Willravel

Characterizing Social Security as theft is dishonest. It is certainly redistribution, but it's the cost of living in a society that cannot in good conscience allow horrible situations like the elderly starvation rates recorded before the implementation of the New Deal to continue. Like it or not, we humans are not islands; we live in a society where the consequences of our behaviors are visited on others. Just as we have established laws of conduct in order to make official the social contract, we have economic and governmental laws in order to maintain a measure of peace and equality that would not and could not be maintained in an anarchistic society. It's about sharing the responsibility for living in a society that you benefit and that benefits you.

Bearing this in mind, it's time to ensure that the government cannot remove money from Social Security in order to pay for other debts. We must be sure that Social Security remains intact so that we don't return to what I see as a very dark and uncertain period in our country's history.

Cynthetiq

that's funny, I'd like to have what you're smoking. Many countries don't have such proclaimed poverty without such social programs from the government.

As far as the SS being raped and pillaged, it's part and parcel of the way it's been. I have yet to see any democrat or republican, liberal or conservative make such a recommendation and try to follow through with it.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Willravel

Since the DEA are no longer performing raids, that's going to be an issue to take up with your state representative.
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc.
A mistake made again and again does not cease to be a mistake, and in this case it's not too late to stop making that mistake. If we stop borrowing from SS now and can rebuild what was attacked by the last few administrations. Conservative and liberal don't even enter into the equation.

new man

I believe there are twelve state pension systems where pension recipients do not pay into Social Security. for example, the state where I do financial advising, Colorado, the 443,000 members of the Public Employee Retirement Association do not pay into SS, but the do pay into Medicare. They pay 8% into PERA, and their employer pays around 12%. Much bigger then the 6 and 6 by SS and their employers. Also much greater benefits. The catch is when you move into an area where you start paying into SS. Neither system will do very well then, when the benefits have been split.

As far as social security, it has been adjusted over twenty times to compensate for changes in the american population. Changes will be made again to ensure it's future benefits. Only America and Canada use a 70 year timeline in its SS planning. All of Europe and others with SS like benefits use a 40 year timeline. Lets see, 70 years, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Iraq part deux, computers, jets, collapse of communism, man on the moon, cell phones, baby boomers, yuppies, generation x, desegregation, oil embargos, Reagan, Clinton. Bush. A lot can change in 70 years.
Social Security was put in place because many of our elderly were destitute and SS pulled the elderly out of poverty. Maybe you have heard of the expression old age pensioner and pictured the toothless old man with his rubber coin purse. SS was to make sure that grandma was not eating cat food and could have a pork chop once a week. What other govt program has run for over 70 years and been so successful?

Cynthetiq

if you aren't smoking, you must be drinking some great kool aid. just because you want it to be so doesn't make it so.

Show me ANY politicians who have tried to pave the way for what you consider right?

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Willravel

That's not relevant, though I can think of a few off the top of my head.

Short of finding a more feasible solution for elderly financial ruin leading to high elderly mortality rates (and I'm open to suggestions), Social Security is what we've got. It's either Social Security or poverty rates among senior citizens over 50% and untold deaths caused to starvation and such. I'm sure even the most dogmatic, free market, individual responsibility libertarian would have a problem with that.

Cynthetiq

It's not relevant? What Willravel will just wish it into existence because he wants it to be that way? You can think of them, then name them and show their record for supporting and action in that direction. Otherwise, your statement is fallacy.

It requires Congress to pass the bill, and to also not touch it. So there is some relevance to it. Historically it isn't done, nor are there any supporters that I know of. So I ask again, show me 1 single politician that is willing to risk their career in pushing for such legislation.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Willravel

For clarification's sake, what specifically is the fallacious statement? The statement that I know of a few politicians that share my thoughts on Social Security? Even if I were incorrect, that's not a fallacy, it's a misstatement or a lie. Maybe you think the statement about it not being too late is a fallacy? Same thing.
Fallacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

One politician that comes to mind is my standby: Dennis Kucinich. He's proposed several steps to save and secure Social Security. The easiest is raising the cap, because the projection for Social Security right now looks grim. The best way to really take on SS's problems is to increase employment and income across the US. As for borrowing from SS, Kucinich has talking about prosecuting those that borrow from SS and don't pay it back.

But that's still not relevant. What has to happen is a relative consensus among the general public that, short of a viable alternative, we have no choice but to fix Social Security. That will likely begin as Social Security's failure gets closer, and when people finally stop talking about privatization.

Considering the turmoil the markets are going through now, it would take an idiot of massive proportions to suggest privatization. And if you pay attention, you'll notice that the conservatives haven't mentioned privatization since maybe October, when things started to go downhill. They know the second they say something, all someone has to do is say, "And what if Social Security had been privatized under Bush? Most retired people would be without their retirement money, which they paid into a system that was supposed to be secure." Then Governor Jinal would come out and talk like Mr. Rogers again.
A defeatist stance on Social Security isn't pragmatic. It's either fix it, plan and implement an alternative immediately (which at this stage seems a bit too late), or watch an alarming number of the elderly slip into poverty and even starvation. Congress has often responded to overwhelming public outcry, despite there usually being a lag time.

Cynthetiq

So prove it. That's just one. Gee, maybe Kucinich and Willravel together can sing kumbaya and make it into law... Seriously, that's why I think you're drinking kool-aid.

There is an alternative. Save for your own damned retirement. Make your own savings and investments.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Iliftrocks

Increase employment and income? How's that work, in the long run? Any plan based on continued growth, will eventually fail (see currently busting bubbles). There's going to be a point in which resources are depleted. How unsustainable do we want our country to be?

And honestly, legislators have a very poor track record of passing laws that would put themselves in jeopardy, and quite often consider themselves above the laws anyway. Campaign finance bills....anyone?

__________________
bill hicks - "I don't mean to sound bitter, cold, or cruel, but I am, so that's how it comes out."

Cynthetiq

I do. And specifically, you've not added to this conversation for the point of view of the OP. You've decided it's for your agenda of spewing your fallacies.

I use the dictionary to define my words.

Pick any of the 4, they all fit for your statements.

Still, you've only presented 1 single person for the "few off the top of my head." You can't produce more because there isnt' any politician that place themselves in harms way for their political careers.

You may not think of it as theft or fraud if you don't get the benefit that you've paid into and promised to receive, but many do. Mr. Madoff is under fire for the very same thing that the US Government can potentially do to its citizens.

liftrocks, agreed, the idea that we are currently shedding jobs, underlines more that the government should not be responsible for anyone's retirement.'

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

braisler

OP here.

I appreciate the input from everyone. I haven't reached a decision on what to do directly. My gut is telling me to just let it ride. As another poster intoned, as long as I stay here at this job, no flags are likely to be raised. If they are, I can plead ignorance and work it out then.

Willravel has the pleasant idea that SS can be and should be fixed. I doubt that it can and I don't think that it should be. I'm rather in agreement with Cynthetiq that we should all save for our own damn retirement. And if we weren't wasting money on SS we'd have more to put away ourselves. And, yes, I'm sure that someone might drag out a sob-story or two about some impoverished elderly person who just fell on hard times. I think the greater reality is that Social Security wiped out the desire in people to be self-sufficient and save for themselves and their own family. 'Hey, the Gub'mint will take care of us when we're old. Why waste our efforts in saving any money?'

One of the ways that I have helped myself to feel a bit less depressed about the terrible drain of Social Security is that my grandparents are getting some social security benefits right now. But then I get to thinking, you know, if they weren't getting social security benefits, and they needed some money and support, I'd send them some money. And so would my cousins and brother, aunts and uncles. That is, if we had control of our own money and it wasn't being taken out to fund SS. Then I get a bit depressed about the state of SS again.

As for the privatization argument... the reason that politicians aren't trotting it out right now is because they and their constituents are incredibly short sighted. Yes, the market is down right now from where it was last year or even 10 years ago, but this is retirement savings that we are talking about. The longest of the long-term investments. Over the time frame that people should look at for retirement, the Dow is up and up big. Look at 20 years ago, April 1989, the Dow was at 2440. A more realistic time frame of 40 years for retirement take us to April 1969, when the Dow was 873. With that perspective (the one that all retirement investors should have) the Dow at 7000 doesn't look quite so dire.

Willravel

The few that came to mind in that moment were Zoe Lofgren, my Congresswoman, Dennis Kucinich, one of the few people in Congress I honestly trust to do what he thinks is right, and Ted Kennedy, considered to be the most liberal man in Congress. I thought I remembered Jeff Sessions might have been on board, too, but I'll have to check on that.
When has someone robbed you and then given you back most (or more) of what they stole out of an arranged obligation? Or are you under the impression that Social Security has simply not paid everyone or even some that have paid into it? The projections are certainly grim, none can deny that, but just allowing Social Security to disappear at this point is negligent. And the idea that somehow allowing people to spend their own money will be just fine is ignoring precedence. How did the US look before Social Security, even during times of economic stability? Let me know if you can locate senior citizen poverty rates before the turn of the last century, but we saw exactly what would happen during a serious economic downturn when people were allowed to invest themselves. I hope that we never go through that kind of nightmare again, but because optimism is silly without a dose of pragmatism, one has to prepare for the worst. Social Security was built to be free of the dangers of market fluctuation and instability. It hasn't been since it's been plundered, but if we can stop the plundering and make those that plundered it repay, it would be fine. Raise the cap, protect the money we have, repay the money "borrowed.

There's one other thing I read a little while back that I think might be important: almost 80% of Americans have no long-term disability insurance protection, which means that people aren't currently making these decisions on their own (unless you try to argue that the overwhelming cost of Social Security makes long-term disability insurance unaffordable, which is ludicrous).

Annnyyywwaayyy.... yeah, braisler, your best bet for the time being is to let her think everything is fine. You don't need someone like her advocating for you. Let it slide lest she create a panic. Besides, you're bright enough not to simply forget about retirement, as some other people do. You have the opportunity to invest the money yourself and if you're right about the Social Security stuff then your kids can tell my kids that their dad was wrong. I'll buy you a scotch or something.

new man

Wilravel is right in that The elderly were often very poor before the start of SS. SS is not that big a help for us smart, crafty, hightech internet users who are so smart and we understand everything. I mean, if you are a member of TFP it's like being a mensa overachiever. But not everyone is like that. Every day I sit down with people and explain to them that pulling all their money out is a bad idea. That borrowing from their accounts is taking away opportunities. That discontinuing contributions is bad, because you are not "going to do something useful" with that money, you will just spend it, and set your retirement back. And these are teachers and administrators. They don't understand money, just like most of the population. So we have pensions, and SS. The average individual investor earns a little over 4% per year. The average institutional investor, over 8%.

Cynthetiq

Cool I'm glad you had time to look those up .... I was getting worried.. .you know since it was no longer off the top of your head. Exactly my point of you spouting out crap with no foundation to your statement. When asked to back it up, 24 hours passed with Google being your friend.

Nice answer too with the "look up the poverty rates of senior citizens...." you may have just used your tried and true, "Google it" response.

new man, sure institutions can do better than individuals. But let's get down to brass tacks, we don't as a society teach our citizens how to deal with and handle money. Those that do not hit the poverty lines, generally have been taught how to handle money in some fashion.

So while 4% seems like a low amount, it is still better than someone who completely spent it on depreciating assets, vacations, and dinners out. When someone BESIDES the government gives us the option of either dealing with it ourselves or picking another group to do it, I'm not confident at all with the social security system.

I consider it either a line item to help my purchase groceries in my old age ala food stamps, or some extra spending money to do with as I please. You may find it warm and fuzzy thinking that the government will take care of you, ask those guys in New Orleans how that worked out for them.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Willravel

Thanks, new man, you said it better than I did.

The truth is I wish it weren't the case, that some people just aren't quite able to plan for their far future. In some cases, it's a lack of education, not having the whole thing explained to them in no uncertain terms when they were younger. In some cases, it's simple absent-mindedness. I've gone over my budget a few times due to normal mental hiccups. It's why I use Quickbooks now.

Still, it's not always so preventable. In some cases, it's a matter of financial prioritization; most of us have probably seen tough times and could have used the money we paid to Social Security to make ends meet—sacrificing now because retirement seems so far off, accepting the risk that things may not get better. Some have their plans dashed, even; imagine saving your whole life and suddenly getting in an accident your insurance refuses to cover, having to pour savings into an attorney or something, for example.

Cynthetiq

and that my friend is called LIFE. There are winners and there are losers. There are people who have long lives with no unfortunate circumstances, and then there are people who live long lives with hardship at ever turn.

We don't get to pick what family we are born into, the year or the country. It's a magical luck of the draw. You make the best of all that you are presented.

Even rich people, some were the forefathers of this country died broke and penniless. So all the forecasting, financing, saving, spending, rich or poor, didn't seem to make that much of a difference.

So why should someone else be responsible? Because some kumbayayas think it's better for society to take care of everyone and anyone even if that individual doesn't wish to take care of themselves?

That's one of the reasons why I don't live in the Great state of California...

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Willravel

I supplied one immediately, and the other two are my own congresswoman and one of the most visible congressmen in the past 20 years and you suggest that this was somehow 24 hours of looking them up? If I wanted to cheat, I could have asked google and come back with dozens of names in minutes. Where a normal, objective person would see a TFP member that isn't on the site 24 hours a day, you see intellectual dishonesty. Don't you know any other tunes?
We already know poverty rates leading up to the New Deal because they were one of the primary needs for it, I suspect you probably learned about in in high school like I did. Since you didn't google it, I'll spoil the surprise: the records of senior citizen poverty before 1900 are not readily available via search engine. Still, that's 30 years between then and the New Deal that we saw people unable to plan for their future, through economic boom and economic depression. AND we have new man, someone clearly in the business of protecting people's investments for the future, laying out the fact that regardless of what economic conservatives might think not everyone is capable of saving for their retirement on their own.

Cynthetiq

cum hoc ergo propter hoc

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

braisler

Aw, now we have to google in Latin!! C'mon. I'm too drunk for that.

Willravel

Yes, this has been your position for a very long time. Everyone for yourselves. If there's trouble, expect me to take care of me and my own. You're not my responsibility. Only that's not how society works. We are interconnected economically, politically, socially, and a number of other ways. If something bad happens to me, it's unlikely that the negative consequence will always end with me. If I get fired, that changes my close family and friends, my coworkers, the people I used to help in my job, the business I frequent, the charities I donate to... the list is pretty long. When I do well, there's a group of individuals and organizations that reap at least some positive consequence. But even this isn't the meat of the problem.

The meat is sympathy and empathy; a general concern for the well being of others. Humans have a long history of altruism, dating back long before we were using tools or even walking upright. What purpose does casting that off serve for you? Does it enrich your life to not care about, in this case, large amounts of senior citizens living in poverty?

Judging by your words, it almost seems like you see it as some sort of justice. Forgive the hyperbole, but "Shame on those fools for spending their money, let them starve!" is what I'm getting. And you seem to be acting like it's a forgone conclusion that you're not going to get your Social Security, thus excusing your animosity towards the program. Only there are only projections to go on now. So far, everyone's getting paid from Social Security. Shoot, I read an article (that I can find in under 24 hours if you really need) that said illegal immigrants were paying something like $9B a year into SS that they'll never see. Even President Obama seems to think Social Secuirty isn't hopeless yet:
Barack Obama on Social Security
Sure, there's a "people in our country probably shouldn't die from starvation" (kumbaya) aspect, but there's a pragmatic aspect. If there is no social security, your vengeance-based economic dystopia would be just one generation away. Elderly poverty and starvation would shoot through the roof, and that would mean additional consequences in ways I can't even begin to imagine. For one, the number of senior citizens today is much higher than it was in the 1920s and 1930s. IIRC, around the turn of the last century only about 4% of the population was over 65. Now? It's like 12%. We could be looking at the introduction of millions if not tens of millions of new people to the poverty rate.

Cynthetiq

Really? It isn't? Tell that to the people on 5th Avenue that got zoning variances to ensure that their building was a 100% luxury building with no middle income or low income housing. Or the politicos that reap in the millions of dollars, what, isn't Mr. Clinton just raking it in at speaking engagements? Oh do tell of his generosity in pushing that money back into societies ills. Or what about his library and the solicitation of millions of dollars in donations so that he can have a presidential library. Yep, that's going to feed millions. He's looking out for everyone else.

The baby boomers that were all "party all the time, I don't need to save for my retirement" people who are going to widen the social security just like they did everything else?

Yeah. You want to pay for them, great! Set up non-government organizations to deal with your wants and desires. You can choose to support them I can choose not to. It's the most democratic way.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Willravel

I'm not saying there aren't selfish assholes, I'm saying that society functions despite them. BTW, you realize that you're lumping yourself in with those people in this, right? Those aren't good people to be lumped in with.

The generosity is really common if you look for it, and it's both voluntary and mandatory. We're mandated to pay for the current elderly so that some day another generation can pay us back, as a part of a system that prevents poverty in senior citizens. We're given the option to go deeper, though. Give this a read:
Local teen starts charity to benefit senior citizens | atlanticville.gmnews.com | Atlanticville *
That's the other half, the free market half that you might be more inclined to support. But why did she do that? I mean those senior citizens had their chance to save up! They chose not to foresee high prescription costs, so that's life. Right? Or was that just you being "Cynthetic, the fiscal conservative absolutist"?
They paid into Social Security, thus holding up their end. The problem is people attacking and stealing from Social Security.

Let me ask you this: let's say, hypothetically, that Social Security was not borrowed from, and the cap was raised occasionally when the amount of money coming in was less than that going out. Let's say it essentially did what it was designed to do. Would you still have a problem with it, on principle?
The government exists to fill the gaps the market can't fill. The market can't provide a military force that isn't corruptible, therefore the government runs the military. The market can't create roads because there's no profit in such a venture, therefore the government creates and maintains the roads. The market can't prevent alarming numbers of senior citizens being impoverished, so FDR stepped in and the numbers... well the numbers speak for themselves. Not even the most devoted libertarian would suggest that the market is all-powerful. Some problems we can't afford to have need to be addressed by the government.

*if anyone is interested in donating to Generations ElderCare, you can visit their website at Generations Eldercare. It's time to send grandma $10 for her birthday!

ring

and.....

Bulk of Bill Clinton's Speech Fees Go to Charity - Philanthropy.com

Cynthetiq

NGOs operate in many countries and fill in the gaps where government cannot either due to no tax base or corruption. Private organizations and citizens take up their cause and provide relief to many. FEMA's mobilization is nothing compared to the nimbleness that Red Cross has, a private non government agency.

Yes, I don't believe it is the government's responsibility to take care of me and or my family. If someone wants to have the government take care of them, then they should be able to opt in just as I should be able to opt out.

Really? The government is filling in gaps that the market cannot provide? The military doesn't have enough obviously since that's why organizations Blackwater exists. There have been paid mercenaries for centuries. Privatized rocketry is doing a better job than NASA dollar for dollar. Privatized aviation has done a better job than the nationalized airlines of other countries. Government Employee Insurance gave way to GEICO. The private roads? Are you kidding? The local governments or state governments haven't been able to do so in decades.

l

All those new developments in housing tracts, do you know that many of those roads do not belong to the cities that they were built in? No they belong to the homeowners associations, it's those small communities that will be providing the care and repair of that infrastructure. Local governments could not keep up with the demand. Thus they allowed for PRIVATE companies to own publicly used spaces. This is common in Las Vegas, Los Angeles, the Bay Area, and many other locations that experienced the extreme growth over the past decade.

Adopt-a-highways have sprouted adopt-a-roadways, because the government can't seem to handle the 360 degree care that it requires.

Private roads have worked. Palisades Highway in NJ protects landscape and provides a commuter path for many. It even has it's own police force different than the NJ State Trooper.

So maybe initially with the introduction of technology or idea, I can agree with you. Over the long term, I cannot.

So, again, I'm for allowing private groups to decide and attract people to do better than the socialized system that is in place. They can target directly and use more of those funds directly to those that need it. I see this on a daily basis in my neighborhood with groups like Henry Street Settlement, NORC, Meals on Wheels, GOD Delivers, the local churches and synagogues. All those are NGOs that are providing MORE than what SSI currently is giving many of the seniors in my community.

I'm lumping myself in with those because of the the ability to CHOOSE. Do you think that Mr. Clinton pays into SSI with those speaking fees? Pensioners get a choice. I have a pension with one company, why didn't I get a choice to opt out of Social Security?

They choose to invest or spend their money as they see fit. I'd like to have a choice as well. I'd like to have the ability of choice. I don't believe the government is prudent enough when handling my money for my retirement.

thanks for that ring, of his 20% I do not think any of it goes to SSI. I make the assumption that it's 1099 reported income. And like that young girl, it's her prerogative to want to and choose to assist others. Attraction and promotion for the causes that one sees fit to rally behind and support.

---------- Post added at 11:39 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:54 AM ----------

edit: upon research, 1099 pays FICA at 15% which is employee + employer share.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Willravel

Mobilization time isn't the only measure in play during an emergency, though, and I'm sure you're aware that FEMA and the Red Cross do not full identical roles. FEMA is tasked with preparedness, for example, which (under decent leadership) could have prevented Katrina's breaching of the levees. The Red Cross was only reactionary. I'm not aware of a charitable foundation which is a part of disaster prevention. FEMA can order evacuations. The Red Cross cannot. Don't get me wrong, I adore the Red Cross and I've donate to them in the past because of the amazing work they've done, they just don't have all the same measures at their disposal as FEMA, thus making FEMA necessary.

And it should be said that FEMA's failure after Katrina illustrated that there aren't private alternatives waiting in the wings to do a better job than the government during disasters. Sure, many charitable organizations were present, but Katrina was still a disaster and the damage to property and lives could have been avoided.
What you're not apparently factoring in is the fact you already benefit from Social Security and would continue to do so even if you opted out. Or do you think that senior citizens don't contribute to your business? Their financial security, partially from their Social Security check, at least in some way contributes to your financial well being and to the economy on the whole. An impoverished or dead senior citizen doesn't put money into the economy. It makes me sick to have to put it in such callous terms, but if you really want to frame this as just being about financial independence and freedom, I'll have to meet you in that frame.

You misunderstood what I was saying about private military. They can probably get a job done just fine once you've paid their exorbitant fees (Blackwater costs something substantially more than the equivalent military costs might be for the same services, iirc), but private militaries are not subject to the UCMJ, which has caused big problems (most recently in Iraq). The market doesn't seem to be able to produce a private military that follows the rules (not to mention that the market can't produce an army as big as the government), so the government has to do it. If Blackwater were able to get the job done, they wouldn't have been kicked out of Iraq by the Iraqi government.
Now that there's a market for it, yes, but nearly every advance in rocketry over the past century is due to government funding. Those wouldn't have happened without government.
Do you mean production of aircraft or airlines?
Like rocketry, I think this demonstrates my point. Once the market was shown, by government, that there was a market for this service, they jumped on it. Before then, when there wasn't a perceived market, the government had to be responsible or it would not have been done.
Same thing.
OH. I didn't realize you were agreeing there. Those aren't the only examples, though. I'll choose something that's 100% government and that should never be handed over to the market: Governance is really the most obvious example of government being necessary. Would you agree that Americans should be able to opt out of being governed by the Federal and/or State governments? Surly an option to leave the republic but remain on American soil and adopt a legal status as "anarchist" is silly. I still think the military, the entire military, is another good example. The US should never have a 100% private military because of control. Imagine if the US Army had to answer to a board of directors and stockholders instead of congress and the American people. Yikes.

You're not asking to be opted out of paying for the Army, Navy, Marines, and Coast guard, right? Or the National Guard?
I think New Man's post illustrates that a private system is unlikely to be as dependable because the individual investor (the holder of the money that would have otherwise gone to Social Security) can't be relied upon to responsibly save for him or herself. And again, before the New Deal, the poverty rate among the elderly was astounding. Why, when the option was 100% free market, was there such a failure? How can you look at that and then turn around and say the market can work in this function?
Why? Mostly because precedent has demonstrated that a lot of people can't be trusted to save for their retirement. Without Social Security, a lot of people would starve. Sure, one way to look at it is "let them starve", but it's too big a problem and does so much damage to allow that.

Let's say we privatize Social Security. Aside from stubborn people like me that continue to pay in simply on principle, most people would opt out. As people that opt out reach retirement age we're back at 1920s and 1930s levels of poverty for people over 65, because that's what precedence tells us will happen (this is kinda my whole point). You (Cynth) will probably be okay because you wanted to win this debate so bad you saved just to spite me. Still, the effect of so many people being impoverished would devastate the country. Only about 12% of our population is living below the poverty line now and even that has serious effects on the economy, imagine if that ballooned to 18-20% (which isn't hard to imagine if precedence is any indication). 1/4 people being impoverished would likely mean further class separation, and would cause great economic instability. We'd go right back to where we were before Social Security.

Cynthetiq

so you're saying that all the pensioners that are able to opt out of social security and contribute to private pension plans are going to be poor and that only the mighty US American government can do so???

---------- Post added at 04:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:32 PM ----------

Just a note, had to look it up to make sure. The government has not been in the insurance game at all.

and congress has a pension system, why aren't they sticking with SSI? Seems to me like they are looking out for their own interests, just like every individual citizen should be. Instead they are more worried about The Bachelor, American Idol, and the Super Bowl.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Willravel

[quote=Cynthetiq;2603822]so you're saying that all the pensioners that are able to opt out of social security and contribute to private pension plans are going to be poor and that only the mighty US American government can do so?[QUOTE]
Nothing so absolutist. I'm saying many people aren't capable of maintaining the necessary fiscal habits to make retirement feasible, and we saw the consequences of that in the lead up to the New Deal. I should also point out that the New Deal is hardly unique in the world.
Medicare is health insurance for seniors and the disabled. SCHIP is health insurance for children.
Why? The existing pensions for congress make the lottery look like SSI. Here's a great (and recent) article about it:
Congress' cushy pension system

Cynthetiq

My mistake, I was still surprised from GEICO and thinking auto insurance.

Actually it is. It's revolutionary that the government was going to take care of you.

Again, you'd like the government to take care of you. I'm all for that for you. See the difference here is that Willravel would like to limit Cynthetiq's choices. I'm happy you'd like to have the choice of the government to take care of you and countless others. I'm expecting at least a tip of the hat to have the same respect. Instead, you'd rather force me to do something I don't want to do or feel I can do better on my own. The difference between me and the people like me, is that when I come up short from my own decisions, we take responsibility for them and don't push the blame on someone else OR ask someone else to increase their share because of our missteps or mistakes.

But imagine during your aging years, that someone like GWB comes back around and you don't get the benefits that you waited or counted on or the inflation is so high that your money doesn't buy or get you anything. Or like Medicare, you start shifting assets PRIOR to your dying to ensure that you can get the benefits before the government starts taking it's share of the value of the assets.

You may want to live your life like that. I don't, which is why I'd like to opt out if I could. I'm happy to go into another privatized plan that I could select from a marketplace if forced to.

and again... with FERS in place, why can't that be offered to every single citizen?

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Willravel

You're not alone in that.
Is this in response to "I should also point out that the New Deal is hardly unique in the world." or something else?
I don't think you're getting the gist of my argument. I need the government to take care of me in some ways and not in others. I can't defend myself from unsafe foods and drugs because i lack the time and resources (and education) to do so myself. I can't protect myself from military enemies of the United States, even if I had a gun. I can plan for my future and spend responsibly so that I have a reasonable nest egg when I retire, so I don't personally need Social Security. I can determine what I should and shouldn't watch on TV so I don't personally need the FCC. It's nice that I won't need Social Security or the FCC, but that doesn't mean others don't. Some people absolutely need Social Security. You probably won't need it and I probably won't need it, but a lot of people do need it, and Social Security won't work if we allow people to opt out because not everyone is right in thinking they don't need it. Many people, wanting more money now, will opt out and then fall into poverty when they're older.

I don't know why, but you seem unable to look at this from a collective perspective. You seem only interested in blame. Blame is moot. We live in a world of consequences, and the consequences for the option of opting out will be a great deal of people living in abject poverty, which as I discussed before has consequences that reach all throughout our economy. In allowing people to opt out, you create the situation that will increase poverty considerably.

There's one thing that's been at the back of my mind through this discussion: you're probably going to be paid back. Your average projection puts the end of Social Security in the late 2040s or 2050s. I'll be retiring in 2048, but you'll have retired much earlier. To be honest, I can't remember exactly how old you are (I know you've mentioned it before, I remember it being older than I expected so let's say 40), but that let's say you have 15 years of Social Security checks before the things is supposed to run out, and it will run out around the time you reach the average lifespan of an American male. It wouldn't be crazy for me to suggest you're going to get Social Security just fine. Me? I'll get a few years' worth of money, but it really doesn't matter to me.
There's a flip-side to this, though. What if the money you kept in an IRA instead of Social Security was put into some very bad securities (which are common right now) and you end up losing a great deal of what was supposed to be a conservative or safe investment? How's that any different? It's different because you only have yourself to blame for relying on an inherently unpredictable and unstable medium for investment if you chose the market. If you invest in Social Security and it dies because the GOP is still dead set on proving that government can't be trusted, you have something completely different. Politicians can be held responsible for breaking laws and rules (at least in theory). No one is responsible if your investment falls apart.

I'm personally not counting on anything from Social Security, but that doesn't mean I'm not fighting to change what seems likely now. If your average person is concerned about Social Security, your average person should be pressuring their congressman or woman and senator for an increase in the caps. It's not complicated.
I want to have a poverty rate under 12% because I know if it suddenly starts to increase dramatically the economic ramifications will be unpredictable at best. And I don't just mean abstract ramifications, I mean the effect on me and my family, and you and your family. You can't just dismiss that.
Federal Employees Retirement System is like a 401k, right? I'm not really familiar with it.

Cynthetiq

Yes, all the social programs provided by the New Deal. It was revolutionary, especially for the US of A.

I get to blame myself for my bad investments. I also get to take credit for my good ones. Instead of watching American Idol I've spent time learning how to invest my money. I'm responsible, not the government and not some politician. This is where we diverge. You cannot seem to understand that.

I've never said that the collective will opt out. I've said offer choices better than the ones that have been offered.

The FCC, the FDA? Really? again you're counting on groups that have failed us greatly! The FDA has proven time and time again that it's stamp of approval over pharmacological enterprises is no safer. Huge recalls of medicines wherein deaths and maimings have occurrred? The FCC providing us cheaper telecommunications and safer TV? So far my cable bill has increased over the past decade for TV. There still is no ala carte service to pick and choose what channels I would like. I don't watch ESPN, yet carriage charges for ESPN costs me almost $9 a month.

I get the gist of your argument. You aren't understanding or at least much more forgiving of the future government as I keep showing how the government fails me as a citizen, which is why I'd like to opt out of Social Security. I'd rather be required to use a private method of marketplace choices. Allow banks to compete for my "SSI plan" or whatever you'd like to call it just like any other investment vehicle.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Willravel

I'm not arguing that the New Deal wasn't fairly revolutionary at the time, but now it's hardly unique. Many countries have similar programs now that are functioning just fine, some possible better than ours even. A lot of the west developed their own version of the New Deal right after World War 2.
If you screw up your investments, it may only be your responsibility but it doesn't just effect you. In your case it would means consequences for your wife in a big way, and the regular goods and services you would have used in a minor way. They would pay for your mistake. Now multiply that by a million. I understand what you're saying completely, but you're not joining me at the next logical conclusion: bad decisions, the kind New Man was talking about, on a massive scale, without people being able to fall back on Social Security. Imagine that.
Wait, you're saying that the option to opt out wouldn't cause a mass exodus from Social Security?
I've never ingested dangerous amounts of mercury. For that, I give my thanks to the FDA. Are they perfect? No. Of course not, and we should be vigilant in ensuring that they improve. Still, there is no market alternative. If the market was able to prevent dangerous foods and drugs from being distributed, the FDA wouldn't exist. The FCC, like the FDA, is hardly perfect, but look at the incredible efforts made over decades and decades to try and remove anti-monopoly regulations, and we still have several different conglomerates to choose from. The market is screaming to monopolize media, but it's still not happened yet.
My grandmother lost about $8000 over the past 6 months or so at JP Morgan alone. My uncle lost quite a bit, too, though he hasn't mentioned how much. You seem to think it's totalitarian to think that people occasionally need protection from themselves. It's not, at least not always. Sometimes it can even be rational self-interest.

Cynthetiq

FDA

I'd like to thank the Game and Wildlife for making sure that I don't get trampled on by any elephants. They are really on the case and doing a good job of that!

Mercury levels huh? Funny because pregnant women are instructed to not eat any fish because of the fear of high mercury levels. It's not the responsibility of the FDA. So no wonder you think they are doing a great job! You could say they are doing a great job of investing money for retirement.

U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service is responsible for all the food. They are doing a crappy job.

Strange, since the FDA is doing a bang up job.

So the melamine, peanut, tainted meat of one of the largest food processors was the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service doing their jobs? No, just like the CIA and FBI after 9/11, they FAILED the citizens they said they would protect from harm.

Again, I'm hesitant to believe that the government will be able to take care of me when the time comes.

I'm not for pell mell and this disastrous picture you paint. I'm suggesting allowing people to choose different programs that have different competitive points. Let someone opt out of the current program if they choose. If they don't choose, they stay with the current program. Allow banks and investment services to compete for the very same thing against the government. Let the SSI target a 4% return and the markets perform in a manner that is appropriate with a product that gives 4% return minimum and if the performance is higher, allow for higher returns.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Derwood

bringing up the fraction of a percent of bad things that get through the FDA is your argument against the existence of the department? Imagine what gets through if the FDA doesn't exist? If you think that corporations will increase their own vigilance in safety on their own is incredibly naive.

Cynthetiq

I never said that derwood. I said that I don't trust the government to take care of me. It fails many times and these are examples of that.

The premise is that SSI will "take care" of me and I posit that it will not.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

robot_parade

Just because the government as a whole hasn't always done a good job with the duties it has now doesn't necessarily mean we'd be better off without it. I fail to see how we'd be safer without the FDA, for instance, even if they often do make mistakes. Furthermore, I would argue that part of the reason that these agencies have done so poorly is that one of our major political parties has gravitated towards the idea that all government is bad government, and actively campaigned to remove the regulations meant to keep us safe, and placed completely incompetent people in positions of authority (witness 'Brownie' and FEMA). Government *can* work, and absolutely has a place in our society. See the obvious examples like the military, etc. that Will mentioned above. We're responsible for making sure the government does its job well. For me, that means never, ever voting Republican, at least until and unless that party is cured of it's idealogical disease.

Mercury contamination, as well as so many other problems are as bad as they are *despite* the EPA - how would there be less mercury contamination without the EPA?

WRT social security - let's say you get your wish, and it's abolished, or people can opt out. What do you propose we do with those people who, according to you, were foolish enough to not plan for their retirement? (A bleeding heart liberal such as myself might timidly suggest the possibility that some of them were simply unlucky)

Let them starve? Hold a spring cleaning every year to clean out the corpses and personal effects of the elderly who couldn't afford to keep the heat on over the winter?

Do you think private charity will take care of all of them? It never has in the past. Is this generation that much more noble and giving than past generations.

Social Security was created specifically to help solve the problem of the elderly poor, who for whatever reason have lived past their ability to take care of themselves financially. It is far from perfect, but it's provided security, health (along with medicare/medicaid), dignity, and longer life to probably millions of people.

Where are these countries where so many elderly people live so well without the benefit of social programs like social security?

Conservatives love to go on about personal responsibility. And I agree, personal responsibility is absolutely necessary. However, it's a plain and simple fact that some people simply aren't able to provide for themselves. My answer is that we (the rest of society) have a moral obligation to help them, and I like to call the method for us to come together to solve that problem 'government'. The government of, for, and by the people. Charities are great, and absolutely necessary, but they don't cover everything, and I don't believe they would if the government suddenly stopped providing social security, or whatever other programs you're against.

Cynthetiq

You guys really can't read or don't want to read what I've written do you? I've not said anything as anarchist as you're claiming. I've not asked for it to be abolished. I've asked that people be given more control over their destiny. Why is it that some pensioners are allowed to opt out? It appears because they have BETTER coverage and benefits. I'd like to have the opportunity to have the same but not be required to stay within those career fields.

I've said simply OPT out and be in a different program that provides for the same function but in a marketplace that allows for competition.

See, we have public education right? I pay for that, even though I don't use it. I'd like to pay less, but that discussion is a different one. There is also PRIVATE education. And look, what do we have here... it seems that private institutions seem to educate children better with better graduation rates and higher test scores. Why is that? Surely the government must do a better job. But it doesn't. This isn't just for the lower rungs of education, but it goes to the top of the collegiate.

I'd like an ALTERNATIVE. In fact, I'm proposing a more democratic method of taking care of everyone than you all are. You guys are saying that it has to be this way. I'm stating simply there has to be alternatives. Why does the government have to have a monopoly on my retirement funds?

But you guys read this, and continue to characterize my words in a twisted way.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Derwood

the government has a monopoly on your retirement funds? Really? My dad will qualify for Social Security in 3 years, and he'll get a wopping $2000/month. If anyone plans for that to be their only retirement, they're retarded. The huge majority of my dad's retirement is NOT controlled by the government.

Cynthetiq

again, please read, and speak to will about that. he's the one that thinks the poor barely have enough to pay their bills let alone think of retirement, so I guess they are retarded by your standards.

I've stated they have a monopoly on my SSI funds.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Willravel

The FDA wouldn't exist if the market were able to deal with toxic contamination of food and drugs themselves. And unless you have a rather impressive chemistry set at home, you won't be taking the place of the FDA any time soon. And the FDA does prevent many, many dangerous or dishonest products from finding their way into our supermarket shelves or pharmacies. The fact is that the FDA doesn't have the resources they need to keep up with the multitude of failures on the part of manufacturers. Look here:
You're likening the companies that produced the tainted meat and peanuts with terrorists. I think that demonstrates my point about the market not being the solution to every problem.
I took high school chemistry and I think a chemistry class in college. I wouldn't know where to begin when testing my peanuts for e coli.
The picture's already there, it's been painted. I'd like an answer to this question:
Where and when has your suggested alternative worked?