pan6467

I was in the midst of a reply in another thread when the thread was closed... so I brought it here. It would have been threadjacking over there anyway.

Social Security is not the problem, it's an easy scapegoat and can get the GOP pumped up, but it's NOT the problem.

The problem is multimillion dollar bridges to no where, the pork. What Congress did to Social Security is the problem. In the early 70's Congress needed money, the first gas crunch was upon us, Nixon threw down price controls. Congress can't raise taxes when people are hurting, but at that time they didn't want to cut spending.... still had a war to pay for, still had "the War on Poverty" and so on. So they looked around. What did they see? A HUGE war chest of money that grew every year and the money wasn't needed until decades later. So they started "borrowing" from Social Security, putting in IOU's. They did this with the full intention of paying it all back before it was needed. However, once Congress started they couldn't stop.... there was just sooooo much money and it wasn't needed for decades... ok, 15 years.... ok, 10...... what do you mean the Boomers retire in 5? They tried to restructure to make it harder to get, "Raise the age... make it harder for people to get disability.... etc"

Now, the Boomers, who have paid into it for their 40+ years are getting ready to collect... but only IOU's exist and now the government is stuck. What can it do? Well, there are a few solutions.

Ron Paul's just destroy it... people lose the money they put in but aw well. And oh yeah, you poor people, society will take care of you. Yeah right.

Other plans are to raise the age again, just print more money devaluing ours, and so on.

Yet no one recognizes the fact that 1 bridge to no where cost us MILLIONS and those MILLIONS could easily have been earmarked for a repayment into Social Security.

The program is very effective, Congress isn't.

Now, how do you tell people who have paid into something for 40 years and that is their retirement, that government doesn't want to pay.... go find charity?

I'm sorry, I can't tell someone who has worked hard and helped society for 40 years that the money our government owes him/her isn't going to be paid... but we have a bridge to no where... we have a war to pay for.... we have corporate welfare to pay for..... we need to cut the riches taxes more.... etc etc.... but you ain't getting your 40 year investment back.

BULLSHIT.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Sun Tzu

From what I understand Ron Paul is not advocating to pull out from people that have paid all their lives, but to start the trend where eventually years down the road, when the pay offs have been settled- to create a situation where people are saving for their own retirements instead of the government doing it for them.

__________________
To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit.- Stephen Hawking

samcol

You obviously have not read Ron Pauls stance on social security.

Not taxing social security, not raising the requirement age, or not paying people who haven't put money in are totally radical extremist positions.

__________________
It's time for the president to hand over his nobel peace prize.

pan6467

Perhaps I misread the Ron Paul stance.... however, that was not the gist of my argument.... Samcol talked about how the Boomers were being selfish.

They aren't..... they put in 40+ years of hard earned money and were promised a return. They have every right for that return. If government spent it and used it up and filled it with IOUs then government needs to fix it.

The WHOLE of my argument and OP I think has been missed.


See, this is one reason why there is some Bipartisanship going on with Illegal Immigration. One, both parties see a huge voting block..... BUT they also see a young, healthy generation that will work for nothing and if made legal through amnesty, can be taxed and thus pay into Social Security and keep it alive so government won't have to be accountable and have to cut pork, like multimillion dollar bridges to no where, subsidizing colleges that raise tuition to the maximum amounts every year, corporate welfare, minimally excised imports, etc.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Ustwo

So the government, voting in by said baby boomers, do a poor job of it, and now the baby boomers expect their children to fix it?

Just wanna make sure I get that straight.

If the government is 'of the people' then the people paying fucked up.

If their solution to fix it is to tax me more, thats not exactly fair to those being taxed extra to fix up the fuck up they allowed to happen now is it?

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

host

70 percent of total US wealth is in the control of ten percent of the US population. Ron Paul wants to reduce progressive income taxation and inheritance tax. Consider that the wealthiest have increased the percentage of the total that they control, as each tax "reform" since 1970, lowered the top income tax bracket further from it's high of 91 percent of income above $400,000....the top rate in 1960, on $400,000 plus....in 1960 dollars. Silverf was worth $1.00/oz in 1960, it's $14 today. The 91 percent tax bracket was on income, in today's dollars....on approximate annual income above $5.6 million.

Today, the tax in that income top bracket is 40 percent.
The bottom 50 percent of us, control just 2.5 percent of total US assets, and the bottom half of that group, the bottom 25 percent of us, actually "enjoy" a net negative worth....we owe a percentage of total national assets.
The bottom 50 percent would not "save" anything for retirement. All that they earn and own is devoted to surviving this day, this week.

The wealthy have grown steadily wealthier since 1970, even in a taxing environment Ron Paul and his followers consider as "harsh", or "unfair".

Do you think, with less government regulation and oversight, and elimination of progressive income tax, and inheritance tax, the wealthiest will soon control more than 70 percent of total US wealth, or less? Where will the oversight and enforcement come from to see to it that the welathy do not escape the favored replacement tax, a "fair" or higher sales tax, by simply bartering the expensive goods and services that they consume, with each other?

Who will be there, in the "small government" environment, to see to it that much higher sales taxes are collected, that "off the books" transactions, in a world with no IRS auditors, are not the favored means to avoid the sales tax,
and that the federal government gets all of the tax collected, in a timely fashion?

I recently provided data from the US census that shows that, in Kentucky, for example, hardly the poorest US state, more that 20 percent of those aged 64 and over have incomes below the poverty level.

Social Security was, and is popular, because it is not demeaning, there is no stigma attached to receiving it. It is not welfare. No government money is a source for retirement or disability benefits. The government has borrowed $2 trillion from Social Security, the surplus that Social Secuirty has collected since the 1983, Greenspan chaired "reform".

All of the Ron Paul solutions, relegate anyone who is unable to "save" for retirement, and anyone who becomes disables during his working years, to "pauper" status, dependent on a hand out. Until 1940, that is the way the US elderly lived. Social Secuirty gave the elderly and infirm dignity, and it cost the government nothing. Workers and employers paid into the fund, and the government raided it.

The disaster who fronts as "our president", is demanding $200 billion more, "off budget", to fund his wars. Then he'll tout "the fact" that he's reduced the deficit, since the $200 billion "doesn't count", just as the $150 billion yearly social secuirty collection surplus that he borrows to disguise the size of the budget deficit, "doesn't count". Both the $200 billion "for the war", and the borrowed $150 billion Social Security money are simply added to the $3.4 trillion increase in total US treasury debt since the president took office in 2001.

That $200 billion could be a ten percent down payment on the $2 trillion owed to social security. Instead, in the new fiscal year, 49 days old, the government has borrowed an addtional $20 billion of surplus social security payroll tax.

When the president took office in 2001, the government had stopped borrowing from social security and the budget was balanced. Treasury debt increased by only $18 billion per year, and now, for the last 4 years, it increases over $500 billion each year.

The point? The country was poised to repair its fiscal situation, just seven years ago. In the year 1993, the federal deficit was $290 billion.
There can be dramatic improvement without dismantling Social Security and the government.

Social Security is not "broken", the US treasury, itself is. Social Security could be on it's way to long term soundness, simply by converting the $2 trillion in "special", one of a kind T-Bills issued only to social security, into plain old, ten year maturity T-Bills. The Fed would simply raise interest rates to a level necessary for social security to sell the T-Bills among the regular treasury T-Bill auctions, to the degree it takes social secuirty to achieve face value sales proceeds....$2 trillion for the T-Bills.

I'm sure the geniuses who mangage the Yale and Harvard endowments could be enlisted as pro-bono advisors for the investment of the $2 trillion social security surplus, now in cash after the T-Bill sales.

Total US treasury debt would not even increase after the sale, $2 trillion would be moved from "debt held by the public" column, to debt held in private hands.

Social Security could exchange it's dollars for gold, silver, and Euros. It could even be a lender of last resort to the federal treasury, but at rates mjuch higher than the 5-1/2 percent annual interest that it is paid now, for holding unmarketable "special" T-Bills.

They want you to think social security is failed, governemnt "doesn't work", and private "enterprise" and private retirement "savings" are the answer. If you buy that, why did the government "work", and there was a balanced budget and a reduction in total, non-military federal gov. employment, just seven years ago?

Who benefits from Ron Paul reform? People who pay high taxes, polluters, companies like Citicorp and Merrill, the two biggest in their niches, after both CEO's falsely assured that their losses had been stemmed. Federal regulators had permitted lax mortgage lending, and false positive credit rating of the mortgages sold to investors. This created a housing valuation bubble, it began to crash, and Citi and Merrill were left holding mortgage backed paper that has no value if sold at market, today.

Why not fix what we have? One disaster as president, and a Federal reserve that needs reform and de-privatizing (it is a private bank....), does not justify the "full of holes" reform proposed by Ron Paul.

Sun Tzu

I had heard him say it but host posted this in another thread:

__________________
To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit.- Stephen Hawking

dc_dux

Two myths that the RP crowd continues to perpetuate:

THe first in RP's own words from above:
Paul: Well, most of the services and most of the expenditures of the government aren't strictly designated by the Constitution.

That is blatantly false. The Supreme Court has ruled otherwise.....RP and his loyal followers are simply unwilling to accept the interpretation of the Supreme Court.
Its not about hating RP, its about respecting the role of the Supreme Court as the final arbiter of the Constitution. (btw, one who refers to others as "anti-american" for not sharing RPs positions on Iraq and the Patriot act should not be talking about hate)

Second myth that Social Security is broken.
Social Security can pay full benefits through 2042 with no change in eligibility age, cutting benefits or raising the payroll tax.

SS was originally envisioned as a pay-as-you-go program. In the 80s, recognizing the coming baby boomers (and the likelihood of more going out to retirees than coming in from smaller number of younger workers), the payroll tax was raised to create a surplus that has continued to grow for the last 20+ years.

Despite another Ron Paul lie ("It is fundamentally unfair to give benefits to anyone who has not paid into the system. The Social Security for Americans Only Act (H.R. 190) ends the drain on Social Security caused by illegal aliens seeking the fruits of your labor"), the contribution to SS from undocumented workers alone, to the tune of $6-7 billion/yr from those who wont collect benefits, has also contributed to the system's solvency.

Starting in the late 1980's, the Social Security Administration received a flood of W-2 earnings reports with incorrect - sometimes simply fictitious - Social Security numbers. It stashed them in what it calls the "earnings suspense file" in the hope that someday it would figure out whom they belonged to.

The file has been mushrooming ever since: $189 billion worth of wages ended up recorded in the suspense file over the 1990's, two and a half times the amount of the 1980's.

In the current decade, the file is growing, on average, by more than $50 billion a year, generating $6 billion to $7 billion in Social Security tax revenue and about $1.5 billion in Medicare taxes.

In 2002 alone, the last year with figures released by the Social Security Administration, nine million W-2's with incorrect Social Security numbers landed in the suspense file, accounting for $56 billion in earnings, or about 1.5 percent of total reported wages.

Social Security officials do not know what fraction of the suspense file corresponds to the earnings of illegal immigrants. But they suspect that the portion is significant.

"Our assumption is that about three-quarters of other-than-legal immigrants pay payroll taxes," said Stephen C. Goss, Social Security's chief actuary, using the agency's term for illegal immigration.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/05/bu...migration.html

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Sun Tzu

At least give me the choice. If I make the choice to invest in a government program that will take care of me then take it out of my check. I would much rather invest it in ways I feel will be better for my security.

As far as distribution of wealth, then put out a product or service that will destribute it in your direction.

I dont think there is going to be any governemnt situation that produces a utopia, but if there is an free market environment where anyone has a chance to make whatever future they are willing to work hard enough to achieve it seems as totally acceptable to me that some are mega wealthy.

--As long as national policy isnt being dictated according to the weight of someones personal vault. Perhaps the 2 go hand in hand.

__________________
To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit.- Stephen Hawking

dksuddeth

You, yourself, have said that the USSC is not always right. Just because 9 people in black robes, designated to 'interpret' the constitution, say something IS constitutionally correct, does not mean they are right.

and that's not broken?

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

pan6467

But where exactly did I say increase taxes????

I believe I talked about cutting pork, like multimillion dollar bridges to no where and using that money to buy back some of the IOUs in Social Security.

As pointed out above and especially with wages barely holding stable and not decreasing as prices increase and the dollar plummets, people want to know that their work is appreciated and they will have something for that age where they can rest and relax (retire). The majority of Americans are just worried about making it through the month. Foreclosure rates the highest ever, debt to income ratio the highest ever, healthcare, fuel, food, electricity, the mere cost of living highest rates ever.... yet people are getting paid less.

How do they save, yet still maintain an "American" standard of living?

The answer from most Neocons is simple.... lower your standard of living.

How fucking sad is that? For 231 years this country has always moved forward and made sure the next generation had a better chance to succeed and had a better lifestyle..... but the Neocons want us to go backward now. They don't want to figure out ways to move forward that will work for all, like ohhhhh raising import tariffs, making appropriations and finance bills minimal wording with no pork, looking at CEO golden parachutes and extremely sad but almost laughable salaries, giving tax cuts to the rich and believing trickle down economics will work.... even though the past 20+ years of trickle down has destroyed this nation. The little reprieve we did have was with Clinton, and even that didn't last long with a GOP Congress that was more worried about destroying him than figuring out how to better the country.

Hey Zeus Freaking Crisps, we need plans that will work and move us forward not more "trickle down" give the rich fucking massive tax breaks, allow companies to go overseas and tax imports minimally while we tax the middle class into nothingness and pay the workers shit wages so that they can live in debt..... then take away their retirement by saying, "it just plum ran out."

When the truth is it didn't "run out" it was filled with IOUs by both sides of the aisle to pay for bridges that go no where, a war that if we had been able to spend the money on education, healthcare and retirement instead, we'd be #1 in education again, #1 in healthcare again and retirees wouldn't be reverse mortgaging their paid for houses to save what they can of their little "American Dream". (And that's just the recent pork that comes to mind.... we have 30+ years of it.)

It's time we woke up, figured it out and fucking got back to where we belong and stop accepting Neocon bullshit that "we need to just lower our standard of living, while CEOs make far more than ever, while we cut their taxes and make sure education, healthcare and a retirement are unreachable for you peons who have to truly work for a living."

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

cybersharp

eh.. idk where you got the idea that bridge was going to be made in the first place.. I have lived in the disputed area. Have studied the plans, I VERY much doubt that the "bridge's" would be made. None of the plans they have for making them are worth a dime. Cause they are just that ridiculous to build.

__________________
0PtIcAl

Charlatan

I am sorry, I can agree that CEOs appear to make too much money but I just don't see where it's the government's business to tell a corporation how to compensate its employees.

As for standard of living... the fact is, many people DO live beyond their means. There are many reasons that people do this but ultimately the buck as to stop with individuals who spend more than they earn.

I agree that there is room for tax reform, health care, etc. I am all for progressive policies but not the expense of healthy economy. To suggest that the US (or any country) should put up trade barriers and tariffs in this increasingly flat world is excessively short sighted.

Yes, people are losing jobs in the US and elsewhere in the West. But new jobs are being created. Different jobs to be sure. Meanwhile, places like India, China and large parts of South East Asia are growing their economies through increased trade with the rest of the world. Trade not only in goods but in ideas, hopes and dreams. This has done more to bring peace and prosperity (or at least the increasing potential for both) than pretty much any other force at work today.

Setting up trade barriers and turning your collective backs on the world at a time when you need to be embracing it more fully and completely is folly.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

roachboy

well, there are a bunch of questions here, yes?
one way of thinking about them, at least at the level of how they tie together, is by way of neoliberalism.

on taxes/social security:

folk like ustwo and other libertarian-types (regardless of how they position themselves politically) seem to confuse the fact that they do not personally like taxes (who does?) with an understanding of how programs that redistribute wealth function to maintain the social system that--like it or not--capitalism REQUIRES be maintained in order to function at all. rather than think in structural terms, in historical terms, in sociological terms, the libertarian set seems to prefer thinking about capitalism like the weather, as a natural phenomenon, and taxes as an affliction that punishes them (boo hoo)--what holds this together is some strange assumption that capitalism naturally produces desirable social outcomes. that this assumption flies in the face of the history of actually existing capitalism seems unimportant. that there is a continual tension between the way in which capitalist relations pulverize social solidarity and the requirement that this solidarity be maintained is irrelevant to these folks.

but maintaining solidarity is maintaining political consent. and no socio-economic system can operate without political consent. that the redistribution of wealth is about, functionally, buying political consent can be taken as given: so the question is basically which way of buying political consent produces the greater social good. on this, i cant see any argument against redistribution of wealth that makes any sense.


one of the baseline claims that separated the traditional left from the traditional right is that the left tended to see capitalism in system terms and the right tended to refuse that, preferring instead to traffic in notions of petit bourgeois "common sense" which enframes the world around the viewpoint of individual experience---confusing "i dont like taxes" with anything like a system-level understanding of what the redistribution of wealth *does* is only understandable by way of this hinge...the irony is that conservatives with political power tend not to see things in the way the rank-and-file poujadiste-types do.

anyway, programs like social security serve system legitimation functions: they help provide the illusion that a capitalist-based system actually cares for (not in the subjective sense, but in the material one) the labor pool once elements within that pool age. a coherent health insurance policy (one that does not resemble the american) provides the illusion of a beneficent state (that it also provides for a coherent reproduction of the labor pool tends to get shoved to the side)...these help buy political consent.

because the libertarian set collapses capitalism into a natural phenomenon, it is easy for these folk to imagine that political consent is secondary at best. that another aspect of libertarian=style "thinking" is the conflating of structural effects (class position) with individual morality (via some bizarre-o reworking of calvinism, such that one's economic status reflects one's moral state reflects one's status as "chosen"--so that one can endorse class stratification as somehow just while avoiding thinking in terms of class at the same time) simply reinforces the evasion of systematic thinking. one result is that the libertarian set cannot even provide a coherent description of contemporary capitalism, much less a coherent set of policies regarding its regulation (and redistribution of wealth is a form of social regulation)....


tarrifs are another matter....here again you start with a gap separating political claims and the empirical world. in neoliberal political terms, reducing tarrifs are about "free trade" and "opening up markets to progress"--but in the actual world, things are not like that.

example: think about north-south relations in the context of globalization (say)----the demand that a country which finds itself locked into "structural adjustment" reduce or eliminate tarrifs is mostly about enabling northern hemisphere countries--the united states in particular--to dump overproduction (particularly in agriculture related to corn and dairy)...
so the claims that "freeing" trade engenders progress (whatever that is) runs into the fact that in agricultural production (for example) "free trade" in the context of basic assymetries leads in fact to increased and deepened dependency on food imports. this because "progress" neoliberal style entails the destruction of locally oriented agricultural production. there is a direct linkage between this and the effects of eliminating other mechanisms that resdistribute wealth in the name of noeliberal ideology, but outlining them would make this even longer (i can do it, anyone who looks can do it)..so if the actual idea of "free trade" is using southern hemisphere countries to absorb irrationalities in production from northern hemisphere countries, then fine, that's the system, that's what it does--but let's not pretend that this has anything to do with "progress" with "facing the future" with "competition"--this has ONLY to do with northern hemisphere countries exporting the consequences of dysfunctional subsidy systems, irrational agricultural policies, etc.

in the film "life and debt" michael manley makes a nice quick point:

if you want to know to whose advantage the current globalizing capitalist order functions, think about who set it up. that the institutional configuration behind "globalization" follows from bretton woods, and that at bretton woods there were NO southern hemisphere countries because in 1944 there was no "third world" but only elements of northern empires, then follows--quick and easy--the answer to "qui bono?"

the rhetoric of "free trade" isnt worth the breath required to repeat it.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

host

Sun Tzu, US wealth inequity is at a crisis level. Canada enjoys much more equality of wealth distribution, but there is growing concern there, that the inequity trend is a problem. The momentum of the trend seems to be resistant to efforts of the Canadian government to lessen wealth inequality, compared to results in the past.

Please understand that the predictable effect of what you advocate will accelerate the trend toward further wealth consolidation. The combination of the trend and the corruption of the corporate management at even the biggest US corporations lessens opportunity for what you predict will happen.

Is there some point where you would be willing to support your opinions with links? Is there some level....say, when the top ten percent in the US own 85 percent of total US assets, compared to the 70 percent they own now, where you would revise your dismissive reaction, your "free for all", "let the chips fall where they may", advocacy?

<b>Mexico's Gini number is 54....</b>

I recently documented that the chairmen of the largest US bank and the largest brokerage, blatantly lied about the earnings prospects of their companies, going forward, complete with accompanying news reports quoting their false assurances, followed by announcements, just weeks later, of additional multi billion dollar losses:
<h3>Your "leave it to the freemarkets" opinion does not do well if you click the preceding link and read my post, and it's not a new problem. The predecessor of Citicorp, National City Bank, was rife with similar corruption, 75 to 80 years ago:</h3>
Sun Tzu, your solutions do not even acknowledge, much less address the problems. The only recourse "the rest of us" have in responding to the problems of growing (and already, in the US, obscene) wealth inequality and the chronic corruption in the largest corporations (it's assumed that the largest are less corrupt than the less prominent corporations) is government.

There is no level playing field, and there is no inertia for the lower three quarters of us to reverse the wealth consolidation trend. The regulatory laws are being dismantled by lobbyists of the financial industries, and there is lax enforcement, and you seem to want that to continue.

Ustwo

Bullshit

Get a real job, start a business, get a better education. If a handful of people are able to make mega millions, good for them too, who cares, it doesn't affect me and I'm not going to be jealous about it and whine that the government should take it away from them because its not fair.

If you spent the time you do writing these posts and complaining about the government on bettering yourself financially I'd be willing to wager you would have far less to complain about.

Oh woah is me, I can't compete they are all out to get me, we need to force them to give me what I haven't earned because I have a heartbeat.

This my friends is the essence of the socialist disease. The idea that you are somehow owed something, that life isn't fair, that you have a right to the fruits of others labor.

Your philosophy is that of a loser. Your inability to compete is predetermined by social class and there is no hope of redemption, only by force in the name of 'the people' (theft) can you succeed. Whats worse is that instead of making your lot any better your polices will just make everyone else as miserable and helpless as you feel you are.

Give me a break.

Lets use some examples.

My inlaws. MIL no college degree, FIL college degree, doesn't use it. FIL worked for a big company for a while but always wanted a business of his own, they were all borderline failures. MIL with no college degree went to work for a big company, slowly worked her way up over almost 35 years, but never above middle management. No big bonus, stock options, etc.

They are now millionaires and quite comfortable. She still works for the company, he is retired (works his ass off for free but thats another topic) and handles their investments. How? By not whining about how unfair it was but being frugal and investing.

Me. I'm currently in the top 10% of wage earners in this country. This isn't to brag, I don't feel rich nor do I live my life any different than I did 5 years ago. The difference was 5 years ago, in my early 30's I was in the bottom 25%, apparently in the helpless % that can only succeed with the governments help.

Now lets take my great uncle. He was a fat cat. He worked for a MAJOR corporation, was the nationwide VP (back when VP meant something), his company was bought out and he got a golden parachute. Only instead of going back to work he lived off that parachute for a while, it ran out, and he is now pretty much dirt poor and too old to work.

What you are advocating is the story of the ant and the grasshopper, only in this version the grasshopper demands the ant gives up half his stuff under penalty of imprisonment in the name of the people.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

roachboy

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

host

Can you grasp that I am not motivated by feeling, or being personally disenfranchised? I am not complaining about "my own lot". My "philosophy" is about an awareness and empathy for the least of us and the challenges in their way.

Can you identify, at all, with this example. I'm not comparing myself to her, but I'm inspired by what she did:

I see a problem, global warming, or wealth inequity, I study it, and I seek and propose ways to ease or solve the problem.

You made no attempt to address the "evidence" of alarming wealth inequality, amply demonstrated in my last post. I read your "solution".

My criticism is that it denies the problem, and it overestimates, against the details provided in my last post, the ease of gathering and retaining wealth.
The current distribution of wealth contradicts your opinions. In the US reside people who hold nearly 33 percent of total world assets, and US population is just 4.7 percent of world population. Just ten percent of the US population hold 70 percent of that wealth. So, ten percent of US population, or .47 percent of world population, hold 22 percent of all the wealth in the world.

This startling statistic, along with the fact that the bottom 50 percent of the US population holds just 2.5 percent of total US wealth, impresses me that it is not "as easy" as you post that it is, to accumulate wealth.

There is a crisis. The first step is to recognize it, and investigate what can be done about it. When was the last time US officials sent economists to study what works and doesn't work in the attempts of governments in France, Sweden, and Denmark to manage wealth inequity and distribution?

UStwo, you don't even concede a role or responsibility of government to manage wealth or to attempt to make it's distribution more equitable.

In Canada, 58 percent of total wealth is in ten percent of the hands, and in the US, 70 percent is. Do you know what percent of Venezuela's wealth was in the hands of just ten percent, in 1997? I'm sure that Hugo Chavez knew the percentage.

If 70 percent of total wealth in the US in just ten percent of the hands is not only not a concern to you, but a "slur" provoking you to "shoot the messenger", is there a higher percentage that would concern you to the point that you might rethink your dismissal of "the problem", or would you simply ignore it until an American version of Hugo Chavez or Fidel Castro emerges in reaction to the inequity?

I don't think that we'll be that lucky. We all own guns. We'll use them to delay dictatorship until after a period of violent anarchy.

Ustwo

As compared to you calling my thought process stupid in philosophy?

Please, spare me.

Edit: and I'll add its perfectly apt. host seems to think you can't win at life unless you were born into the right group. Its impossible to succeed without government help, someone needs to show you the way because you are just not capable. What would be a better word for it?

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

host

My question, again....and here is the trend:
<img src="http://www.energybulletin.net/image/articles/12275/fig2.png">
Am I alone in suspecting that the obscene status quo....70 percent of total US wealth in the control of just ten percent of the population, is quietly accepted as a "cost of doing business", because the folks who should be alarmed by it, are distracted supporting leaders like, Ron Paul, and that they are enamored by the "American Dream", described by UStwo?

Dosen't this "dream" seem, by the reality of the way wealth is distributed, more like what happens at a casino? There are a few winners and a bunch of people who end up with nothing. Why does everyone believe that he is going to be a winner, when so few actually are? Is it because it is easier to be distracted by the desire to win, than it is to confront and admit that the real problem is that "free markets", dependent on war, and prone to boom and bust cycles and the misallocation of resources as experienced in the current huge "crop" of empty new houses, and recent investments in fiber optics networks, still unlit seven years later, while 45 million Americans have no health insurance protection, but military contractors enjoy "no bid" excess profits....is the reason almost no one is outraged by wealth inequity?

I suspect a lot of you have been fooled into backing an economic status quo that is not in the best interest of the American majority.

Bill O'Rights

What is an "American" standard of living? Seriously. I'm interested in hearing your viewpoint on that.

I see waaaay too many people trying to maintain a standard of living, that is beyond their means, by way of debt. How long did those people suppose that that was sustainable?

__________________
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony

"Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus

It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

Charlatan

You know, I love stories like that of Josephine Roche. She embraces a particular point of view that I can whole-heartedly agree should be the way *some* corporations should work. That said, I don't see it as the government's role to legislate businesses to work this way.

One of the reasons why the US economy has been able to adapt to the new information world in which we live is that it has a flexible work force. People do not have jobs for life, and while that is a problem for many, it is also a boon to many. The ability of employers to shift to meet the demands of the market is important.

The reverse is a situation like they have in France where employers are afraid to hire people because once hired the employer is responsible for the employee for just about as long as that person is alive. Firing someone is nearly impossible.

I am not saying that employers don't have *any* responsibilities just that people should not assume employment for life. People should work hard to maintain their employability for life. By that I mean, employees need to stay aware of the changing trends in the larger world. They need to keep learning throughout life and remain adaptable in an ever-changing world economy.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

pan6467

Affordable healthcare, the ability to have the necessities in life, the knowledge that if your car breaks down or something happens you won't be missing payments or have to worry about it, the ability to afford utilities.

I am no fool the vast majority of people are going to live paycheck to paycheck because our society is built that way.

A family pretty much needs an internet (doesn't mean they need the newest most expensive computer... that's where Dell comes in), a family pretty much needs a car unless they live in town on a bus route, a family needs to know they can afford to fill their tank up, pay the electric and gas bill and still be able to afford food.

People need to live in an environment where they feel safe, where they feel secure and where can save money.

Extending credit and not raising wages is stupid to say the least. All you produce doing that is people severely in debt with no savings that are borderline on default.

I just think our country is fucked up in our thinking. If someone wants to put forth 40 hours of work a week and works hard, there is no reason on God's green Earth that a company cannot reward that person with a decent paycheck that allows that person to feel wanted and appreciated. There is no reason for that person to have to worry about making ends meet.

Now, we also have a problem where if you want a decent job you need a college degree and you need loans to achieve that. So by the time you hit the work force you are severely in debt and basically paying off a mortgage to begin with. Companies aren't paying and aren't recognizing this, yet they can pay their CEO's more and more every year.

The Neocons like to say there is a class war and the Dems are the cause. I believe there is a class war in this country, but it is the rich warring against the poor and middle class. The average hard working American just wants a life better than their parents, the pay should be, the conditions should be, the safety and job security should be..... but the managements don't believe so. The managements like to threaten, keep wages down while increasing theirs, fight any benefits to the worker yet prepare their golden parachutes and will sell out or move if they see a buck to be made.

This causes the double edged sword. If I feel unsecure in my workplace and that I am just a number, why am I going to give loyalty? If you tell me that I'm just a number and there are replacements out there to work cheaper and yada yada yada... then you really aren't giving me positive incentive to work to the best of my ability... instead I'll do just enough to not get in trouble. What happens then is there is no pride in workmanship and in the end you put out shit quality causing a decrease in sales.

The workers aren't going to care because they are just a paycheck, you give them just enough to live and you make them feel you don't even want them to have that. Management doesn't care because they'll just sell out or move.

But the spiral continues to go out of control and it continues to be fed by the Neocons who want to blame the workers and Dems for wanting too much and the Dems who blame management for not caring.... and management doesn't care. Should they? Yes, because people will spend a little bit more if the product they buy they trust the quality of. In order to get quality you need quality workers, in order to get quality workers you need to give them pride and a sense of safety and job security, as they need to give commitment to doing their best. And most importantly you need to share in the wealth, pay the people decently, because in today's society it's all about the pay and feeling that you make enough to live.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Bill O'Rights

Interestingly, I find myself in the position of both agreeing, and disagreeing, with you. Much of what you view as "necessity"...I do not. For example, a family does not need the internet. Many can, and still do, get along just fine without it. It is a very convenient luxury.
Yes, in this day and age, affordable utilities (lights, gas and water) are a necessity. If people do not overextend themselves, then these things are affordable.
A car? ehhhh...maybe...maybe not. A lot of people manage to get by without them. But I also see too many people driving cars, that they are barely making the payments on. No one was ever promised cheap gas. I don't like paying those prices any better than you do, Pan, but you adjust.

What does extending credit and not raising wages have to do with each other. It's two seperate entities. Your employer is not going to raise your pay just because a credit card company over extends your credit. You have to be smart enough to balance the credit with your ability to pay. Credit is fine for emergencies, or a major purchase such as a house, or a car. But to use a credit card for day to day living expenses is just begging for trouble. Whos fault is that?
And, as far as people willing to spend more for quality? Not so much. Our can opener took a crap. I took my daughter to the store with me to buy a new one. She could not, for the life of her, understand why I chose the $8, solidly built, heavy in your hand, dual geared, Made In USA, can opener, over the $2 cheaply made, Made In China, piece of crap, that wasn't going to last through a single year. (our old one was over 20 years old) I tried to explain to her, why I did what I did. But, I don't think that I ever did get through to her. To her...I just wasted $6. It's a mentallity.

__________________
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony

"Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus

It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

pan6467

See the problem lies in the society as a whole. If companies extend credit to people that are not making the money, they find that the majority will max out the credit and get far in debt. Face it Refinances, Credit Doctors/Counseling, etc are huge industries themselves.

Now to say, "well people just can't overextend", is easy, telling the people and getting them to listen are different. When people are living paycheck to paycheck and decide they want to live a little on a Friday night and go out to dinner and a movie using their card, how are you going to tell them not to. Did the person work his ass off? Does he deserve it? Who are you to say no, he needs to be more frugal. If he needs to be more frugal then why does he have the credit? Why is someone giving it to him?

The double edged sword comes into play this way: you only extend credit to someone's means and you'll find places closing left and right and unemployment skyrocketing.


This economy from the government down is driven by credit and unfortunately debt.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Sun Tzu

pan6467 theres is no doubt that someone born into wealth has a head start. I do believe with the present system there is corruption, but even with what we have now do you disagree that a person born into poverty conditions does NOT have the opportunity to legally create their own wealth?

College tuition is rough, but loans are available. Yes it's a debt you have to pay back, but (in my opinion) worth every penny of interest.

I was presented with a question years ago: To get from point A to point B there are two factors involved- mechanism and intention. What percentage of each are present to achieve the goal? (getting from point A to point B) and (mechanism meaning a person could walk, run, fly, drive, swim, etc). My first thought was 50/50. Then I changed to 70% mechanism 30% intention. After I few more guesses I was informed it was a trick question; meaning there was only one factor involved. The factor is intention. If a person is 100% intent on making something happen whether its becoming a millionare or hijacking a plane with box cutters, they will succeed and reach their goal. The only true exceptions are forces of nature coming into the mix (like a hurricane taking out the roads making someone late for work).

Aside from what your personal actions are or would be (you sound like a generous, honorable person), do you feel a person that becomes extremely rich by their own hard work, and created their own financial success should be taxed more? How would you feel about someone (whatever their economic status is) that elected not to participate in a social security with the understanding they would not receive the benefits in their retirement? Federal withholding is another discussion.

__________________
To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit.- Stephen Hawking

pan6467

Yes, I disagree that someone born into poverty can become rich. I think before there was a chance because we had thriving industries and manufacturing that allowed people to make money, save it and open bars, barber shops, etc around the factory they worked and would prosper.

Today, those jobs do not exist. Manufacturers hire temps, are cutting benefits and pay, and will move or close down in the bat of an eye.

College degrees use to mean something, not so much anymore.

Government is not helping, and yes, they must. They must open up programs that allow hands on training and apprenticeships.

College educations are becoming unaffordable very quickly. Tuitions are raising faster than inflation, student loans are now at 8.5%, (based on the market) and MOST graduates are not making enough to pay their loans so we are seeing higher than ever defaults, which affects future loans.

Cleaning this up is easy, government lowers the interest rates, has maximum tuitions for government funded schools and gives deferments and help to those who are working in fields that will never pay enough to pay off the loan and allow those people to live a decent life (i.e. social services, teachers in inner cities, etc).

Yes, college is worth every penny and that's why I am going. But I also know I'll have a mortgage for a student loan and I may never make enough to pay it and live a middle class life. Yet, after all is said and done I'll have a Master's Degree. That's pathetic. If one invests the time and effort to get a Master's Degree and is willing to work in inner cities helping people, that person should make a decent wage. Otherwise, there is little incentive to do so.

And that is the problem, the youth today see little incentives to better themselves. Even nurse's are starting to make shit wages. Why go to college and have massive loans to payback when chances are you won't find a job to pay them back and live the life you wanted?

I can give a demonstration of the differences between the 70's and today, simply by using my dad, my mom and myself as examples.

My own dad grew up in poverty and became a very wealthy man because there were opportunities that are not available today. He was able to become a Civil Engineer/Land Surveyor with some college because companies he worked for were able to get help with programs that helped pay his salary..... he also was eligible for grants, scholarships and very low interest loans, plus tuition wasn't as high. My dad was able to work his ass off, became a very well respected national authority on waste management and did surveys on the weekends (tagging me along to help) and would take cash or some acreage.

My mom decided to go to nursing school when my sister was 3-4 and I was 8-9 years old. My parents were struggling but were moving up, mom was able to get loans for school at very low interest rates (due to government subsidies). She got her LPN and moved onto her RN, but by that time they didn't need loans, of course tuition was very minimal and she got her degree at a community college. My mom spent 10 years as a nurse in OB/GYN and then became a director of nursing at 2 nursing homes.

Those opportunities today do not exist.

Me, I want to go into addiction counseling, it's where my passion lies, helping others. Now, they have made new regulations that you have to basically go to school and take classes just to get the CDCA (Chemical Dependency Counselor's Assistant) certification. Ok, so I did that. From there every 2 years you have to file for renewal and have so many college credits added. So I have to go to college and pay money I am not making. Very few places hire CDCA's as basically it is a training position and the facility has to have the 12 core functions of the field, I was lucky enough to get one because a prof worked there, had some pull and liked what he saw in me. (I caught a break, but what of the many who don't?)

To move up, you have to take more classes, get an associate's and get 5000 hours work experience in order to be eligible to take a $500 written and oral exam. (Almost there.) (A bachelor's degree can get you out of 2000 of those hours.) That takes you to an LCDCII (Licensed Chemical Dependency Counselor 2), which means you are a glorified CDCA with very few responsibilities more, but you have to get this in most places now, just to get a starter job in the field, again shit wages, won't pay enough for an apartment in a decent non crime riddled neighborhood and your student loans.)

From the LCDCII, you need to get a Bachelor's Degree in a behavioral science science, AND 4000 hours in the field, just to be eligible to take another $500 written/oral exam. (My next goal). But, you're an LCDCIII with a few more responsibilities, this is a nice one but the pay isn't much more if any and the companies really are pushing you to get the LICDC (Licensed Independant Chem. Dep. Coun.)

In order to get that, you MUST have a Master's Degree 2000 hours, PLUS 4000 hours supervisory, then you have another written, oral and NOW a new Supervisory Exam.... and those are BIG $$$$$ to take. Imagine failing and having to retake again.... quite a few do.

That's just a simple field. By the time I get my Master's Degree and take the tests for the LICDC I'll owe upwards of $150,000 in loans. How the Hell am I, a social worker (basically) going to pay those back?

Now, it's simple the Neocon way, I go into college get a degree in a field I hate but pays and get the money. In the process I burn out, go nuts, hate my job, myself and develop serious health problems from the stress. Only to see my job get shipped out because they can find cheaper middle management in India.

I worked in jobs my heart wasn't in.... that's why I'm 40, going to school and looking at a mortgage for a student loan repayment.

I like your optimism, there are some (very, very, few) who can move upward and most of them are in the right place at the right time.

I just truly do not see it happening, if anything I see more of the middle class shrinking into the lower classes.

My dad, as pointed out above is someone you describe here. I don't think his success should be taxed more, PROVIDED the taxes that he pays go to giving people behind him the same opportunities for a good, affordable education, allowing hands on training with subsidized pay and low interest loans.

My point is this, YOU HAVE TO REBUILD AND RENEW OR THE COUNTRY DIES. Today, we aren't rebuilding and renewing the next generation. We are telling them to get high end jobs and get high cost degrees with little to no incentive or help. And you need to allow a goal for workers to see a nice comfortable life after 40+ years of working their asses off.

As most of my dad's career has been in management in one form or another, I doubt he is eligible for Social Security. But if he were, I like the system now. Everyone has a yearly maximum, some will make it and the tax stops, some won't and they pay the whole year. But in the end when they retire, they get back some reward for their hard work and contributions to society.

Why work if your only incentive is to get out of debt, and unfortunately the vast majority are there. If you don't have a retirement to look forward to, a time where you can lay back and rest and collect some form of appreciation from the society you helped keep moving forward... then what is the purpose?

If you look around and see these people who worked their asses off and put blood, sweat, tears, missed times with their kids, and so on and saw them "reverse mortgaging" their houses to pay the property taxes and barely able to afford to live.... why are you going to want to work that hard? Most aren't, most are going to want all they can get today because they see what the future holds. It's man's nature.

You have to fix this or our nation is dead.

The Neocons want everyone to believe that anyone can be successful, it's just hard work and a positive attitude. That's bullshit. Life happens, people make mistakes, people find college isn't for them, etc. NOT EVERYONE CAN NOR WILL BE SUCCESSFUL FINANCIALLY. But we can do more to help those who want to be, instead of burdening them with high interest student loans, an economy in the shitter, our factories dying, social security being destroyed and a trade policy that makes no sense.... allow others to tax our exports out of competition but allow their imports a very minimal tax to come into our country?

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"