Its an oldy but a goodie in the democrat party. Tell seniors that republicans are going to take your social security.

All that is left is to tell blacks that republicans are bringing back lychings.

Barack Obama is a shameless fucktard.


Bee Swell

The only thing to be scared about with social security is that the democratic party has raided it for the last 60 years and still continues to do so today.

Where is Al Gore's lock Box?

How does Obama plan to pay the escalating benefits of the retiring baby boomers? A box of hope?

Same old bullshit rhetoric that always works on dumbass democrat monkey fucks!


SEE YOU IN DENVER!!!


Bee Swell

Dude, I love you Crackpipejunkie, your smart beyong your years.

Social Security. LOL So Obama is saying "leave it all under the governments control, so we can rape it to the general fund like we have for so many decades"

McCain is going to eat him alive on this one. If its privatized, then the government can't rape it like they have.

So in reality, privatizing it is better for all seniors no matter what.

Obama forgot to mention, in his lies, that the Bush plan had 0 effect on seniors whatsoever.

LOL Obama playing on lies. Democrats lie to people alot, because thats a STAPLE of their party.

A democrat believes the Government is the "father" who knows all, and solves all problems, and that that have to do this, because all people are stupid, except them.

Elitism at its best. OSucka 08!

SEE YOU IN DENVER YOU FUCKHEAD DEMOCRATS!

Kuma

Its not just about controlling people they can also steal from the general fund which is what democrats have been doing for decades.

The whole idea of wasting the money in the first place is to leave one choice and that take more from the people and make them less self sustaining and more dependent on government.

SEE YOU IN DENVER!!!

Bee Swell

Obama is right on this one. Bush did his "Social Security sell-a-thon" two different times as he went around like some traveling clown show around the country trying to sell his "privatization" of SS scam but nobody was buying it

Finally it got so bad with the majority of Americans not wanting it, the GOP elite had to tell Bush to please STFU before they lost every election. McCain also wants to privatize SS and that will be the kiss of death for McCain.

The Seniors on SS defintely get out as one of the biggest voting blocks and they didn't get to their age without learning a thing or two -- especially knowing when some jerk in the White House is trying to scam them into turning over their monthly SS checks to his Wall Street buddies so they could make millions in brokers' fees investing that SS money in the stock market.

Wall Street donated heavily to Bush on the promise he would do all he could to privatize SS when he got into office.

Once SS was privatized, then groups like AARP and other groups trusted by Seniors (and which groups would get a cut of the brokerage bucks) would then push Seniors into "trusting" them to invest Seniors' SS checks in the stock market.

As if when you're 83 years old you really want -- or need -- the hassle of worrying about whether or not you're able to ride out any downturns in the stock market and live long enough to build back up what you had lost. Being able to wait for the stock market to bounce back up again to regain any lost money is a lot different at age 35 then it is at age 85.

Bush and the Republicans HATE any kind of government program that helps out the people of this country. FEMA, consumer safety programs, Social Security, Medicare, ANYTHING that might help those who are not in the Republicans' millionaire plus class are considered to them as useless and needless programs to be gotten rid of in any way possible.

I've been a member of both the Republican and Democrat parties (and now am a registered independent) but I have to say without a doubt that for pure greed and being self-centered and not wanting to do anything to help other Americans perhaps not as financially well off as they are, nothing surpasses the Republican party in pure selfishness.

I'm not talking about welfare, I'm talking about wanting to destroy any and all government programs to help U.S. citizens such as SS for the elderly, inspection of our food and product safety -- even toys that babies put in their mouths being inspected for lead or food for our pets, or FEMA to help out after a disaster hit. Anything that might is a program not designed solely for corporate profit is deemed to be a worthless enterprise to Republicans.

Califchris, what we hate is giving the government $10 and getting back $4. Thats the problem with social security and other government social programs.

Privatizion would keep the government from spending it without any certainty of repaying it. It would also allow the money to be invested and grow at market rates.

Look at it this way between you and your employer your contribution to social security is 12.2% of your annual salary yet when people retire there is not enough money there to afford the basic necessities to live on. Where did the money go? The government spent it and can't pay it back with interest. Why, because they rely upon current payess money to pay current retirees benefits. This is a pyramid scheme. Anyone else besides the government would go to jail for doing this.

To the ignorant its easy to scare them and make them believe they will be hurt by privatizion. Of course doing this also keeps them under the thumb of the govenment and continually voting for those that enslave them the democrats.


SEE YOU IN DENVER!!!

Bee Swell

when we privatize we will give 10 and get back 0. Republicans can never be trusted with your money. They are too greedy to not steal it.

Mess,


when we privatize we will give 10 and get back 0. Republicans can never be trusted with your money. They are too greedy to not steal it.


By privatizing we'd be taking the money out of the hands of the politicians and putting it into the hands of the private sector.

Other than a knee-jerk desire to bash Republicans, your comment doesn't make sense.

Give the people an opt out option. You put 15% of your income in a money-market account and you would be better off than with SS. It's a SCAM! It was in the beginning and it will continue to be a SCAM! Someone needs to do damage control now instead of just blindly going down the road to ruin.

what guarantee do we have that the pvt sector won't embezzle the money or the market will tank?

Well a cozy jail cell for those that steal in the private sector but when politicians steal they get promoted from within.

Bee Swell

There are no guaruntees, Mess.


However, even with certain pitfalls I CAN guaruntee a better rate of return in the private sector than what SS currently affords.


All of that said, privatization of SS is a bad idea simply because it takes money out of the trust right when the biggest demand on the trust will occur - boomers drawing benies en masse.


We had a real window of opportunity for partial privatization which would have been truly beneficial. However, that window closed about 20 years ago.

You take ANY money away from Social Security You are hastening it's destruction. How can You fund Social Security if one has the option to Opt Out?? What needs to be done is raise the amount that is taken for Social Security. Instead of NintyOne Thousand raise it to two hundred thousand. Social Security and Medicare are VITAL for the Elderly and the Disabled. We have to take care of Our elderly somehow. If it weren't for them we wouldn't have America. They sacrificed their lives to make America a better place. It is in their golden years that they should reap those benefits.

Larry Mohr

ts an oldy but a goodie in the democrat party. Tell seniors that republicans are going to take your social security.

All that is left is to tell blacks that republicans are bringing back lychings.

Barack Obama is a shameless fucktard.


Bee Swell

Posted by Crackpipejunkie


Yeah, let's remember this when we start hearing about how the democrats want to raise our taxes and surrender to terrorists. It's about time that the dems started to throw your type of shit right back in your faces. Seems that you're not really likin' it so far. lol

"Where is Al Gore's lock Box?"

I think Algore put it in the closet but Tipper moved it to the garage ... or the attic. She can't remember, so now we're all screwed.

Health care is still privatized, how's that working out for y'all????
So let's put the same crooks in charge of SS.
Brilliant.
We know the private sector cares about our well being, as an oil company executive who profits from pumping oil out of Federal lands, paying about $10.00 per barrel for it and then selling it back to the federal government for $120 per barre.

The headline should not be McCain wants to privatize Social Security
It should be McBush wants to cronyize Social Security.

Bush and the Republicans HATE any kind of government program that helps out the people of this country.

Posted by CalifChris



Chris, I have to correct you on this.

They HATE any program that helps out anyone other their priveledged base.

Welfare to corporations and millionaires is fine.

BTW, This is all that privitazation will ever be... welfare to Wall Street. Check out how well the central America social insurance privitization programs have fared and you will see who is the real beneficiaries.

After McSame's complicit involvement with the Keating five America should run screaming from any financial plan that he has cooked up in little brain.

However, even with certain pitfalls I CAN guaruntee a better rate of return in the private sector than what SS currently affords

Spoken like a true snakeoil salesman.

Anyone that can "guarantee" a rate of return is either lying or foolish. Take your pick.

"I'm talking about wanting to destroy any and all government programs to help U.S. citizens such as SS for the elderly, inspection of our food and product safety -- even toys that babies put in their mouths being inspected for lead or food for our pets, or FEMA to help out after a disaster hit."

Well, Republicans wanting to stop inspections of products and FEMA is a new one. Use some common sense. Privatizing SS means the money would be invested instead of spent like it is now. You sound as if there would be no Federal over site. If congress had not spent the money over the last 60 years then SS would not be in trouble now. You are naive if you think SS will be hunky-dory when todays young reach retirement age.

As a test start a savings account with 1000 dollars for the purpose of let's say a new roof with your own money and put in 250 a month. Now start spending it until the account depleted. Now make sure you spend the 250 every month that you should be saving and put in an IOU to remind you you need to repay it some day. Do this for 5 years and see how much you owe the account. Now it's time to buy that new roof. Darn, you don't have the 16,000 plus interest for that roof. All you have is a jar full of IOU's and good intentions. Now you only screwed yourself. It's the Democrats in congress that screw you and everybody else in the US. I'm not saying Republicans don't also. At least they want to try and fix it. Oh, and they do promise to pay it back with your money in the future even though you already paid for it.

Its an oldy but a goodie in the democrat party. Tell seniors that republicans are going to take your social security.

An oldie that's also true. Bush spent a year trying to privatize parts of Social Security, which would've removed billions in funds necessary to support seniors who are recipients of the program.

He failed for the same reason that McCain will fail if he touches the third rail of politics. Seniors are extremely dubious of plans by the government to mess with Social Security.

"What needs to be done is raise the amount that is taken for Social Security. Instead of NintyOne Thousand raise it to two hundred thousand."

You're sounding like that Muslim Barrack Obama.....and that's a good thing.

Dude, I love you Crackpipejunkie, your smart beyong your years.


I think I threw up a little at that comment.

Hey brainiacs, how is Washington going to pay for the privitization?

And that is where the privitization scheme falls apart. Privitize the trust fund liability and the government has to borrow trillions or hike taxes massively. Privitize future withholdings and the government has to borrow trillions or hike taxes massively.

He failed for the same reason that McCain will fail if he touches the third rail of politics. Seniors are extremely dubious of plans by the government to mess with Social Security.


So, the problem continues to loom until it reaches a boiling point and the Democrats all-the-while play politics for personal gain and will then throw their hands up in the air when the program becomes insolvent?

"your(sic) smart beyong(sic) your years."

And those years are very, very, ... very few.

Spoken like a true snakeoil salesman.

Anyone that can "guarantee" a rate of return is either lying or foolish. Take your pick.

Posted by 726


Jesus H. Christ on a popsickle stick!


Read my comments in their entirety and quit playing stupid games of 'Gotcha'.

"So in reality, privatizing it is better for all seniors no matter what."

No, privatizing SS is no good for anybody at any age.

If the market takes a dump, it doesn't matter where your money is. You think Unca Sam is gonna make up the difference? Or if the market is really good that you will receive a fatter payout? I got this here bridge for sale...

The deal with SS, whether the monies are held in the general fund or "privatized" and reinvested in the market "for the betterment of the contributer," the bottom line is this money is still being removed from your paycheck via federal mandate and there ain't a damn thing you or I can do about it.

If SS is privatized, fine, send me a check for all the monies I have "contributed" (that is, extorted from me) over the decades and I'll handle my money as I see fit.

All you have is a jar full of IOU's and good intentions

Except for one thing you forgot... those IOU's are treasury bonds. US Government treasury bonds. The same bonds that W has in his portfolio. The same bonds that banks and credit unions buy with their deposits. The same bonds that investors around the world put their money and faith in.

Stop peddling the bullshit the right wants to promote.

The forecast for social security that spells out doom and gloom uses a growth rate of the economy LESS than the government uses to forecast the annual budget. That is how they make it appear to be running out of money. If the government used the same growth rate of GDP as they used for the annual budget forecast the SS trust fund would be solvent into infinity. They manipulate the numbers and you righties just drink up the koolaid.

Clean yourselves up.

Okay....

There are no guaruntees, Mess.


However, even with certain pitfalls I CAN guaruntee a better rate of return in the private sector than what SS currently affords.


So what is it? No guarantee or guarantee a better rate of return?

The forecast for social security that spells out doom and gloom uses a growth rate of the economy LESS than the government uses to forecast the annual budget. That is how they make it appear to be running out of money. If the government used the same growth rate of GDP as they used for the annual budget forecast the SS trust fund would be solvent into infinity. They manipulate the numbers and you righties just drink up the koolaid.

Clean yourselves up.

Posted by 726


Go clean yourself up.


Assuming the current structure, around 2016 benefits payouts will exceed SS revenues. In fairness, the program has been running at a surplus for a couple of decades which would offset the impending deficit until 2040-2052, depending upon which actuarial table is used. After that, unchanged, the program will be drawing less in revenues than it's paying out.

726,


Ultimately, there are no guaruntees.

A certain degree of risk is assumed in any investment.


My 'guaruntee' stems from history. Just about any investment imaginable has historically performed better than the interest earned on SS investments.

I recognize that I souned a bit contradictory earlier - I hope this clarification makes sense.

McCAIN/RON JEREMY FOR 08
McCAIN privatize SOCIAL SECURITY
RON JEREMY privatizes McCAIN`s beautiful wife...

I am all for privitization of SS. What a waste of my money.

I have seen the same thing in my retirement fund at work. We converted from a "pension" to 401k, now it is my money, I do not have to purchase a life insurance policy to be sure that my wife is covered and if I change jobs there is no retirement penalty. Also, the company cannot somewhere down the road declare bankrupcy (sp?) and leave me high and dry.

It seems hypocritical for the dems to accuse the repubs of fear mongering on Iraq when the resort to things like this and global warming.

Zot et al,


The fact is SS isn't going away.

It will forever be part of our political landscape.


A couple years ago I gave up any hope that the program would be liquidated alogether.

As such, my approach to this issue is purely pragmatic - Since it will be with us for eternity, how do we minimize its drag on our economy and simultaneously maximize its potential?

You take ANY money away from Social Security You are hastening it's destruction. How can You fund Social Security if one has the option to Opt Out?? What needs to be done is raise the amount that is taken for Social Security. Instead of NintyOne Thousand raise it to two hundred thousand. Social Security and Medicare are VITAL for the Elderly and the Disabled. We have to take care of Our elderly somehow. If it weren't for them we wouldn't have America. They sacrificed their lives to make America a better place. It is in their golden years that they should reap those benefits.

Larry Mohr

Larry,

Ultimately, that is my biggest dilemma. As a young person, who's currently dumping a ton of money into my 401k/IRA (as well as 529 and HSA), I wish there was a way to put all of my (and my employers match) FICA and Medicare money towards my own retirement. I hate the idea of getting such little return for all of the money I've put into the system. My spouse and I also have pretty decent health insurance and our own life and disability policies. Our AFLAC disability (short & long term) policies also far surpass anything we could get with SS Disability.

In all honesty, I'm very frustrated with the "boomers" who are getting ready to retire. I feel like they lived through the hey day of American economic prosperity; an era that will probably never return yet don't have their own retirement accounts. I find it remarkable that the modern IRA has been around for such a long time, yet there are so many who don't have one.

As someone who has spent my entire entire adult life in the post-industrial era of stagnant wages and skyrocketing insurance & energy costs, I'm a bit frustrated that so many boomers have nothing to show for their working lives besides a pile of debt. Somehow my spouse and I have managed to put away a decent amount of money (and are well protected with insurance) on very meager salaries, yet there are many out there who lived through much more lucrative times and have nothing to show for it.

On the other hand, I understand the need for programs like Social Security for those who are less fortunate or suffer from unforeseen economic or health issues. Having high levels of poverty for the elderly and disabled is not somewhere I'd like to see our country go either.

There must be a way to strike a balance between the quality and payout of private retirement and insurance with the backing of the US Government to stabilize the ups and downs of the market. The problem is, there is so much political rhetoric on both sides, I don't think we'll find a solution until we have a major crisis. It's hard to strike a balance between the democrats who want a nanny state and the republicans with their f*ck the poor/elderly/disabled attitude.

Assuming the current structure, around 2016 benefits payouts will exceed SS revenues. In fairness, the program has been running at a surplus for a couple of decades which would offset the impending deficit until 2040-2052, depending upon which actuarial table is used. After that, unchanged, the program will be drawing less in revenues than it's paying out.

Bull shit, for a econ major you sure don't know how to run numbers, just listen to the rightie media croan hacks is all YOU need.

What is the birth rate in this country? What is the death rate? We are growing faster than dying, go figure!

Republicans and some of congress is worried because they have the numbers of what free trade is costing us in jobs, lowering our income rate which lowers the SS numbers. They know where they want to take us and by doing so it will ruin their economic financials.

SS is saving this nation from all out free trade making us 3rd world.

Assuming the current structure, around 2016 benefits payouts will exceed SS revenues. In fairness, the program has been running at a surplus for a couple of decades which would offset the impending deficit until 2040-2052, depending upon which actuarial table is used. After that, unchanged, the program will be drawing less in revenues than it's paying out.

Posted by JeffJ


In 2000, the system's actuaries thought the assets of this fund would be exhausted by 2032. Two years later it was 2037. Now the projected exhaustion date is 2041.

Meanwhile, the Congressional Budget Office, which makes these projections as well, recently thought the system will remain solvent until at least 2052.



Jeez, to me it seems the doom and gloom forecasts are just plain wrong. By the time 2052 rolls around the forecast will probably be the system will run out of money in 2107.

To take a system that has successfully lifted a great number of seniors out of poverty based on manipulated forecasts by an administration whose intelligence gathering and penchant for manipulation of data to support an agenda is wreckless.

"...those IOU's are treasury bonds. US Government treasury bonds."

Posted by 726

Let's see here...

The US has a yearly deficit approaching 10 trillion (!!!) a year. (Actual debt may put this at somewhere around 70 trillion.)

The US is borrowing 2 to 5 billion a day to stay afloat.

China holds around a trillion dollars in loans.

The US has expended almost a trillion dollars on two fronts of a war that is providing zero return.

Much of the once formidable US manufacturing base has moved off to foreign lands.

The dollar against the young Euro has lost almost half its value compared to what it was a mere 5 years ago.

The Petro-Dollar is gasping its last gasps and is being supplanted by the Petro-Euro.

Yep, US Treasury bonds seem like a great investment to me!

I hate the idea of getting such little return for all of the money I've put into the system.
Posted by katieberry

That's a major misunderstanding of what Social Security is.

Your SS taxes are not an investment like a 401K... They go to pay TODAY's retirees. The actual hours you work are the only investment that you get a return on in SS. And they will be paid for by our children and grandchildren.

Not that I don't agree with you about the effects of unbridled greed coming from the largest demographic group in the nation.

Guess what? Under the actuaries' low cost projection, the Social Security system never runs out of money.

It is so basic and simple, just look at population growth and SS will not run out ever.

No need to look at financials.

The US has a yearly deficit approaching 10 trillion (!!!) a year. (Actual debt may put this at somewhere around 70 trillion.)


Perhaps you could post a link to that claim.

726,


I never claimed the program would run out of money.

What I claimed was that it would pay out more than it would take in - 75% or so of benies can be expected once the surplus dries up. Considering that many claim that current benies are like choosing between bread and dog food, I'd say it's a serious problem.


MW,


Bull shit, for a econ major you sure don't know how to run numbers, just listen to the rightie media croan hacks is all YOU need.

What is the birth rate in this country? What is the death rate? We are growing faster than dying, go figure!


You clearly have no idea as to what you are talking about. One of the biggest problems facing SS is prolonged mortality - people are drawing benies longer because they are living longer. Death rates vs. birth rates are largely irrelevant when talking about SS. This was debated extensively on DR a couple of years ago and my numbers are sound. Maybe you want to bury your head in some Marxist sand, but I prefer reality. This program is on a collision course with financial reality. Fortunately for SS-lovers, Medicare will drop out far more quickly so your sacred '3rd rail' will take a back seat to a more serious government-created problem.

"Assuming the current structure"

And why would we assume that changes won't be made to the system. Obama already says that we should raise the income level on which SS is deducted, as did Ronnie Raygun. Conservatives lower taxes on the rich and then whine about the government robbing the SS fund, they see that eventually there won't be enough income into SS to pay outlays but don't really honestly consider how easily fixed that is.
The truth is that conservatives have always hated SS and will do their utmost to present it in its worst possible light, pretending that if they were paying their fair share of income tax we wouldn't be robbing SS, and we could make the system sound for us and our children.

Death rates vs. birth rates are largely irrelevant when talking about SS.

Just crap, it is common sense JJ.

More people increasing population means more people putting into SS. Common sense!

10 people die and 20 put in but SS is going to go negative......LOL!

I don't care if they live 30 years longer, if population is increasing faster then deathrate then SS will always be fine. Common sense.

Wages is the only thing that will take SS down which brought my second comment into play, offshoring give the U.S. a triple negative.

McCain voted for Bush's 2006 Social Security privatization plan.

MW,


You are taking a far too simplistic view of this.


It's NOT just about death rates vs birth rates. Shit, a newly-birthed child doesn't even start contributing toward the fund until they at least reach the age of 18.


Seriously, read up on this. It's going to be a problem for at least a couple of decades. Now, once those dastardly boomers begin dying en masse, the ship may right itself.

Danni,


And why would we assume that changes won't be made to the system.


I am not saying that I don't.

However, right now we are in a status quo mindset.

Perhaps Bush is partly to blame. He picked the worst possible time to try and introduce partial privatization. Maybe had he taken a more pragmatic approach he could have forced the Democrats to honestly address the problem and some kind of bi-partisan solution could have been reached. Instead, all we got from the Democrats was, "All we have to do is raise taxes...."

A few decades down the road, partial privatization may be a great thing for SS as long as the age demographics can support it.

Your SS taxes are not an investment like a 401K... They go to pay TODAY's retirees. The actual hours you work are the only investment that you get a return on in SS. And they will be paid for by our children and grandchildren.

Not that I don't agree with you about the effects of unbridled greed coming from the largest demographic group in the nation.

Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2008-05-19 08:50 AM | Reply | Fla

I think the biggest problem with the current system is that we're currently going through a major demographic change; we'll be a much older nation in the future. Unless we start having a lot more babies (which isn't feasible with the current economy) or increase immigration, I just don't see how we'll have a worker-to-retiree ratio to support the whole pyramid.

increase immigration. That's the ticket.

Maybe people who don't need it can refund their SS? I don't know why we have to subsidize anyone's car payments on their Lexus.

increase immigration. That's the ticket.


That's exactly what Europe is trying to do.

They've got a massive declining birth-rate and as such have adopted an extremely liberal immigration policy. Within the next 50 years, at most, the entirety of Europe will be a majority of Muslim population.

The U.S. population is about 238,000,000 today. The country grows by about 17.5 million a year at current rates. So, the 2010 population should be around 300,000,000, assuming that the rate of growth will continue to decrease as it has been doing.

"Instead, all we got from the Democrats was, "All we have to do is raise taxes...."

When you figure in inflation we needed to raise the cap on earnings that pays into SS just to remain in the same place....and you say Dems....try Ronnie Raygun who did the exact same thing.

Alright MWar, you got me.


I guess with no formal education whatsoever, you are far more bright and knowledgeable in the field of actuarial science than those who undergo extensive class-work, study and certification in order to be able to try and make such predictions based upon their field of study.

We might as well throw out everything actuaries put forth becuase it all boils down to such simplicities of comparing and contrasting birth rates with death rates.

Danni,

How about, just this once, we reduce government spending?

Fertility: The U.S. average fertility rate is currently 2.1335 births per woman, the U.S.'s highest fertility rate since 1971. (For comparison, the United Kingdom's fertility rate is 1.7, Canada's is 1.4, and Germany's is 1.3.)

Common sense.


Uh huh.


You are right of course. We don't have a population bulge in our society. The term 'Baby Boomer' is a misnomer. Evertything is honky dory. Let's just continue to increase taxes to solve all of society's ills. No amount of taxation is too high, right?

JJ,

it is simple, more people, more SS. It is common sense.

People like Barack Obama will guarantee that Social Security will be bankrupt anyhow. So, by all means, let's keep the Ponzi scheme going for as long as we can. It plays well in the senior retirement homes. Ask people under 40, though, and we've no delusions what the Social Security program is all about: a massive wealth redistribution from workers to retirees.

And guess what? We vote too. And if the only funding alternative to Social Security is to raise SS taxes on workers, we're not going to put up with that either.

So enjoy your Social Security while you can. You libs pretend to resent borrowing money that your children and grandchildren have to repay, but have no problem raiding their paychecks for 15% of earnings just so you don't have to dip into your own savings.

I agree with Obama on one thing: if anyone is to rescue Social Security, it shouldn't be him. He doesn't understand even the rudiments of basic finance. So under an Obama Administration, I hope he leaves SS alone.

it is simple, more people, more SS. It is common sense.


Yep.

You are right of course.

It's all that simple. Black and white and all of that.


That explains that when push really came to shove, Democrats reluctantly acknowledged the problem, then down-played it and THEN proposed more taxation as the solution.

I don't understand why the actuaries even exist when evertying is so simple as you portend.

You and all of your brilliance have completely eradicated the validity of an entire field of study. I am duly impressed.



PS - At what point does one have to surrender his income where you say we've reached an excessive level of taxation.
50%?
75%?
90%?

What is the magic number?

Let's just continue to increase taxes to solve all of society's ills. No amount of taxation is too high, right?

Huh?

Where the fuck did that come from?

Touching SS is just stupid, there are far better things to try and fix than a system that is NOT broken by any measure and making up manipulated numbers so the wall street elite can get their hands on it is just idiotic and stupid.

Stop all the bull shit spending on corporations subsidies and even R&D and billions could be saved. Why should the people pay for a private companies R&D so they can make millions in profit and not taking a social responsibility to the society they got the money from?

If they need the money do it like every normal American does it, take out a loan.

Well Jeff when the US had to pay off the WWII debt the top tax rate was 90%.

But of course the days of 90% tax rates were when it was important to pay an employee for their labor instead of securing golden parachutes for do nothing CEO's.

At what point does one have to surrender his income where you say we've reached an excessive level of taxation.

Huh?

I think you are very confused because SS is not taxation. You can try all you want to name it as such because the government takes it from you but hmmmmm, when you are old you seem to think you keep losing it.

IT IS A SUPPLIMENTAL RETIREMENT FUND and it is just political hackery to try and claim it is taxation. IT IS THE PEOPLES MONEY, NOT THE GOVERNMENTS. Go figure that one out.

Where the fuck did that come from?

It came from your bullshit populist rhetoric.



Touching SS is just stupid, there are far better things to try and fix than a system that is NOT broken by any measure and making up manipulated numbers so the wall street elite can get their hands on it is just idiotic and stupid.

The program is on a collision course with major problems, but I agree that privatization will only exacerbate the problems for reasons stated above.


Stop all the bull shit spending on corporations subsidies and even R&D and billions could be saved.


As long as your mandate is all-inclusive I couldn't agree more. Keep the government out of the economy - ALL of it. That includes corporate welfare AND any attempts to annex health care, subsidizing "green technologies", etc.


If they need the money do it like every normal American does it, take out a loan.

As long as that standard is universally applied, you and I are on the same page, my friend.

"How about, just this once, we reduce government spending?"

Jeff, we gave y'all six years with the total control to do exactly that but instead you just cut taxes for the wealthy and irresponsibly created a huge deficit. Some cutting is perhaps a good thing but most likely if you cut too much you would cause a depression. Better to put taxes back to a responsible level and pay the bills instead of just borrowing the money. I know one thing, I never want to hear another REpublican whine about Democrats not cutting spending again after they had total control for so long.

"Ask people under 40, though, and we've no delusions what the Social Security program is all about: a massive wealth redistribution from workers to retirees."

That is bull shit. It really is a way to pay the government's bills while allowing the wealthy to avoid paying reasonable income taxes. Ronnie Raygun showed y'all how to do it and they've been doing it since. Let's start some more wars and enact big tax cuts at the same time and pretend we are fiscally responsible conservative Republicans.

Danni,


I know one thing, I never want to hear another REpublican whine about Democrats not cutting spending again after they had total control for so long.

F-ing A!!!!

Outside of the Whitehouse, I am seriously hoping that the Dem's absolutely smoke the Repubs in '08. Get these bums out of office. For fuck's sake, if Republicans are going to embrace the worst aspects of liberal governance AND embrace the worst aspects of corporate prostitution I would rather have lefty dems who are at least honest about their politics.

If a private company had scammed their investors the way the dems have done for the past 70 years there would have been arrests and criminal charges. We should perform a citizens arrest on this upcoming dem congress and president when they takr office and continoe this vote buying pyramid scheme. Obama the appeaser has already promised us that he would.

"Ask people under 40, though, and we've no delusions what the Social Security program is all about: a massive wealth redistribution from workers to retirees."

Yes, and there is no delusion here. Ask those retirees how their parents got the money from the post working retirees.

We pay for our parents as our parents paid for theirs, and our kids will pay for ours.

The above statement has to be the stupidest statement I have seen in a very long time, but it is clearly evident that this one is a selfish bastard.

Danni, I don't care what you do or don't want to hear. I've been screaming for the last dozen years for cuts in spending. I was at a Town Hall meeting in 2004 with my very Republican congressman and told him that the spending bills coming out of Congress were outrageous--what the hell did we send the Republicans to do? What do we need them for, if they're going to be spending like Dems? and so on.

I do find it amusing that the Dems' newfound fiscal conservativism seems to be just another fad, now that it seems that they're on the verge of taking the White House, along with Congress. I always had a feeling . . .

And by the way, you can raise taxes on the wealthy back up to 90% again, and it won't save Social Security or Medicare. And given the choice between skyrocketing taxes to keep the money wheel going another year or two, or letting it go broke--give me door number two.

There's a middle way. Just have a group of public pension managers run Social Security investments--the same guys who run the money for the Texas Teachers and the Georgia Public Retirement fund, who manage to crank out 8% gains every year. That would save SS without having to raise taxes on anyone. But no. Obama needs the money to pay for his election promises, and the ticket price rises every day.

Obama will bankrupt Social Security, along with the people who will elect him. And that's fine with me.

"The above statement has to be the stupidest statement I have seen in a very long time"

Except the one right above your post is even stupider.

JJ,

Some of us democrats are not as liberal as you would like your post to indicate.

Didn't see much difference with the current ruling democratic party in congress these last two years and won't see a difference in the next either.

I happen to feel for the democratic party here because 2 years from now they will be thrown out for doing nothing and the republican party will have learned the lesson by getting thrown out this up coming election. The dems just don't seem to get it while at least the republicans learn who they represent.

Yes, and there is no delusion here. Ask those retirees how their parents got the money from the post working retirees.

We pay for our parents as our parents paid for theirs, and our kids will pay for ours.

The above statement has to be the stupidest statement I have seen in a very long time, but it is clearly evident that this one is a selfish bastard.

Posted by moneywar
* * * * *

Um, familiarize yourself with the demographic changes that've taken place in the last 50 years, then come back. I'll give you a quick primer, though--when great-grandma was working, the average lifespan was 60. Obviously, you had a lot of workers supporting few retirees. Now it's 76, and rising. And now there are far fewer workers (3) supporting each retiree. So as soon as you get your head around the numbers, you'll realize that comparing this generations to the ones before is stupid.

MWar,


Selfishness has nothing to do with reality.


Reality is that our country has a major bulge in its population that is about to do 2 things simultaneously:

1. Exit the work-force and thus cease to continue their contributions to our tax revenue - and likely at a much higher rate (acheiveing executive status, etc) than the typical newbie to our workforce.

2. Begin drawing benies en masse when we don't have (workforce * average wage) to maintain the current status quo.



Face it, SS is a massive Ponzi Scheme.

"give me door number two."

I'd rather have door number one. Tax the rich, make the government solvent, create jobs, rebuild infrastructure, watch economy expand, create more wealth.....as we have done since FDR while righties whined the entire time even as many of them became rich. Look at you for instance, you whine about taxes yet your income has continued to rise regardless.....I bet you made money under Clinton didn't you????? Predictions of the demise of SS have been made by whining righties since its inception.

Yes, and there is no delusion here. Ask those retirees how their parents got the money from the post working retirees.

We pay for our parents as our parents paid for theirs, and our kids will pay for ours.
* * * *

Tell ya what. I'll pay for my parents, you pay for yours, and let's just shut down the whole thing? You know, charity begins at home, stuff like that?

RIR you'll pay for my parents and many others. The reason being is that you are wealthy. This is the way society works. The government will redistribute your wealth because you are too greedy to do yourself.

Look at you for instance, you whine about taxes yet your income has continued to rise regardless


A non-sequitur.

Your premise suggests that upward mobility didn't exist prior to all of the implementation of your ideological policies...

Personally, I don't give a crap if wealthy folks don't like social security or income tax. There are more of us than them and as long as we turn off right wing propaganda everything will be just fine.

Obama '08

At least Danni is honest about her proclivity to tax and spend. Of course, she's not recommending her own taxes go up. Just on "the rich".

Well five years ago I considered anyone making about $75,000 a year rich. Millions of Americans feel that "rich" starts at about $45,000 a year--that's a pretty good living in many part of the country. So who should decide the level at which "rich" starts?

Another Clinton reference. How about we just revert to Clinton-era tax rates? Would you want that? That way, about 14 million households that were removed from tax rolls entirely under Bush would start paying again, the child tax credits get cut in half, taxes increase sixfold for families at the $40,000 level and POOF!--the government's books are balanced again!! But think of all the jobs and wealth created, the bridges built . . . Did it ever occur to you that rebuilding America's infrastructure is something that you SHOULD use borrowed money for?

Probably not. The Obama School of Economics doesn't teach the matching principle.

At least Danni is honest about her proclivity to tax and spend. Of course, she's not recommending her own taxes go up. Just on "the rich".

Well five years ago I considered anyone making about $75,000 a year rich. Millions of Americans feel that "rich" starts at about $45,000 a year--that's a pretty good living in many part of the country. So who should decide the level at which "rich" starts?

Another Clinton reference. How about we just revert to Clinton-era tax rates? Would you want that? That way, about 14 million households that were removed from tax rolls entirely under Bush would start paying again, the child tax credits get cut in half, taxes increase sixfold for families at the $40,000 level and POOF!--the government's books are balanced again!! But think of all the jobs and wealth created, the bridges built . . . Did it ever occur to you that rebuilding America's infrastructure is something that you SHOULD use borrowed money for?

Probably not. The Obama School of Economics doesn't teach the matching principle.

Age 50 and older is 1/4 of the population.....hmmm!

Just with this alone one doesn't have to compute too many numbers to realize SS is not in any danger but these money stealin thieves would like to get people to think so.

So who should decide the level at which "rich" starts?

Posted by rightisright

what is your annual salary? we can start there

I don't get a salary.

well whatever you made then. You need to be paying more.

"So who should decide the level at which "rich" starts?"

Candidates for office should decide and voters should decide if they agree with them or not.
Right now I think Obama and Clinton are both considering $200,000 per year a high enough income level to be able to afford additional taxes which will come due when the tax cut for the rich expires.
If we don't do anything taxes will rise primarily for the wealthy and slightly for the rest of us.
Wars cause sacrifices, balanced budgets sometimes require sacrifices. You righties want to cut back spending then you should be opposed to appropriate taxation which is what would eventually cause taxpayers to demand spending cuts. Lower taxes and there is little obvious incentive to cut spending.

"taxes increase sixfold for families at the $40,000 level"

er....DOUBLE BULL SHIT!

How about we just revert to Clinton-era tax rates?

Jan 1, 2011 it will happen automatically.

"Did it ever occur to you that rebuilding America's infrastructure is something that you SHOULD use borrowed money for?"

And pay back the lender how??????

WE always borrow to build infrastructure but there has to be sufficient revenue to eventually pay off what you borrow plus the interest. Right now we borrow with no way to pay off the principal and interest payments take larger and larger portions of the tax revenue collected. But you know that and are just trying your hand at right wing propaganda.
RisR is a propagandis as surely as is Rush, he just has a much smaller audience. Just as dishonest though.

er....DOUBLE BULL SHIT!

Posted by danni
* * * *
Run the numbers. Family of four, with two children, making $40,000 a year.

Sixfold.

For all I hear about how Bush likes to screw the middle class to help out his rich pals, I sure don't see a lot of lefties squawking to repeal Bush's tax cuts on the middle and lower class. Just the folks at the top.

Johnson, Reagan, Clinton, BushI & II have all robbed from the Social Security Trust Fund in order to appear to be more responsible (Conservative) than they actually were.

As these chickens come home to roost keep in mind three things:

1. The private sector would add at least 10% profit to the systems costs. But once established, much like the Health Insurance Industry, they would pick away at benefits while increasing premiums until they are able to skim 30-40% of every premium (tax) dollar.

2. Once the system had been privatized the cash cow would be so large a buyback would become essentially impossible.

3. There is NO record where for profit privatization has reduced costs and increased the quality and reliability of the goods and services provided. Not in delivery of water, electricity, gasoline or natural gas. Japan has private health insurance for EVERYONE at substantially reduced costs (compared ot the United States), but the Government sets fees and rates for the Industry and does not permit it to generate a profit.

4. Endless changes in policy provide endless opportunities for those controlling the Political System Purse Strings to Screw the Public. Even when our regulators realize what is going on they are helpless to put a stop to it. During the California Energy crisis many Corporations illegally gamed the system to the tune of billions of dollars. But the California Energy Commission was powerless to undo the damage. One example, today ratepayers there pay $200 for the same amount of natural gas that costs $30 in Utah.

the middle class need the tax cuts the rich don't.

For what Shrub has already WASTED in IRAQ, Social Securities unfunded liabilities could have been covered for 75 years.

Keep this fact in mind whenever you here him threatening or vetoing GI or Social Security legislation.

Whatever Danni. I haven't listened to Rush in 15 years, but believe whatever the hell you want. Fact is, it's stupid to raise taxes to build bridges and roads. It would be stupid if Dade County did it or the State of Florida, or if the Federal government did. Those are long-term assets, and should be paid for with long-term borrowing. That's what the matching principle is, and I can count on Obama to be wholly ignorant of it, along with his tens of millions of Dem voters. Like you. It's not propoganda, it's not right-wing talking points--it's basic finance.

And you don't know it, so you attack those who do. Raising taxes on the rich, the poor, the illegals, the retirees, you name it--to build airports and dams and bridges and highways--is just stupid. And with 10-year treasuries at 3.83% (the rate at which the US government borrows)--it's REALLY stupid.

I find it interesting that Nutcase used Japan as an example. I was an expatriate in Japan. American corporations would send their employees to other countries whenever they required hospitalization rather than risk being seriously hurt in a Japanese hospital.

I was sent back to NY by my employer when I required surgery. One of my co-workers broke his leg in a motorcycle accident. The doctors in Japan set his leg wrong and he was sent to New Zealand where they had to rebreak the leg to set it correctly

In truth, while the rich have paid less income tax the working class share of the burden has increased.

* * * *

Completely false.

Wow. Nutcase makes a great case for socializing everything. Why not food, housing, and transportation? Technology? Airlines? After all--the government could step in an ensure more efficient deliveries of the essential (and non-essential) staples of life. We'll all get rich!

In truth, while the rich have paid less income tax the working class share of the burden has increased.

* * * *

Completely false.

Posted by rightisright

The CBO study, due to be released today, found that the wealthiest 20 percent, whose incomes averaged $182,700 in 2001, saw their share of federal taxes drop from 64.4 percent of total tax payments in 2001 to 63.5 percent this year. The top 1 percent, earning $1.1 million, saw their share fall to 20.1 percent of the total, from 22.2 percent.



You will understand if in the future we consider your financial advice to be completely and utterly wrong.

"And with 10-year treasuries at 3.83% (the rate at which the US government borrows)--it's REALLY stupid."

But they eventually do have to be repaid. I understand about bonds for building infrastructure but you still have to be able to pay the interest which right now on federal borrowing which for 2008 will be $243,903,652,968.47 and increases every year.

Raising the limit to $200,000 is not the answer to fixing the shortfall with the program. Unless you are saying those who pay it in are not going to get it back out but are just really having it taken without a choice on their part to help others who don't receive enough. Of course this is because the government fucked them in the first place.

Bee Swell

Touching SS is just stupid, there are far better things to try and fix than a system that is NOT broken by any measure and making up manipulated numbers so the wall street elite can get their hands on it is just idiotic and stupid.

The same folks that brought us Iraq now seek to bring us "GOP Social Security and Privatization: The Sequel".

RR<

Thanks for acknowledging the soundness of my arguments. Have you any argument of substance to offer?

We have real choices in what car or TV to buy and the free market model serves people well in this and many other regards.

Basic services: water, electricity...health care require regulation whether administered by Government or the Private Sector. The reason for this should be clear when looking at California. These goods and services are so vital to life as we know it they cannot be permitted to fall into the hands of Criminal Corporate Extortionists. In those circumstances the user has no time or market power to reach price justice.

Like she said, size really does matter. Governments, Corporations, Labor Unions, Churches and other charities of similar size exibit similar inefficiencies because of their size.

Isn't it interesting that Corporations can vaporize their Pension Funds with no consequence for the responsible parties while Labor Unions which loaned millions to the Mafia to build Las Vegas got every penny back plus interest. The scoundrels running the Globalization Agenda clearly have fewer scruples than Organized Crime Families. Corruption continuously undermines the best of intentions. Only regulation can keep it in check.

TIMBI,

100,000 patients die every year from improper hospital treatment in this country. But, the number one killer is misuse of prescription drugs by doctors, patients or pharmacists. Everybody makes mistakes. A more rational answer would document error rates in the various systems operating today. One thing we can say unequivically is that we pay more and get less health care than any other nation on earth. That's the dirty little secret the Health Insurance Industry doesn't want you to know.

There is an obvious philosophical difference here. I personally ( along with a lot of other people ) consider the money I put into Social Security as MY money. Many of you here consider it OUR money. As long as anyone thinks they hold a LIEN on the fruits of our labor we will always be in disagreement.

I personally ( along with a lot of other people ) consider the money I put into Social Security as MY money. Many of you here consider it OUR money. As long as anyone thinks they hold a LIEN on the fruits of our labor we will always be in disagreement.
Posted by STIRSUMUP

Then you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what social security is.

I think it would be more accurate to say we think of it as "their" (i.e. the retiree's) money.

You can consider it however you want, that doesn't change the facts of the matter. Once it's out of your paycheck, its not yours.

But I'll agree, SS shouldn't go to just anyone. I'm not too comfortable with my SS taxes going to fund someone's luxury car or multiple cruises or trips to vegas every year.

The situations which prompted the creation of SS in the first place no longer obtain, largely. I think it would be useful to rethink how it is done.

But as long as the largest demographic group in the country is in their retirement years, that isn't ever going to happen.

while Labor Unions which loaned millions to the Mafia to build Las Vegas got every penny back plus interest.

Wrong. The Federal government had to take over the Teamsters because the funds were looted and NOT PAID BACK. Of course Jimmy Hoffa was locked up at the time. He had a lot of baggage but he also took care of the drivers and warehousemen. Fitzsimmons gave away the union, may he suffer in Hell.

"But I'll agree, SS shouldn't go to just anyone. I'm not too comfortable with my SS taxes going to fund someone's luxury car or multiple cruises or trips to vegas every year."

We had this discussion here back when Bush attempted and failed miserably at selling his Social Security privatization scheme.
We pointed out the same points that FDR and others felt was absolutely critical about "means tests" for Social Security. When you do "means testing" you are basicly turning it into a welfare program and thus make it easily assailable by the opponents of the program. As long as it is distributed fairly to all who pay in, regardless of income bracket then it is a retirement insurance program not a welfare giveaway. That is the best way to retain the critical amount of support for the program to prevent the right from destroying it which they will happily do if ever given the chance. Bush had the best chance in decades but fortunately the nation was not fooled as easily as the right thought they would be and he failed miserably and embarrassingly and thus disappointed his "base."

To save SS they need to remove the cap on contributions. As for means testing, those who have investment income, and or other pensions, also pay taxes on their SS.

You can consider it however you want, that doesn't change the facts of the matter. Once it's out of your paycheck, its not yours.
Posted by Hagbard_Celine

I'm one of the lucky ones who makes a tax payment directly. I pay the full rate. It is truly a scam and I feel worse for my children for the debt they will assume. I did not set up this pyramid scheme and participate under protest. If I had the option to Opt out and never make another payment and never collect a dime I'd be happy. It is not there for any ones benefit other than the government. It is a slush fund they can access at will and the true debt doesn't even show up on the budget. If everyone in the country paid taxes by having to write a check directly we would not be in this mess.

That is the best way to retain the critical amount of support for the program to prevent the right from destroying it which they will happily do if ever given the chance.

Posted by danni

That just makes me sick that it's true. So basically, those with money to help will not accept a tax unless they are the direct recipients of that tax.

There are some words I have for people like that, but I'm trying to tow a decency line here lately out of respcet for rcade.

All I have left is....

Camel, meet eye of needle.... Lube up.

Well Hagbard it is only fair unless you want SS to actually be welfare. If you were to look at the politics of the issue, those who really want to eliminate SS would be the first to go along with "means testing." WE should never let that happen, it will ruin the program for everyone.

But isn't it crazy that we can only get the program funded if we allow people who don't need it to benefit from it?

Are these the same opponents who argue that we're a christian nation?

Obama will definitely partially privatize SS. He just can't say so or he loses the AARP vote.

He was part of the group of Dems in 04 who were publicly open to discussion of privatization... also, in his current campaign, two of his top economic advisors are very pro-privatization. Obama's top econmic guru, Austan Goolsbee, is an old-fashioned Skull & Bones Yalie who is virulently pro-privatization. He also has Jeffrey Liebman from Harvard as one of his top economic advisors. Liebman is another strong proponent of a semi-privatzied Soc Sec system, similar to what Bush proposed in 2005.

I think in this case Obama is pandering. In fact I hope he is because if he is truly thinking of semi-privatizing SS, even if secretly, then I am ok with that.

more "scare the old people" story from dems's. there all about redistribution of wealth.

BTW, you should check out Obama's web site. I think you might get a hint about who he is thinking of offering the VP slot to.

Edwards?

Does Edwards really wanna run for VP twice?

This is Constitution Party presidential nominee Chuck Baldwin's stance on SS:
The Constitution grants no authority to the federal government to administrate a Social Security system. The Constitution Party advocates phasing out the entire Social Security program, while continuing to meet the obligations already incurred under the system. Until the current Social Security system can be responsibly phased out, we propose that:
The Social Security tax is not a "rainy day" fund which politicians can pirate, or from which they can borrow to cover their errors and pay for their excesses.
Individuals who have contributed to Social Security be allowed to withdraw those funds and transfer them into an IRA or similar investments under the control of the individual contributor.
Any sort of merger between the U.S. Social Security System and that of any foreign country must be banned, so the distribution of benefits will not go to persons who have not qualified for payments under American law as legal residents.
Earning limitations on persons aged 62 and over be removed, so that they may earn any amount of additional income without placing their benefits at risk.
Those provisions of the Social Security system which penalize those born during the "notch years" between 1917 and 1926 be repealed, and that such persons be placed on the same benefit schedules as all other beneficiaries.
We support the right of individuals to choose between private retirement and pension programs, either at their place of employment or independently.
We need to continue to reign in this out of control government and neither McCain or Obama are willing to do this!

And here I thought all the Baldwin's were morons.

I do agree with the abolishment of SS, but only in the form of having a seperate taxation system for it. By all accounts, every penny gets thrown into the general fund anyway so get rid of it. It is a regressive taxation system that causes the poor to have to pay more in. SS, along with Medicare and Medicaid(sp?) should be put into the federal income tax (or with M&M, you could let the states handle it and get it out of the hands of our greedy and corrupt washington politicians).

Get rid of restrictions and priviledges on who can receive it and just let all of our seniors have a part. The smart one's will have other retirement funds available. Get a reverse mortgage if you need additional funds. Perhaps even include a tax credit to those over 65 that are still employed for 25+ hours a week so that we encourage more of them to pay into the system.

I wholly admit that I am not learned enough to say that these ideas will work, but it seems like washington does nothing but throw more money at a problem when it arises. We cannot afford to continue to do this as the USA no longer sits atop the fiscal world.

Obama/Edwards is a bad idea.

"Obama/Edwards is a bad idea."

Possibly, but if you think so now is the time to let the Obama campaign know how you feel.

What about Obama/Bob Graham of Florida.

Graham has strong national security creds and could just about guarantee Florida would be in the Dem column. Plus he's a great guy, was a great Senator and Governor.

The Constitution grants no authority to the federal government to administrate a Social Security system. The Constitution Party advocates phasing out the entire Social Security program, while continuing to meet the obligations already incurred under the system.

Well that is a bit hypocritical don't you think?

Its an oldy but a goodie in the democrat party. Tell seniors that republicans are going to take your social security.

All that is left is to tell blacks that republicans are bringing back lychings.

Barack Obama is a shameless fucktard.


Bee Swell

Posted by Crackpipejunkie at 2008-05-19 02:26 AM | Reply | Flag:



Are you denying that McCain wants to privative it?

Seems Barack Obama is dead-on is his assessment....AND EVEN IF HE ISN'T, TOUGH SHIT!! THAT'S POLITICS AND I DO LOVE A GOOD McSame SMEAR JOB!

A democrat believes the Government is the "father" who knows all, and solves all problems, and that that have to do this, because all people are stupid, except them.

Elitism at its best. OSucka 08!

SEE YOU IN DENVER YOU FUCKHEAD DEMOCRATS!

Kuma

Posted by Kuma at 2008-05-19 02:53 AM | Reply | Flag:


Besides the creepy 'love' thing you have for AssPipeJunky, you also need to learn the definition of the word 'Elitism' and how to use it in a sentence. You and rest of your repub sisters on here sound like a bunch if idiots. 'Appeasement' anyone?

Your wrong Danni. Look at the math. Since social security was inacted, compound annual inflation has been about 4%. Yet the increase in yearly wages (from 3000 to 102000) and increase in rate (3% to 12.4%) is an annual increase of 8%. How can a system that brings in revenue at twice the rate of inflation be in trouble. Every American would be over joyed with pay raises like this. Benefits paid are based on premiums paid. You would have to cap benefits as you raised the amount of salary taxed.

Your wrong Moneywar. When social security was inacted the average male lived to 62, the average female to 64. The average American never collected. We had 17 workers paying for every collectee. We are rapidly approaching 2:1, despite 300 million Americans. Immigrants are the only thing preventing us from imploding.

While I agree with the expansion of benefits to take care of the less fortunate (disabled and widowed), we just need to raise the age at which we pay out so that the average American again, like when it started, never collects.

You can save your money and retire early. Or you can live lavishly and retire when social security kicks in at age 75. It is the classic grasshopper riding the back of the ant.

"risky private accounts."

That makes me giggle. 10's of millions of people pay money into these accounts, let them appreciate interest and become millionaires when they retire. They do all this because trusting our current SS system (or our politicians do do anything wise about it) is where the real risk lies.

"risky private accounts."

That makes me giggle. 10's of millions of people pay money into these accounts, let them appreciate interest and become millionaires when they retire. They do all this because trusting our current SS system (or our politicians to do anything wise about it) is where the real risk lies.

"How can a system that brings in revenue at twice the rate of inflation be in trouble."

You're wrong Bluehurler. You say that SS is in trouble, its not if they would stop robbing the money out of the SS accounts. Some adjustments would be necessary but the system is not in trouble.

BTW, you should check out Obama's web site. I think you might get a hint about who he is thinking of offering the VP slot to.

Ha! Yes Edwards worked so well for Kerry in 2004. He couldn't even win his own home state! Perfect. Two young bucks with clue zero about what to do on day one. I hope he does pick Edwards, because that would mean Barry didn't pick Clinton who, honestly, would make a killer pairing and make it a sure win for the Dems.

The CBO study, due to be released today, found that the wealthiest 20 percent, whose incomes averaged $182,700 in 2001, saw their share of federal taxes drop from 64.4 percent of total tax payments in 2001 to 63.5 percent this year. The top 1 percent, earning $1.1 million, saw their share fall to 20.1 percent of the total, from 22.2 percent.



You will understand if in the future we consider your financial advice to be completely and utterly wrong.

Posted by 726
* * * *

You will understand if in the future we consider your reading comprehension to be completely and utterly wrong. You assume that, since the percentage of income tax paid by the wealthy must be falling, the slack is being picked up by the working poor, which is false. The poor and middle class' contribution to income tax receipts are falling also; it's corporations that are making up the difference. The US corporate income tax rate is the second highest in the world.

Thanks for playing.

What the sniveling apoligists for the ultra-rich so deceitfully omit is the reason for these statistics: The top 5 percent make 83% of the income. They should be paying at least 83% of the taxes instead of only 54.4%.

Parrotheads like RiR are too stupid to realize that they are paying a far higher percentage of their income than anyone in the top income group.

A FAIR TAX would have two simple concepts:

1. Wages should not be taxed at a rate higher than income not derived from wages.

2. Taxpayers with lower incomes should not be taxed at rates higher that taxpayers with higher income. Taxes include ALL PAYROLL taxes.

Find fault with that, RiR?

What the sniveling apoligists for the ultra-rich so deceitfully omit is the reason for these statistics: The top 5 percent make 83% of the income. They should be paying at least 83% of the taxes instead of only 54.4%.

* * * * *

Wow. So that's what your definition of Fair Tax is? That the grandma who lives off dividends and capital gains should be taxed at the same rate as her grandson who has a job? Good for you--you've just told every corporation and utility in North America not to send out dividend checks, but to keep them as retained earnings. Suits me--who needs the double taxation anyhow? But that might not play too well in Obama's stump speeches in retirement homes, where many of the people are living off of dividend checks, taxed at capital gains rates.
And by the way, you really need to quit peddling the myth that the poor pay a higher rate on their taxes than the wealthy do. It's stupid. I want Social Security to privatize, and let the poor keep that money for themselves. Even were they to plunk it into a bank at 3%, that's preferable to the 2.1% rate of return that Social Security will give you. How does that sound? But please spare me the class warfare bit--if you want to raise taxes on the rich to give the poor a tax cut, how are you going to do it? The lower 50% of Americans pay only 4% of our nation's tax bill. How much more tax cutting can you do? They pay only 4%!!!

"Not only are these data interesting on their own, but looking at them over time shows that the share of total income taxes paid by the wealthy has risen even as statutory tax rates have fallen sharply."

Gee, I wonder what that would indicate RisR????

Let's see, the wealthy pay an even higher percentage of teh overall income tax even with lowered tax rates for themselve.....hmmmmm.......lik
e they are obviously then making a higher percentage of overall income......just what I've been saying....the top 10% has gotten richer by a lot while the bottom 90% has gotten poorer. So they have to pay more income tax, it still isn't enough to even change the tendency of wealth to concentrate at the top.

"But that might not play too well in Obama's stump speeches in retirement homes, where many of the people are living off of dividend checks, taxed at capital gains rates. "


How many people in the top 5% live in retirement homes?

RiR,

I am not worried about the bottom 50%, since as you so correctly pointed out, they alread pay so little.

I am worried about the people like you and me and most of us on DR who make between 50K and 300K. We are the poor schlumps paying a far greater share of our incomes than Warren Buffet, Bill Gates and Dick Cheney.

All is ask is that I don't have to pay more of my income in taxes than the top 5%. Is that so damed unfair to your heros?

As far as dividend income being taxed at a higher rate, I submit that the people struggling to get by are in that bottom 50% you are so fond of and will not be hurt. Their tax rate is so low already? Right, RiR?

The Fat Cats can pay full price for those dividend checks!!!

RightisRight's concern for "grandma" living in a "retirement home" is really touching.

"Social Security's Chief Actuary projects that in present-value dollars the financial shortfall (or unfunded obligation) for the 75-year period is $4.3 trillion. This unfunded obligation is equal to 1.6 percent of the taxable earnings or 0.6 percent of the nation's gross domestic product (GDP) over the next 75 years."

Wow, 4.3 trillion and I've read that the total long term cost of the Iraq invasion could end up at around 3 trillion. Nice going Bushies.

"They need to raise the age--gradually every 5 years or so to 75 years old."

Or raise the amount of income subject to SS tax.
People John McCain's age should not still be out in the workforce, rocking chairs suit them much better.

Danni--

When the SS program was first implemented by the mighty FDR--who BTW --seriously considered the program be Privatized from the inception.

But why do that when the gov't could raid it!

When the program first came to light--people died before the age of 65. Before they could collect--Hey--No Problem! Just collect the money and never have to pay it out--great plan!

This was a ponzi scheme to take workers' money and then they would die before they could collect it.

If given the chance to take a portion of my SS and put it in my account. This would be mine and then passed onto my kids. This is how wealth is partially accumulated in this country--this and winning the lotto!

The PSA would allow the participate to contribute 1300 a year to the account. Is that so much? It is not the entire amount they pull out of your checks. The rest goes into the slush fund as usual to be spent by gov't.

The experts say to contribute 10% to your 401k IRA every year.

You act so incredulous when in the inception of the program--no one was supposed to collect anything!

Yeah--so move the age to 75.

Murphy

How do you shut Murphy, RiR and half the Rtards up? Take away their access to Hannity, O'Liely and Flush. They wouldn't have a damned thing to say, ever.

Danni--They initially wanted the program to be privatized-they thought about and went the other way.

James is entitled to his opinion--but the SS is a ponzi scheme--and they made the age of 65 the year to collect--

Are you going to deny the fact that at the time of the creation of SS that people --many people did not make it to retirement?

They paid into the system and never collected because they died. Do you deny that?

And it's my money--my "insurance". What the hell is wrong with socking away 1300 a month or 15,600 a year to my account--to my own 401k? I can will it to my kids--that is how you get to build some wealth in this country. The gov't gets the rest.


And another thing--many in the black community would be the biggest winners in this PSA arrangement. They don't get to collect as they have a shorter mortality rate that others. They would at least be able to leave the family something.

Murphy

How do you shut Murphy, RiR and half the Rtards up? Take away their access to Hannity, O'Liely and Flush. They wouldn't have a damned thing to say, ever.

Posted by axe at 2008-05-19 08:32 PM | Reply


Then I would have a reduction in things to bitch about and that's unhealthy for My psyche.

Larry Mohr

How do you shut Murphy, RiR and half the Rtards up? Take away their access to Hannity, O'Liely and Flush. They wouldn't have a damned thing to say, ever.

Posted by axe at 2008-05-19 08:32 PM



Well--I guess shut up Axe the same way--right?

What is up with you today? Are you Mr. Grumpy Gills today? ;o)

Murphy

How do you shut Murphy, RiR and half the Rtards up? Take away their access to Hannity, O'Liely and Flush. They wouldn't have a damned thing to say, ever.

Posted by axe at 2008-05-19 08:32 PM
* * * *

There's only one talk radio show I like. And I know you don't listen to it, because you're too stupid.

There's only one talk radio show I like. And I know you don't listen to it, because you're too stupid.

Posted by rightisright"


Awwwwwww. Poor baby. You don't like being lumped in with the dittoheads? Tough shit. What goes around comes around.

How can anyone on here, democrats or republicans actually FAVOR keeping social security government controlled?

Its completely irrational. The numbers do not add up. But they never do in a Ponzi.

come on democrats, you agree with us on this one. Its common sense.

You want to control your OWN money, NOT the government.

Its easy. McCain is right on this one.

Just be intellectually honest.

Kuma

Kuma,

Lets keep this simple for your tiny little brain.

THERE IS NO MONEY, they already spent it years ago.

There is no money to invest only a stupid IOU.

An IOU that will be paid for by your and you kids and your grandkids ad infinitum.

No politician will ever touch the SS third wire.

Give it up, already. You are like a little boy that just discovered his penis and runs up to everyone he meets yelling "I GOT A PEEPEE!!!" as he drops trou.

Privatization is just a Wall Street Wet Dream.

It never had a chance and never will.

Just be intellectually honest.

Brwaaaaaahaaaaaaa!!!!!!!

WOB at its best!

"Are you going to deny the fact that at the time of the creation of SS that people --many people did not make it to retirement?"

I am going to deny that you know more than the son of FDR knew about his father's intentions. ARe you going to pretend different???

"How do you shut Murphy, RiR and half the Rtards up?"

You don't. In America people are free to be as stupid (or dishonest in RisR's case) as they want to be.

"You want to control your OWN money, NOT the government.

Its easy. McCain is right on this one.

Just be intellectually honest.

Kuma""

Those of you who wish to use KUMA as your financial advisor are free to do so.

now look who is a fear monger..obama is a tool

I don't understand why many of you are advocating raising the retirement age or cutting benefits. None of these things would be necessary if the politicans in Washington had not been robbing the social security trust fund for 60 years.

Why should anyone who works from the time they are 18 until 65 paying in 12.2% of their wages ever have to consider waiting longer or having their benefits slashed. At an average annual salary of say $30,000 an individual would have over a million dollars if invested in the private market. Yet they may only get 800-1000 dollars a month on social security.

The math just don't add up. This program was a disaster from its inception not because it couldn't help but because the Democrats in Washington who controlled it robbed it blind all while telling you to watch the Republicans.

I am tired of pissing good money after bad. Its time we take control of our money out of the hands of dirty politicians and have a choice of where it goes and how it is used.


SEE YOU IN DENVER!!!

Bee Swell

"This program was a disaster from its inception not because it couldn't help but because the Democrats in Washington who controlled it robbed it blind all while telling you to watch the Republicans."

Never mind the fact that it was Ronnie Raygun who began the robbery. It was a nice rant Crackpipe, too bad the facts always get in your way.

CrackpipeParrothead,

Find another savior, Rush the little-brown-boy-buggering- bastard-from-hell is feeding you lies. Everything you post here is pure bullshit.

Please crawl back up Johnson's bung hole and be quiet. The adults are trying to have a discussion.

The math just don't add up. This program was a disaster from its inception not because it couldn't help but because the Democrats in Washington who controlled it robbed it blind all while telling you to watch the Republicans.



Are you as much of a retard as this in real life?

So please enlighten us as to why from 2001 - 2006 when Republicans controlled all three branches of government the "robbing" continued unabated?

Got an answer for that one? Go ahead and check on RNC.org for it, we can wait.

The poor and middle class' contribution to income tax receipts are falling also; it's corporations that are making up the difference. The US corporate income tax rate is the second highest in the world.

Thanks for playing.

Posted by rightisrigh


Over that same period, taxpayers with incomes from around $51,500 to around $75,600 saw their share of federal tax payments increase. Households earning around $75,600 saw their tax burden jump the most, from 18.7 percent of all taxes to 19.5 percent.

Try to do some research next time.

Corporate income tax is between 3 and 4% but don't let the numbers get in the way of such stupid posts.

"Wouldn't raising taxes on businesses just be a roundabout tax increase on consumers? Corporations would pass along the higher cost of doing business."

No because the tax is on PROFIT not gross income. Most corporations avoid most income tax by paying high salaries to CEOs, etc. Corporate income tax is paid by stock holders. We always hear about the power of the free market, well in a really competitive free market income taxes are taken after companies compete with each other for business, then if they make a profit the income tax is computed.

I suppose the AARP, wholly owned subsidiary of the DNC, will now march to Denver. If the nation's senile had any sense they would march to Washington and burn the AARP to the ground. Lord knows there is enough insurance salesmen already. Social Security is a tax. A fact that the Supreme Court ruled during the Roosevelt Administration. It is a very poor return on your investment. If Obama buys his way to the White house, and starts looking for money to pay for everything he promised, benefits will be cut. Social Security is suppose to be tied to inflation, but the government has been playing tricks on that calculation for twenty years. I hear tell it is about 70% lower than it should be already. With oil prices rising, inflation will be going through the roof and you can bet SS benefits will not.

A little bit of "scare the old" again, eh? Never mind that if they'd taken that money and invested it in stocks, they'd be MUCH better off and they would not have had to take taxes from me to subsidize them....

Danni,

When dealing with RIR don't ever trust anything he has to say, most of it is never ever true, just double talking sound good rhetoric of idiocy.

The man is smart but doesn't use such here because his only interest is anything that will not slow down his growth of money.....no matter the cost to those around him.

"I suppose the AARP, wholly owned subsidiary of the DNC"

What utter baloney. If the AARP is such a Democratic leaning, for profit private corporation (which it is) then why did it back hand Democrats and seniors by supporting Bush's Medicare drug bill which amounted to a give away to Big Pharma????

"Never mind that if they'd taken that money and invested it in stocks, they'd be MUCH better off and they would not have had to take taxes from me to subsidize them...."

And never mind if they had been disabled or killed during their working years, they didn't need an income to live on and support their families with.
SS is not an investment program, it is an insurance program and it has "rescued" MILLIONS of families who's breadwinner was disabled or killed. And it has helped MANY MORE MILLIONS to enjoy a retirement with a smidgen of dignity. I'm wondering how many former ENRON employees who's pensions were stolen by Bush buddy Ken Lay who formerly WHINED about SS but who are now glad that at least Kenny couldn't steal SS???

"The tax becomes another cost of doing business."

No it doesn't. Profit is not a cost of doing business, it is what is left out of gross revenues AFTER all costs have been deducted. No one is guaranteed profit. We pay income tax on our "profit" which is wages, corporations (persons under the law BTW) pay on their "wages" which is profit. I'd consider eliminating all corporate income tax if corporations could not be considered persons under the law.

"Never mind that if they'd taken that money and invested it in stocks, they'd be MUCH better off "

Only over time, which some don't have, or a shared-risk pool, which defeats your argument. For example, what would have happened if they were invested in stocks, retired in 1930, and died in 1941?

All I had to do, Danni, was go to Google and type in US corporate income tax rate, and BOOM!--all these showed up in the first search page.

I suspect you did the same, then posted only a Wikipedia entry so you could call me a liar. Which is something that Moneywar would've done. Now it's common knowledge around the world that the US has punitively high corporate tax rates, and is one of several reasons companies are anxious to relocate out of the high tax zone. This suggests that you either know this to be true, but are being dishonest about it, or that you're ignorant of that fact. Either way, you'll please understand my reluctance to turn our nation's economic and tax policy over to people such as yourself.

Nope. The irony is that under an Obama administration with higher taxes, I'll make more money. Companies will stop paying dividends, and instead reinvest in their own operations. The demand for international investments will soar, and I'm an expert in that stuff. New projects that feature ROIC, instead of indexed cash flows will again become prominent, and will result in investors leaving their investments at work for years, until the cap gains rates fall again. Even the French and the Russians have figured out that a lower corporate tax rates means their companies are more competitive, and more revenues to the government. Obama doesn't even know that, and neither do his voters.

Which is fine with me. The investments I specialize in will soar in demand, as American productive capital inevitably seeks them--and me--out.

Go Obama. An Obama Administration will be a memorable one indeed for those who want national health care, increased welfare spending, and higher tax rates--though not increased tax collections--on wealthy individuals. And especially for overseas firms, hungry for American capital to grow and expand. Oh--and for me.

No, people such as yourself have been in charge since the Clinton administration and we can all plainly see how well that has worked out.
* * * *

They were nothing like me.

RIR supports Obama??? Glad to see you have changed some of your wicked ways.

They were nothing like me.

Everyone's running away.

35 United States 26.8
36 South Korea 25.5[2]
37 Mexico 19.9[2]


Well there is still hope that the US can become as much of a shithole as Mexico yet.

"Yeah--so move the age to 75."

Posted by MURPHY

Marvelous!!! So those entering their "golden" years won't have access to their funds - no doubt this extending of the age limit will apply to 401k plans and other savings plans that are essentially untouchable until the Government-mandated retirement age is attained - and will get to face years of age discrimination either in the workplace itself or when attempting to seek (re)employment.

It is the unfortunate fact in life that, in general, the elderly are the greatest users of medical insurance/resources, thus costing far more than some young whippersnapper, are obviously more prone to sickness and health problems, cannot work the long hours, cannot do the physical tasks/labor they once could, will require higher salaries, and are subsequently less attractive to a potential employer.

So kewl!!! The last few years of one's life can be spent groveling and attempting to survive in the face of failing health and no work prospects.

What, are you like in your early 20s?

Never mind that if they'd taken that money and invested it in stocks, they'd be MUCH better off and they would not have had to take taxes from me to subsidize them....

Posted by jonryker


Hmmmmmmm. Especially during the last two recessions. My private money is already in the stock market, I don't need all of it subject to the whims of corporate america. It is called diversification... look it up.

The problem with RIR and his sites are they don't actually take what is paid.

Tax rates mean nothing until the deduction are taken into account and that 39% looks silly.

"Companies will stop paying dividends, and instead reinvest in their own operations."

Well....you mean create more good jobs. Yay!!!!
Exactly what I've been saying all along, low tax rates remove incentive for investors to put their money where it will do some good. I don't want to confiscate their money, I just want them to invest it in American industry. I do think though that we need some protectionist tariffs, not too high but at least close to equal those of our "free trade" partners who openly protect their jobs but whine if we start to do the same thing. Let them whine.

The irony is that under an Obama administration with higher taxes, I'll make more money. Companies will stop paying dividends, and instead reinvest in their own operations.

No they won't. If they do, there will be massive sell off's from investors seeking dividends causing share price to drop. And we all know that in Corporate America, short term share price gains are more important than long term viability of the company.

So, you pretend that the "nominal" tax rate actually determines the amount of tax that corporations pay when it obviously doesn't by your own statement. Nominal numbers don't mean shit, the amount of tax collected does.

Whoa!!! Hold the phone. then why do you always bitch about "nominal" tax rates then?

According to you, they "don't mean shit". right?

Every single day there is a thread on here related to capital gain tax rate cuts with no mention to what the actual "amount of tax collected" from capital gains is.

RIR supports Obama??? Glad to see you have changed some of your wicked ways.

Posted by messiah
* * * *

I don't. More to life than money. But an Obama Administration will demonstrate the laws of unintended consequences. Two years ago he cashed out his IRA, despite a high income. He doesn't understand markets, finance, or investments--but Obamaniacs like yourself want to turn the country over to him, believing that he can work the same magic in the world's capital markets that he does in his speeches that give you the vapors. And it doesn't work that way. Washington doesn't run the world's capital, and even Obama will figure that out, eventually.

You won't, though. Too deep of a hole you're in to possibly climb out of. Intellectually, I mean.

The things we want to buy cannot be made (by a publicly traded company at least) at the prices we want to pay without paying the workers less than a wage that can secure a modest American standard of living. If improvements in an industry can't be made elsewhere, if they have hit the limits of their efficiency, the only other place to increase profits is worker's salaries and benefits.

That's just capitalism.

No they won't. If they do, there will be massive sell off's from investors seeking dividends causing share price to drop. And we all know that in Corporate America, short term share price gains are more important than long term viability of the company.

Posted by 726
* * * *

LOL. Too funny. This from the guy who "diversifies" his investments into Social Security. Uh huh.

It was preferable tax treatment on dividends that caused the corporate boards to be attacked from IBM to coal companies to telecoms with shareholders screaming for more dividends. If the tax rates go up and away, so will the scared money--right where it belongs. Back into CD's and bonds, and things that don't make any money. Want dividends from IBM? Buy the bond. Raising taxes on dividends will cause the dividends themselves to fall in value, ESPECIALLY relative to retained earnings, which AREN'T TAXED AT ALL, but are instead reinvested into new factories, new brands, new expansion. All those things are preferable to sending out dividend checks to the so-called "yield conscious" investors who shouldn't be in equities markets in the first place.
If Obama thinks he can raise more taxes by raising tax rates on dividends, it'll vanish before his very eyes. And it'll be funny to watch.

"Every single day there is a thread on here related to capital gain tax rate cuts with no mention to what the actual "amount of tax collected" from capital gains is."

Capital gains tax rates though are the rates which are actually paid. It is hardly comparable to corporate income tax rates where business expenses can eliminate all or most of the tax that is eventually paid.

"But an Obama Administration will demonstrate the laws of unintended consequences."

None of us really know what will happen under an Obama presidency. One thing we do know though about Obama, he is very smart (Harvard Law REview) and just as other SMART presidents before him he will bring in the very best and brightest to advise him.
Whether casing in his IRA made sense or not is not for you to say because you aren't planning a run for the presidency. A person with his fame can easily make enough money down the road to take care of his family's needs for several generations to come so I doubt he was too awfully concerned about taking a small loss now so that he could finance his expensive life style through a Senate and a Presidential campaign. That is one of the silliest reasons to think he is not as smart as you (haha) that I have ever heard.

"That's just capitalism."

Yes that is pure capitalism but traditionally America has never been a pure capitalist nation and has never attempted before to operate under "free trade" rules. Tariffs have always been an important part of America's business environment and actually used to account for a portion (ever decreasing) of tax revenue as well.

HAGBARD Americans are beginning to realize that cheap TV sets aren't very good if you don't have a job to buy them. Working at Walmart you can't pay your rent much less buy anything in the store.

Tariffs have always been an important part of America's business environment...
Posted by danni

I got that, but I think that was largely due to the difficulties before a truly global economy. Today, corp's would sooner move to a third world hole of a country than pay an american standard of living, the difference between the two is just too great.

Protective tarriffs are not enough to change that. Again, I'm talking about publicly traded companies.

And even if a privately owned company could get a foot hold in an industry, it normally doesn't take long before a public company competes with them, and is willing to operate at a loss until the private company either succumbs to a buyout offer or goes bankrupt.

Capital gains tax rates though are the rates which are actually paid. It is hardly comparable to corporate income tax rates where business expenses can eliminate all or most of the tax that is eventually paid.

Baloney. they are both taxes where I will choose to pay based on the circumstances.

If capital gain taxes rates went to 50% then I might not sell off some land or some stock and thus, not create the "event" where our treasury dept collects funds from me. same with corporate tax rates where, like you have already admitted, a business will likely reinvest their cash back into the business rather than declare it as income and pay a punitive tax rate.

Americans are beginning to realize that cheap TV sets aren't very good if you don't have a job to buy them.

Posted by danni

Hopefully a critical mass realizes it and cares enough in time to make a difference.

"If capital gain taxes rates went to 50%"

But making Capital Gains taxes closer to income tax rates would not necessarily require raising them to 50%.

"I got that, but I think that was largely due to the difficulties before a truly global economy."

Hagbard tell that to China who charges a 22% tariff on imported autos while the US charges 2%.
We need an even playing field at least.
Tariffs can even a playing field, force countries like China to either raise wages or face tariffs.
That way the American worker isn't always undercut by foreign labor. Actuall also today's high fuel costs will give domestic manufacturers a leg up because of lower transportation costs. Some of the outsourcing may not make much sense if it costs too much to transport the products.

"like you have already admitted, a business will likely reinvest their cash back into the business rather than declare it as income and pay a punitive tax rate."

Eberly, that is exactly the reason that both I and FDR believed in income taxes. They can direct income into investments that create jobs and help the US economy. One of the best arguments against the "Fair Tax."

I even think there must be a method of calculating an estimate of the tax created through the wages paid by companies and individuals who direct income into investments which create jobs. I would guess that their avoidance of direct income tax probably creates more indirect income tax collections from the indivduals receiving wages from the companies invested in.

Actuall also today's high fuel costs will give domestic manufacturers a leg up because of lower transportation costs. Some of the outsourcing may not make much sense if it costs too much to transport the products.

Posted by danni

I agree on that, but now I'm confused. Are we arguing for lower or higher oil costs?

But making Capital Gains taxes closer to income tax rates would not necessarily require raising them to 50%.

That is not relevant to my point. I just used 50% as an example of a high tax rate that I would simply choose not to pay if I viewed it as punitive. Same goes with corporate tax rates.

In both cases, the rate doesn't indicate what the actual amount of revenue would be so there is no point in pissing and moaning about how low they are because, when higher, individuals like myself can avoid them.

but don't let me get in the way of the left's pissing and moaning about something they don't understand anyway.

LOL

"but don't let me get in the way of the left's pissing and moaning about something they don't understand anyway."

Actually that used to be true. However due to the greed of the past seven years lots of us have learned. Now we are realizing that low capital gains tax rates only benefit the stock holders and not the workers. Workers benefit when instead of paying dividents companies reinvest into the company. Raising the tax rate on capital gains encourages this and creates more jobs which eventually raises wages which then increases income tax revenues and helps balance the budget.
Us on the left are learning what we should have known before REagan started screwing up this country, it will take us a while but I think we will eventually undo the harm he and subsequent presidents have done.

"Are we arguing for lower or higher oil costs?"

Neither. We are trying to raise wages. Prices have climbed while wages have remained stagnant, results....working class people became poorer.
We are trying to change the division of "profit" between investors and workers. They have been reaping too large of a percentage and concentrating wealth at the top where it does little good for the economy. Reducing their percentage of profit by increasing wages puts that money into circulation where it helps the economy.

Oil costs are not going to ever really go down significantly because it is a finite resource and demand is growing. America needs high energy costs to make changing to alternative energy sources possible economically, if oil is too cheap investors can't make money on alternative energy.

We are trying to change the division of "profit" between investors and workers. They have been reaping too large of a percentage and concentrating wealth at the top where it does little good for the economy. Reducing their percentage of profit by increasing wages puts that money into circulation where it helps the economy.

Posted by danni

But don't corporations have a legal obligation to put their bottom line ahead of the workers, ahead of any other laws?

And aren't corporations legal persons in the eyes of the law?

How are we getting around those obstacles, which I think are at the heart of the problem?

Actually that used to be true.

No, obviously it still is true. Proven by this statement....

Now we are realizing that low capital gains tax rates only benefit the stock holders and not the workers. Workers benefit when instead of paying dividents companies reinvest into the company.

That is 100% one sided and you would only say that because you are either 1. completely ignorant or 2. so completely biased that you are incapable of making a reasonable argument.

I buy stock in certain companies specifically and only because they pay a good dividend. If they stop paying that dividend then I would not own that stock. This would hurt the company because then they have less capital to work with and that IS NOT GOOD FOR THE WORKERS as they would not have less capital to pay wages and benefits.

what I am trying to do is show you Danni is that there is some give and take. You apparently only understand the take part only on behalf of what you think is good for the worker. Again, refer back to the 2 possible choices to explain your position.

We are trying to raise wages.

No you aren't. Obviously, you are trying to lower them because what you are suggesting would do nothing to raise wages.

You can wish for higher wages all you want but, again, these suggestions to increase them would only hurt workers.

I, OTOH, actually want higher wages for workers.

Now we are realizing that low capital gains tax rates only benefit the stock holders and not the workers. Workers benefit when instead of paying dividents companies reinvest into the company.

* * * * *

100 million Americans are stockholders. If you have a 401k or an IRA invested in mutual funds that aren't bonds, you're a stockholder. If you have an IRA, a SIMPLE, a SEP, a 403b, or are a public employee, you're a stockholder. An owner of a company. Tens of millions of American households, but not, funny enough, the Obama's, who might be one of the only high-income families that don't have a single stock investment.
And if Barack Obama wants to make this election about the workers versus the greedy shareholders, I think it's a magnificent idea.

Rightisright,

Something he has yet to grasp, that most working Americans now own stock, and therefore, the old anti-corporate class warfare really only plays to a minority now....He'll learn the hard way...

For a Republican politician SS reform is code for dismantle and destroy. After all it is a Democratic program that benefits rank and file Americans.

Contributing to the common good goes against their core value of screw you buddy I've got mine.

When GOP leaders are talking about re-branding their party we know they are in deep doodoo.

Like they are going to be fiscally conservative ?
Like they are going to bring the troops home ?

They really have no place to go in the way of reform,
unless they straighten up their act and become the Democratic Auxiliary.

"100 million Americans are stockholders."

The vast majority of those never see a dividend check.

"what I am trying to do is show you Danni is that there is some give and take."

I fully accept that but we the Republicans seem to have forgotten. They want taxes too low and then pretend that any change from that means some extreme raise in taxation when that is simply not the case. Returning to tax rates that were in place under Clinton is all most Democrats are asking for.

"You can wish for higher wages all you want but, again, these suggestions to increase them would only hurt workers."

No it won't. By changing the tax playing field it becomes obvious to investors that investing in companies that create jobs is their best method of avoiding taxes, that creates more jobs which increases pressure for higher wages.

BTW, do any of y'all remember John Nesbitt (I think that is his name) and his book "Megatrends" which "sold" the idea of turning the country into a service based economy, without manufacturing????

Hey Jon let's see you support your family on your stock portfolio, OK?????
Er...I think you still need WAGES just like most of us.

when we privatize we will give 10 and get back 0. Republicans can never be trusted with your money. They are too greedy to not steal it.

Posted by messiah


It is because people are this stupid that privatizing can not get off the ground. Too many people don't understand it, even though it is very simplistic.

Messiah here somehow believes that republicans will be in control of the private accounts. How is the governement supposed to privatize SS when people actually think like Messiah?

Too many people don't understand it, even though it is very simplistic.
Posted by everlong

See, I actually agree. It is simplistic. Which is why the idea is has more problems than you are aware of.

Too bad you don't know the meaning of the words you use, because I'm sure you were trying to make the exact opposite point.

DAnni,

I'm talking about RETIREMENT! Why should they take my WAGES to put in a terribly underperforming government investment plan (social security) for someone else's retirement, when they could eliminate the taxes, allow me to keep that money, invest it in stocks, which have drastically out-performed Social Security, and, come retirement time, I'll have so much money that I won't need to garnish other people's WAGES to fund my retirement, because I've got that covered...

Allow everybody to do that, and you've got no need for social security, and everybody gets a huge pay hike,which they can invest to handle their own retirement....

Of course, Dems hate this, because it evolves less dependence on socialism, but it will inevitably go that way, because Social Security will not support the baby-boomers, the math just doesn't add up...Makes Obomba look stupid....That's ok we me...

YES WE CAN!

"when we privatize we will give 10 and get back 0."

The problem is that they mis-named it. It is rightly refered to as "cronyize."
Otherwise I agree with you 110%.

"because I've got that covered..."

Uh-huh Jon, you make me laugh. There are some folks who could actually take some money, invest it, make a profit, and build a retirement.....I think we both know....you are not one of those people.
Why don't you take some of what you get now and do the same thing???

I wish there were a line item thing on our tax returns, where we could choose maybe the 50 or so things we'd like to put our taxes toward. I think that would yield some really interesting polling.

"Messiah here somehow believes that republicans will be in control of the private accounts."

Because, in all liklihood, they would be.
Most stock brokers, etc. probably are Republicans.
The fees they already charge on 401Ks, etc. pretty much tells the story of what they would do if they could get their hands on our SS dollars.

Jon would prefer a politician who's slogan was......"NO WE CAN'T"

John McCain's slogan should be NO WE WON'T!

Most stock brokers, etc. probably are Republicans.

Only the ones who make money.

The fees they already charge on 401Ks, etc. pretty much tells the story of what they would do if they could get their hands on our SS dollars.

Posted by danni

That speaks to the heart of the privatization problem.

"Lets reduce government spending"
that's easy, don't vote for repubs (the big spenders)

as for taxes, the biggest tax increase isn't called a tax increase though it really is , what is "Deficit Spending", you got it, a tax (mainly paid by future generations!)

"Spend and Borrow", the Repub slogan, you righties love that.

"Only the ones who make money."

Warren Buffet would be in that profession, sort of....and I hear he makes a little money and actually is in favor of raising taxes on filthy rich people such as himself. Amazing huh???

Warren realizes that he has benefitted tremendously by living in the United States and that he owes his success to our markets.

He also sees the problem with unchecked deficit spending and understands exactly what the end result could be.

When you pay $4, $5 and $6 per gallon for gas and $5 for milk remember a factor driving up the cost of oil is the decline of the dollar.

The fees they already charge on 401Ks, etc. pretty much tells the story of what they would do if they could get their hands on our SS dollars.

Posted by danni


Why don't you show us some more of your brilliance, Danni? You talk of fees and republicans in charge of 401k's as if only republicans handle the accounts and as if the fees wouldn't be there if dems ran the whole show. In other words, your example is ludicrous.

It comes down to this. Would you rather have your money in the hands of the government or in your own hands? Seniors will not be affected because their money will stay in SS. Private accounts would be voluntary and offered to younger demographics. What about this is so wrong? The fact that democrats are against it shows only one thing. That you think you know what's best for everyone else and their money.

Why should you care if I want a portion of my tax dollars to go into a money making account? Who are you to say what I can do with my retirement money? And if SS is so great then why is it in so much trouble? I'll tell you why, because the government is in charge of it.

Danni,

No, I prefer politicians who don't rely on slogans at all, but actually have intellient, effective ideas and an intelligent base....Socialistas, however, are big fans of the slogan...YES WE CAN! YES WE CAN!....See, easy to repeat, totally devoid of specifics or even meaning, but a good binder for mindless crowds....YES WE CAN! YES WE CAN! SIEG HEIL! ooops.....Sorry, the images are so similar....if they break out the torches at one of these Obomba rallies, I'm really gonna get confused....

My retirement is and will be self-financed...I am not counting on, nor will I see, any money from Social Security...somebody else got that....It's just that I won't be taking money from my kids or someone else's to pay for my retirement...If everybody was "allowed" to do that by our government "cronies", then many more people would be in my shoes...of course, they wouldn't vote Democrat either.....

Why should they take my WAGES to put in a terribly underperforming government investment plan (social security) for someone else's retirement, when they could eliminate the taxes, allow me to keep that money, invest it in stocks, which have drastically out-performed Social Security, and, come retirement time,

What a putz.

Seniors will not be affected because their money will stay in SS. Private accounts would be voluntary and offered to younger demographics. What about this is so wrong?
Posted by everlong

How are you gonna pay for it?

Answer that. Because as we all know it is a "pay as you go" system and that todays withholding pays for todays benefits to retirees. So there is no money in the system to pay for the current retirees without the withholding. You fail to understand that it is an insurance system that provides benefits to the disabled, how would those be paid for?

Put on you thinking cap.

There are some folks who could actually take some money, invest it, make a profit, and build a retirement.....I think we both know....you are not one of those people.

People like Tony Snow, for example.

"...invest it in stocks, which have drastically out-performed Social Security"

that's true overall, JR, but not individually. If people are left to invest as they choose, many will do better than on SS, but even more will do worse.

Hagbard,

I don't see any evidence of that. Most working people own stock now. Many of them don't know anything about it, but the mutual funds in general do much better than SS....We're all having our wages garnished for the greater good, and putting it in non-productive funds....this hurts us through lost wages to ss tax and through underperformance...a double-whammy...The fact that we're used to it doesn't make it less of a financial disaster....

Warren Buffet would be in that profession, sort of....and I hear he makes a little money and actually is in favor of raising taxes on filthy rich people such as himself. Amazing huh???

Posted by danni
* * *

Yeah. And for all the sanctimony he's fed you lefties to make you think he's really just one of you, he set up an enormous foundation to make sure that, when he dies, the government gets none of his money.

"No, I prefer politicians who don't rely on slogans at all, but actually have intellient, effective ideas and an intelligent base...."

Why don't you name a few.

Hagbard, also add in disability insurance, survivor insurance for the ROI.

The fees they already charge on 401Ks, etc. pretty much tells the story of what they would do if they could get their hands on our SS dollars.

Posted by danni
* * *

Yep. You get what you pay for. Some of us don't mind paying some fees to clear 14% AFTER fees, whereas the fee-conscious "investors"--a contradiction in terms if ever there was one--prefer to make less money, either day-trading themselves, or plunking money blindly down into index funds they don' understand. Which is fine; that's why we have a market, after all. Plus, there are times when it's good to have a lot of dumb money on the other side of my trades.

"but the mutual funds in general do much better than SS"

Do they pay you a disability payment for the rest of your life if you are disabled??
do they take care of your family for you if you die??
Do they support your retirement even though you aren't a genius (I'm not talking about you personally) but do work for a living in a low wage job for your entire life???

SS is not an investment plan. Those are readily available to people who have a few dollars to invest. Comparing SS to mutual funds is apples and oranges.

The one big reason also that we CAN'T privatize SS is because we have to continue paying the benefits for today's retirees and those who will retire soon.
If the income to SS was redirected to private accounts then there is no money with which to pay benefits. I forget the figure that we would need to have on hand for present and near future benefits but I believe it was in the low trillions. If we don't have that ready then we can't switch to a privatized system anyway.

It is because people are this stupid that privatizing can not get off the ground. Too many people don't understand it, even though it is very simplistic.

Messiah here somehow believes that republicans will be in control of the private accounts. How is the governement supposed to privatize SS when people actually think like Messiah?

Posted by everlong


Look into how well the privitization of Chile's social security system went.

30% of the contributions into the system went to "fees".

And if you think that any privitization system here in the United States would not come from legislation that would be written by the investment banks managing the money then you are a fool.

You need to look no further than the corporate welfare given to big pharm with the medicare drug benefit, written by the pharm industry to see how the system works.

The real irony on Social Security is that it's a program designed to let crinkly whites live off of minorities and gays. There is no SS survivor benefit to gay couples, so benefits for them are terminal at death. What's more, blacks and Hispanics have a shorter lifespan than Asians and whites. Therefore, blacks and Latinos are subsidizing the retirement of wealthier and longer-living whites. Further, married persons are being subsidized by widows whose spouses died before retirement age, and single persons.

One would think that would be something offensive to Obama, and to Dems generally. But no.

Thank you 726.

"The real irony on Social Security is that it's a program designed to let crinkly whites live off of minorities and gays."

Riiight. They sat around and devised it that way.
Good argument for gay marriage though.

Danni,

Those are called insurance. I buy them myself. I don't garnish anyone's wages to do so....

If those poor, stupid, pack-mules you're all worried about paid less in social security tax, they'd have more to invest, and they wouldn't need to steal their kids wages.....What do you think people did before Social Security was given to us from the heavans by the Great Liberal Roosevelt?

Aside from that, your premise is a false one....Most people aren't poor, stupid pack mules who work only in low-paying jobs and are incapable of doing anything else....That's a distinct minority, and yet we garnish wages from everybody else, and still we complain about how hard seniors have it paying for their drugs....Whey are you gonna understand that this sytem IS NOT WORKING, and hasn't for some time....It was designed when there were 16 workers per retiree....now it's more like 4-1....it can't work under these conditions and doesn't...

And if you think that any privitization system here in the United States would not come from legislation that would be written by the investment banks managing the money then you are a fool.

* * * *

Well, call me a fool then. At my firm, accounts aren't profitable unless there's at least $350,000 in assets, which is why we're discouraged from opening accounts smaller than that. The idea that Wall Street firms just relish the idea of managing $12 weekly deposits for millions of people is kind of preposterous. It might benefit some of the online brokers or mutual funds companies, but no serious advisor would touch those kinds of accounts.

There's a middle way, in that you should let the state pension managers handle the SS money. But that would deny lawmakers in Washington the chance to spend the money. So it won't happen.

Some of us don't mind paying some fees to clear 14% AFTER fees,

Yeah that is how it will work.

Everyone will earn 14%. Simple, right?

Of course you fail to realize that the investment firms that will have their hands in your pocket will write the legislation to maximize their benefit, not the publics. The bill will be massive and with thousands of pages I doubt anyone Congressman will read it before it is passed.

RIR will make any excuse to not pay into the system. It's the old I got mine, F you if you didn't get yours argument again. RIR helping those less fortunate is something you need to learn a thing or 2 about. Greed isn't always the best answer.

Those are called insurance. I buy them myself. I don't garnish anyone's wages to do so....

Well aren't you special.

And if you cannot afford disability insurance? The idea was to spread the risk and the cost of the insurance over the entire work force to keep the cost low and ensure everyone is covered.

Unless of course you think it is better that someone who is injured at work be forced onto the welfare rolls. Then when those benefits run out, they can live on the street, starve and resort to petty crimes to buy food.

Your vision for America is shocking.

Everyone will earn 14%. Simple, right?
* * *

Nope. The only people who earn that kind of annualized return are those who deserve to. And people who expect to have Social Security waiting for them at retirement, frankly, don't deserve to.

About 40% of Americans will retire with only their Social Security benefits to support them. It staggers the imagination that we're going into our third generation of Americans who've managed to live and work in the greatest wealth-creating country in the history of planet earth, yet who rely on the government and the generosity of their fellow citizens to put milk and bread on the table. 40%. And were these people to have had Social Security monies in their hands throughout their working lives, they would have bought lottery tickets or new pickup trucks or televisions, just like they did with their pay raises and Christmas bonuses.

The privatization argument is interesting, but won't matter. A sizable percentage of Americans is too stupid with money, and they vote reflexively for people who promise to protect their Social Security income, such as it is.

The idea that Wall Street firms just relish the idea of managing $12 weekly deposits for millions of people is kind of preposterous

Well when you manage $12 per week from a million people it becomes quite significant. And if you limit their investment choices to four or five in house funds it becomes very profitable, expecially when you can take $4 of the $12 for "costs".

SS is not an investment plan.
Posted by danni

I forgot about that... Its why its abbreviated SSDI on my pay stub.

Social Security Disability Insurance.

THat's the thing, its insurance. you can't gamble with it because you can't risk losing it.

When a person is at the bottom rung after a lifetime of struggle, it's just not worth the risk.

And JR, once you turn that retirement investment over to the financial advisors, will they be happy with letting you stick with your medium risk portfolio, or will they start calling you and other people looking to convince them to increase their risks, and the subsequent fees the advisors will make?

These will be advisors from publicly traded companies, who not only have an obligation to make an honest profit, but to continually increase that profit. Where are the increases going to come from?

staggers the imagination that we're going into our third generation of Americans who've managed to live and work in the greatest wealth-creating country in the history of planet earth, yet who rely on the government and the generosity of their fellow citizens to put milk and bread on the table

You can thank the outsourcing of good paying jobs and destruction of the middle class for that.

Just keep repeating the following:

"Social Security is never going away."

40%...
Posted by rightisright

in any other "game", if 40% of the players were not willing to abide by the rules, you'd have to ask if maybe there was something wrong with the game as much as the players.

Well when you manage $12 per week from a million people it becomes quite significant. And if you limit their investment choices to four or five in house funds it becomes very profitable, expecially when you can take $4 of the $12 for "costs".

Posted by 726
* * * *

Wouldn't even cover the cost to send out statements. Not to mention the phone calls, the checks, setting up loan balances. Waste of time. It would be a boom for the Schwab's and the Ameritrades of the world, though.

"Danni,

Those are called insurance."

Yeah Jon, you go buy insurance that will provide for disability income for the rest of your life, a pension for your spouse for the rest of her life, income to take care of your children until they are 18, no matter how many you have, a retirement income starting at 65 and lasting for the rest of your life and get back to me on the cost.

726,

What if I don't want to take MY money, which I WORKED for, and give it to a bunch of people to manage THEIR disability insurance? It is not their money...it is mine. My giving should be voluntary....Libs are always liberal with other people's money, but in general they don't give to charity. Why don't you reverse this trend and give your money for the disability insurance of old people.

I'd be more inclined to support the program if it worked. It does not.

Understand, I'm of the age where I will pay my whole life for others Social Security benefits, but will recieve none myself....

Hagbard,

Well, whatever the advisors for private investment companies, they do a lot better than what the government ones do....

With a lifetime of experience, I should be able to pick the level of risk I'm comfortable with, given my lifelong experience of stock-market booms and busts....In any case, private firms know this and have portfolios of all risk levels....they're perfectly amenable to it...Their increasing in profits come from getting more people to sign up with you, which means you will have a broad array of risk levels to attract the most people...Just look at the big companies now....

So if 40% don't play, then maybe, since most people like the game, we should go with the design that MOST people like! Anyway, the number of stockholders is going sharply up....20 years from now, everybody with a job will own stock, or damn near it....

Social Security was invented at a time when almost no one owned stock and very few people had long retirements. Both are no longer true, and that system will vanish into the dustbin where it belongs. By that time, I probably would have lost $300,000 to it, and get nothing back. I know this. I've accepted it. Just don't call me mean...I've been pretty generous....

Most of this country buys health insurance, and we consider ourselves lucky when we don't need to use it.... why can't we think about SS the same way, and not take it when we don't need it?

Just don't call me mean...
Posted by jonryker

If I called you mean, it was in the heat of the moment and I apologize. We've been having some decent conversations lately even though we usually don't agree.

And if 10% didn't play, I'd agree that we should go with what most are willing to do, but 40% is a big difference, a percentage too large to disregard.

"Understand, I'm of the age where I will pay my whole life for others Social Security benefits, but will recieve none myself...."

I will be 58 soon but I absolutely do remember saying the exact same thing when I was young. Turned out it wasn't true then, it's not true now.
It's a talking point. You have no more reason to believe there will be no SS than anyone else does to believe that their stocks will grow in value.
There are no guarantees in life. We don't know if the planet will be here fifty years from now.

"Social Security was invented at a time when almost no one owned stock"

No it was invented after millions lost their life savings in the stock market.

Danni,

No, it was invented at a time when almost no one owned stock. The fact that the ones that did own stock lost it simply made everyone more suspicious of stock.

Therefore, ol' Roosevelt saw an opportunity to take that fear and turn it into dependence on the Federal Govt, ever a favorite notion of his. To his credit as a cynical politician, it worked for 80 years, but its time is coming. People aren't afraid of stocks anymore.

As more people own stock and see how much better they're doing with it, they begin to resent SS tax, which they could be investing for themselves, and, as more people figure this out, and as the worker/retiree ratio drops from 16/1 down to 3/1, the system will die a natural death. What else are they gonna do, jack the SS taxes up 5-fold to cover the gap? People are living 10 years longer than they system is designed for....there is no way SS can be solvent....both parties know this...the Dems just wanna win 3 more elections with the scare tactic, banking on the baby-boomers to continue their narcicistic march through history by insisting on keeping these benefits no one can pay for.....it won't work...it can't be done...unless you wanna run huge deficits....Danni, you'd better find another retirement plan...

Jon actuaries have already figured out very simple ways to make SS solvent for upwards of 75 years whether you like it or not.

Danni,

Explain, please.

You can make SS solvent by raising the age at which you're allowed to take distributions. I've seen studies whereby were you to disallow benefit payments for anyone under the age of 67, you could ensure SS solvency throughout the 21st century. That assumes, however, that average lifespan doesn't move up dramatically.

RightisRight,

But isn't that just a slower death? Lifespan has already radicall lengthened in the 20th Century. They're dying later every year in that age group. The baby-boomers will die MUCH later.

In the face of that, you have 4 times fewer workers to support the system. 2 years isn't gonna make up of that.....There is no way it can be made to work, given the aging population and unwillingness to die young....

Maybe. But what many scientists believe is that the rate of growth of average lifespan will slow considerably in the years ahead. It's very unlikely we can stretch out longevity to, say, 110-plus years for the majority of Americans.

The point is that there are certain things that can be done on an actuarial basis that can preclude the need for major overhauls in Social Security, merely by adding a few years to the eligibility age, or slowly reducing benefit formulae.

Medicare, though, is another matter . . . hard to see anything but a train wreck with that one.

Social Security was invented after the stock market--in which people invested all their savings--went down 89 percent, closing at 42 on, I think, July 8, 1933. And it took 27 years to regain its previous level.

Privatizing SS will create a bunch of new hedge-fund billionaires and leave 99% of folks less well off.

30 years too late to keep it outta the pork barrel!

30 years too late to keep it outta the pork barrel!

"Privatizing SS will create a bunch of new hedge-fund billionaires and leave 99% of folks less well off."

Probably the most intelligent post on this thread today.

What Buttcrack Obominable said is the usual rhetoric we hear from the hardcore socialist/neo-commie idiots. They pray on people that don't understand that the so called social security trust fund is nothing more than a bunch of worthless national debt. It's part of that growing 9 trillion dollars that the US government owes. Unless social security taxes are raised across the board or benefits are reduced, social security will collapse. The magic date is sometime in 2015 when total payments equal total income. The trust fund can't pay for anything because in order to retire it, more bonds will have to be sold to places like China, taxes will have to be raised or the benefits will have to be lowered across the board. This is what happens to Ponzi scams when they can't get enough new capital to pay all the old investors. However, in this case the government has the option of raising taxes. So, Buttcrack's comments are both moronic and untrue. He's just like the Hildabeast when it come to telling the truth. They will both tell you what they think you want to hear! BTW, the unfunded liability for the baby boomers has been estimated to be 32+ TRILLION dollars. Now, you add that to the unfunded liability for baby boomer medicare, at least 32+ TRILLION dollars and it becomes obvious that there just isn't enough money to pay for these programs.

Here is an interesting quote from a very prophetic history professor:
"At about the time our original 13 states adopted their new Constitution
in 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University
of Edinburgh, had this to say about The Fall of the Athenian Republic
some 2,000 years prior:

"A Democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist
as a permanent form of government. A Democracy will continue to
exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote
themselves generous gifts from the public treasury."

From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates
who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the
result that every democracy will finally collapse over loose fiscal
policy, (which is) always followed by a dictatorship.

The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning
of history has been about 200 years."

"Privatizing SS will create a bunch of new hedge-fund billionaires and leave 99% of folks less well off."

Probably the most intelligent post on this thread today.

Posted by danni
* * * *

Double negative. In order to invest in hedge funds, you have to be an accredited investor. Net worth of $1 million in non-real estate assets, and annual income of at least $200,000 in two of the last three years. That doesn't exactly describe the kind of investors that run to vote Democrat every time one of their masters tosses the word "privatization" their way.
Try again. Now that you know that hedge funds don't want your money, and Wall Street investment firms don't want the money--what boogeymen are you going to drag out of the closet this time?