institute the draft.
Zoomies. Go figure.
#
Mr_Kia
Posted May 14, 2009 at 3:52 pm | Permalink
And every snot-puke CONtractor’s CONtract would be immediately cancelled.
-Then you are going to have to re-institute the draft.
==================================
Not to mention the tens of thousands of slots that would needed to be trained at factories that make ships, aircraft, weapons systems because military personnel don’t have the design and application training for complex systems. They can fix it, keep it maintained, but are not engineers (for the most part)
Monkeyhawk
Posted May 14, 2009 at 3:39 pm | Permalink
My point, “Bodri” is Social Security is insurance.
Please try to keep up.
My point, “Monkeyhawk” you said find another insurance like that, and I did. But, can you get a loan agains SS like you can a long term life ins policy?
My main point is if your like me, and are almost 30 years from being able to draw SS, then if your smart you have long since given up hope of getting it back. So, please let me keep my SS money and invest it myself, then let’s see who comes out a head. Don’t penalize me because others were irrisponsible and didn’t save, now you have to take my money to pay them for what they didn’t do.
It will further take recognition that all have an interest in fixing it
Assuming that it needs to be “fixed” is however an immediate point of disagreement. The CBO did say that under a “bad case” scenario, Social Security would have exhausted the surplus in 2037.
However, it could still pay out 70 – 80 percent of projected payments.
That’s bad. It’s not catastrophic.
One possible tweak might be to tie COLA to wages instead of to prices. At the beginning, prices increased more slowly than wages, so COLA was tied to prices. Now it’s the other way around, so because of downsizing and outsourcing, the wage base upon which Social Security is founded has been eroded.
Sorry, Bodri.
I’m going to venture a little guess.
If you’re not saving for your retirement right now, you wouldn’t be saving your Social Security money either.
That’s why Social Security was invented.
As I said earlier, you’re free to leave the country if you don’t like it.
#
outlander
Posted April 22, 2009 at 2:31 pm | Permalink
As for Prejean’s career, it appears to be taking off despite losing the crown, a fact which has not escaped her.
“I wouldn’t be here right now if I were Miss USA,” she said on the “Today Show.” “I know I have a purpose and I don’t take back what I said. I was true to myself. I know now I can go out and speak to young people about standing up about what you believe in and never compromising yourself for anyone or anything, even if it’s the crown for Miss USA.”
————
Can a Fox News anchorette position be far away?
**************
Well, I hate to say I told you so, but…
Miss California on Cable News: Fox & Friends Gives Carrie Prejean Her Chance
May 14, 2009 03:24 PM ET | Paul Bedard | Permanent Link
Miss California and Miss USA runner-up, Carrie Prejean, tossed around in the battle over gay marriage, will be a one-day guest host for Fox News Channel’s popular morning show Fox & Friends, Whispers learns. She will host the 6 a.m.-to-7 a.m. slot on May 27, filling in for Gretchen Carlson—the 1989 Miss America—who will be off that day.
Sol–
Like I said earlier, you’re past arguing with.
But it’s very simple. If we really cared about the troops like we say we do, then we’d pay them well and give them some input over their working environment, the same as we do any profession that we really value.
Since we (as a country) don’t do that, my words stand.
“GMC70″ tries –
“…they have been told, for decades, that SS was a retirement program that you paid into…”
Yeah?
And who’s told ‘em that?
CONs.
CONs whose ideological hatred for the most successful government program in the history of Western Civilization would like to compare FICA contributions to returns coming from investing in Xerox in 1954 or MicroSoft in 1976.
If I don’t pay insurance on my Mazda I could afford a Porsche.
If you, “GMC70,” didn’t buy life insurance you could buy your daughter a pony.
Why do you hate ponies?
Why do you hate your daughter?
they could cut spending, like on the huge entitlement program for the rich–the military.
If it were up to me, soldiers’ pay and benefits would be immediately tripled,
Spin spin spin. Cut spending and triple pay.
You are either lying through your teeth or just one ignorant b@stard.
Triple the pay?
I would love to make about 150K – 200K a year in the military. They would have to shoot me dead to keep me out. :D
You really don’t know anything about the market do you?
Which is why I suppose SS was invented.
All comparisons of private investment vs. FICA contributions are based on the DJI.
Sol–
Do you think that the military is spending trillions on soldiers’ pay?
Get a clue.
The program to build ONE new jet–the F22–cost 65 BILLION dollars.
It cost 138 million per jet.
Practically all of that goes to big CONtractors.
BTW, this jet does absolutely nothing to protect us from the real threats out there, but, hey, it sure makes beau-coup money for fat cats!
Practically all of that goes to big CONtractors.
________________________________________
You mean, the big contractors Union employees.
A) Would that be union CONtractors?
B) Why do you hate our Air Force pilots? Why don’t you want them in the best aircraft available?
Damn you Fleett.
Is your problem on what is spent? (Because then Yes, you just want to weaken our military).
Or to who has the contracts? (Because our military does not have the infastrucuture to build them).
How do you propose training a military force in all of the sciences necessary to build a F-22 just as an example?
this jet does absolutely nothing to protect us from the real threats out there
Yeah, I mean who needs 3rd generation stealth or air supiority? What was wrong with those biplanes they used to fly? Bet those were pretty cheap.
Ignorant b@stard.
we’d pay them well and give them some input over their working environment,
______________________________________
Pie in the sky crapola. LibTalk.
superiority even
“If I don’t pay insurance on my Mazda I could afford a Porsche.”
Jeez monk, the insurance premium for my Mazda pickup just went up to $104 for 6mo; You must really have a bad driving record!
Monthly basic pay for an E-2 (enlisted) for Jan 2009 with two years of service is less than 1600 dollars a month.
I rest my case.
http://www.defenselink.mil/militarypay/pay/bp/paytables/2009%20capped.pdf
“Mr_Kia” proclaims –
All comparisons of private investment vs. FICA contributions are based on the DJI.”
Yeah?
And how is the Dow-Jones Index based?
Don’t know, “Mr_Kia?”
I’m not surprised.
The Dow routinely drops “under-performing” companies from its index. Honeywell used to be part of the Dow until they started tanking. Sears was a mainstay on the Dow until they didn’t make enough money.
The “Dow” is not bestowed by God on tablets of stone; it’s a cherry-picked list of stocks. Now, when it goes down, it’s a big deal. But it would be nothing so high if they hadn’t removed companies such as Remington, Santa Fe, US Steel, etc.
“Hey, Sarge! This beach landing thing really ain’t working out for me. I need to go see my Union Steward. I’ll be right back.”
Monthly basic pay for an E-2 (enlisted) for Jan 2009 with two years of service is less than 1600 dollars a month.
______________________________________
Why gloss over room and board and the other benefits?
Hate to belabor the point but the Galveston, Texas plan which they chose over SS is 30 years old. It pays out triple what SS pay in many instances. This is the plan Bush was looking at when he attempted to privatize part of the SS program.
You guys are so busy throwing barbs at each other you really don’t look for solutions.
There are workable plans already. All they require is that the government stop spending the FICA tax money and instead invest it in a private plan. They drew over 6% interest for the first 24 years of this plan. This is very sustainable. There were some problems but these were corrected.
#
fleettwood
Posted May 14, 2009 at 4:25 pm | Permalink
“Hey, Sarge! This beach landing thing really ain’t working out for me. I need to go see my Union Steward. I’ll be right back.”
————————
I wonder if ‘Scabs’ come with their own weapons, gear, armor and air support?
“…they have been told, for decades, that SS was a retirement program that you paid into…”
Yeah?
And who’s told ‘em that?
CONs.
—
Actually, No, MH. FDR told em that. The Democrats trot that out every time they then try to claim that those eeeevil “CONSs” (do you have that shortcutted into your keyboard, or are you just too stupid to know any other word?) were going to “take Grandma’s food and rent.”
Nope, MH, your party owns that one.
Sol loves the individual soldier so much, that he thinks one fighter plane is worth the yearly pay of 3 million 270 thousand troops.
See, my priorities are different.
#
CapnAmerica
Posted May 14, 2009 at 4:24 pm | Permalink
Monthly basic pay for an E-2 (enlisted) for Jan 2009 with two years of service is less than 1600 dollars a month.
I rest my case.
http://www.defenselink.mil/militarypay/pay/bp/paytables/2009%20capped.pdf
———————————
Yeah okay,
If you are still E-2 after two years of service, you’ve either been busted or serving time in a military jail or under suspension waiting to be tried.
Fleet, et al.
The unionized police and fire had no problems running INTO the World Trade Center on 9-11, 2001.
BTW, everybody else was running out . . .
Assuming that it needs to be “fixed” is however an immediate point of disagreement. The CBO did say that under a “bad case” scenario, Social Security would have exhausted the surplus in 2037.
WEll, Capn, there we do have a disagreement. First, the only responsible thing to do is assume the “bad case” scenario, and act accordingly; if we’re wrong, it’s a good thing.
And second, of course, is that there is no “surplus” to exhaust. There hasn’t been for years; it’s already spent. So we don’t have nearly that much time.
“Having said that, if you die at 21, how much did you contribute to SS. Who pays for all the money over the years that goes to the wife?” [Bodri]
That’s pathetic.. If you die at 21, your widow gets NOTHING!! Since she isnt eligible!!
IF you have a life insurance policy on top of SS, then wife gets the insurance money… and keeps working until she, presumably retires, and collects on HER pension, and SS benefits…
SS was never meant to be a total retirement program… just a supplement “helper” at retirement time…
Of course, as I have pointed out before, people live longer now.. retirement age for SS has increased.. And with the impending retirement of the Boomers, there will only naturally be less to pay out… and even more so, if the 20-somethings and 30-somethings, should opt out of SS, and not pay in…
Okay, I’m outta here.
Ciao.
#
Mr_Kia
Posted May 14, 2009 at 3:52 pm | Permalink
And every snot-puke CONtractor’s CONtract would be immediately cancelled.
-Then you are going to have to re-institute the draft.
===========================================
You say that like it’s a bad thing.
CapnAmerica
Posted May 14, 2009 at 4:32 pm | Permalink
Fleet, et al.
The unionized police and fire had no problems running INTO the World Trade Center on 9-11, 2001.
BTW, everybody else was running out .
=======================================
2,726 people could not or were not able run out.
#
CapnAmerica
Posted May 14, 2009 at 4:33 pm | Permalink
Okay, I’m outta here.
Ciao.
====================
You are sooo gay.
“Riiiiight. Pull those people out of the retirement and nursing homes and tell them to start pulling their own weight again. “—the jawless fish
Those folks have earned their keep, they were pulling their own and others weight in their years.
It’s the slugs, parasites, and freeloaders, those that want to live off the labors of others, those that can and won’t pull their own weight are the ones that need to be put out, as they are pulling the country down and the Dims are using them to buy votes to gain power.
1960:
REPUBLICANS WANT TO TAKE YOUR SOCIAL SECURITY AWAY!!
1965:
REPUBLICANS WANT TO TAKE YOUR SOCIAL SECURITY AWAY!!
1970:
REPUBLICANS WANT TO TAKE YOUR SOCIAL SECURITY AWAY!!
1975:
REPUBLICANS WANT TO TAKE YOUR SOCIAL SECURITY AWAY!!
1980:
REPUBLICANS WANT TO TAKE YOUR SOCIAL SECURITY AWAY!!
1985:
REPUBLICANS WANT TO TAKE YOUR SOCIAL SECURITY AWAY!!
2010:
BUT OBAMA AND DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS ARE GOING TO TAKE YOUR SOCIAL SECURITY AWAY!!
REPUBLICANS HATE UNIONS!
REPUBLICANS HATE UNIONS!
But OBAMA AND THE DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS ARE CLOSING MORE UNION JOBS THAN AT ANY TIME IN US HISTORY!!!!
Presidential comparison quiz
If George W. Bush had made a joke at the expense of the Special Olympics, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had given Tony Blair a set of inexpensive and useless (to Tony Blair’s UK video formatting) DVDs, when Tony Blair had given him a thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had given the Queen of England an iPod containing videos of his speeches, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia , would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had visited Austria and made reference to the non-existent “Austrian language,” would you have brushed it off as a minor slip?
If George W. Bush had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers with people who cannot seem to keep current on their income taxes, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had ordered the firing of the CEO of a major corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had proposed to double the national debt, which had taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in one year, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had then proposed to double the debt again within 10 years, would you have approved?
So, tell me again, what is it about Obama that makes him so brilliant and impressive?
Can’t think of anything? Don’t worry. He’s done all this in 10 weeks — so you’ll have three years and nine-and-a-half months to come up with an answer.
george bush was never elected in a reliably fair election. He is also widely thought to be the worst President in the history of the United States.
But thanks for playing bawksy. Now, get out your wallet. You and yours got some bills to catch up on!
At least I’ve got a wallet you parasitic slug.
If George W. Bush had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia , would you have approved?
Actually, George W. Bush kissed and held hands with a visiting Saudi prince.
That was just sickening.
Anti sez that
You are sooo gay.
You say that like it’s a bad thing.
bush: we be gonna to change social security to be one of them private investment things like we are gonna put that social security fund into the stock market.
2 years later wall street goes kaput.
entitlement programs ????????
is it REALLY an entitlement when someone has paid in to it for 45 years ????
you repukes always call it one of them government handouts like welfare when we pay in to it for a lifetime.
you are the biggest bunch of rove limbaugh brainwashed suckers around.
Boxlock20
if i call you an idiot would you approve.
if i said you have an IQ somewhere south of 85 or 90 would you approve.
if i said you obvously have way too much time on your hands would you approve.
if i said hey where did you get your latest cut and paste comment would you kiss my ring, walk hand in hand with me on national tv, would you grab my shoulders on national tv and rub them while i tried to find a place to throw up into, would you talk about the constitution as a piece of gd worthless paper, would you missprounce most of them words to please your followers cause they are dumb as a rock, would you loosen coal mine regulations resulting in meny workers getting killed to raise more money from the mine owner, or if i lost the election but bought off officials to declare me the winner would you tell me i’m a good man or would you actually for once tell the truth ??
face it spanky, you suck at being an american cause you have to think for yourself and have failed doing that so you just listen to hannity cheney limbaugh savage rove and beck to feel fulfilled as a human being.