10-28-2010, 11:17 AM | #41 (permalink) |
Still Free
Location: comfortably perched at the top of the bell curve!
|
"These are not the droids you are looking for." - The Social Security Administration
Hasn't the average Federal salary risen to about 163% of the average private sector salary? You must have to pay big to find people smart enough to manage a program that will only pay me 74% of what they said they would.
__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead. "Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly." Last edited by Cimarron29414; 10-28-2010 at 11:19 AM.. |
10-28-2010, 12:55 PM | #42 (permalink) | |||
Upright
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I'm having trouble thinking through why you think comparing it to a PONZI scheme is relevant to anything but I more or less concluded it's an emotional thing. Why do you think it's bears mentioning? |
|||
10-28-2010, 07:24 PM | #43 (permalink) | ||
Junkie
Location: San Antonio, TX
|
Quote:
Second, a Ponzi scheme requires a ever-increasing investor pool, since previous investors are paid out more than what they put in to get the 'incredible' returns on investment. Social security does not require an increasing pool of workers, but, in it's current form, can only support a limited contraction of the labor pool. So, if the SSA projections are accurate, in about 25 years, if nothing is done to change the SS system, the trust fund will start to run out of money. Ok, fine, something should be done about that. But it isn't the emergency or proof of the failure of social security that conservatives like to pretend it is. If conservatives would make honest arguments against things like this, I'd have a lot more respect for them and conservatism as a movement. It's fine to say "I don't think the government should force people to save for their retirement." Fine. Talk about that. Not this ponzi scheme BS or faux concern over the long term solvency of SS. ---------- Post added at 10:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:16 PM ---------- Quote:
No? You are getting your facts from liars. Here's an article that debunks this lie pretty well: Correcting Myths About Federal Pay |
||
10-29-2010, 01:33 AM | #44 (permalink) |
Living in a Warmer Insanity
Super Moderator
Location: Yucatan, Mexico
|
SS Maybe not be a true Ponzi Scheme but it certainly has elements that are similar so I can understand conservatives making that comparison. The part I don't get it is it's trouble and needs to be fixed. The only thing I hear coming from the right is "get rid of it" and "privatize it." SS has helped a lot of people over the years. A lot of low income folks and disabled folks would have nothing without it. I certainly favor fixing it over getting rid of it.
__________________
I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club |
10-29-2010, 03:58 AM | #45 (permalink) |
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
|
personally i think alot of the conservative whining about social security is about protecting military spending by directing attention away from it. but its that sector which eats the largest proportion of any other....to make of social security etc something larger, conservatives have to add things together. and so far as i am concerned, no conservative who talks about deficits as a problem and doesn't talk about slashing military spending is worth taking seriously.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite |
10-29-2010, 05:36 AM | #46 (permalink) |
Still Free
Location: comfortably perched at the top of the bell curve!
|
I'll say it again for at least the fifth time on here: Military spending should be cut dramatically. We should only enter conflict if we declare war on a nation. Having said that, all international aid should be cut until we are debt free as a nation. Even then, the federal government should not be giving money to foreign lands as aid, that's what charity is for and Americans are the most charitable people in the world.
...and no, Radd McCool, it should not be fixed. It should be phased out. Put on your big boy pants, save your 3.5% yourself in a Roth IRA and retire a millionaire....and for the record, until this thread, I have never called SS a Ponzi Scheme. I believe its existence to be outside of the responsibilities of the Federal government. I believe it is a program which denies Americans the opportunity to grow wealth, so that the government can maintain control over an element of their lives. I believe it is a wedge issue which politicians balloon to maintain or exchange control of the government.
__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead. "Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly." Last edited by Cimarron29414; 10-29-2010 at 05:57 AM.. |
10-29-2010, 05:56 AM | #47 (permalink) |
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
|
and that, cimmaron, is entirely fantastical insofar as "foreign aid" is concerned.
you cannot possibly understand the first thing about what they call "globalizing capitalism" and how it operates and maintain that position as anything more than a pipe dream. and understanding that as "charity" simply compounds the error. but there's always time for a moment of self-congratulations. it's amazing how wonderful every last american is. no wonder everyone everywhere loves us so much. only bad people think bad things about the united states. for example, i am quite sure that pinochet in chile was just misunderstood. but the military--absolutely it can be cut and cut very substantially.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite |
10-29-2010, 06:03 AM | #48 (permalink) | |
Junkie
Location: Near Raleigh, NC
|
Quote:
__________________
bill hicks - "I don't mean to sound bitter, cold, or cruel, but I am, so that's how it comes out." |
|
10-29-2010, 06:24 AM | #49 (permalink) |
Still Free
Location: comfortably perched at the top of the bell curve!
|
If 3.5% is 10 bucks, then no - you will not be a millionaire.
Find me any 40 year period in the market, and you take your contributions and the annual return. I think you will find your coming out just fine. Here's a quick one: 3.5% of $50K salary is $1750. Divided in months is $145.83/month Put into the market at a 10% rate of return will give you $929K in 40 years. Since any good advisor says you need to keep back 15% for retirement, you can see how it goes... For the love of God, don't come back with "Well, that's a $50K salary!" You can go find an investment calculator, put in your salary, and calculate whatever you want. The point is, it isn't that hard to earn wealth through investments - unless you are "investing" in the SS program.
__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead. "Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly." |
10-29-2010, 07:32 AM | #50 (permalink) | |||||||
Upright
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||||
10-29-2010, 08:36 AM | #51 (permalink) |
Still Free
Location: comfortably perched at the top of the bell curve!
|
No, I'm not dropping the framing, because I didn't create the framing - Dan Johnson did.
Good for you, trying to get to 10%. Just imagine if the government gave you your 3.5% back from their shit-ass program, how easy it would be for you to get there. I point out that I never called it a Ponzi scheme since you "frame" it as generally a "conservative tactic". Or, did you use framing? It's hard to say. I mean, am I defending the Ponzi scheme analogy or whether it's only conservatives who say it. I'm just so confused - all this framing and such. You can embed 1,000,000 graphs and it won't make a difference. People spend their money on their unlimited texting, their 250 channel TV contract, their over-priced brand new "identity" car, etc. long before they worry about eating dogfood in their 80's. I'm not playing the game of "Source???", so you can ignore me if you think I'm being deceitful. Utility is not greater than Ideology. You lack character if you sacrifice your core values. Sorry. I didn't call it a Ponzi scheme, Dan Johnson did. I'm not going to argue with you over the strings attached to government entitlement programs. You are a fool if you deny them. I'm not going to argue with you over foreign aid. I'm breaking my rule of getting dragged too deep into these political threads. I apologize for leaving when you are on a roll, but I've determined it is a waste of time. Do what you want, vote for who you think is best, good luck to you.
__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead. "Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly." |
10-29-2010, 09:40 AM | #53 (permalink) |
Still Free
Location: comfortably perched at the top of the bell curve!
|
Not at all. As those who have been here a while can attest, I have been less and less involved in the politics section of the board. Primarily, because it is truly a waste of time. There's no chance "you" will pull the lever "my" way, or vice versa. I suppose one could argue that our words might end up influencing others, thus making it worthwhile - but there's no guarantee there either. I'm not perfect and have clearly fallen back into the trap in this thread.
If you hang out here and find it fruitful to debate with Ace, knock yourself out. Roach and Baraka have got your back. I like all three of them and enjoy watching the fireworks, as I'll enjoy your contributions. But as for my industry, my energies are better spent "fixing my own house", that's all.
__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead. "Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly." |
10-29-2010, 01:13 PM | #54 (permalink) | ||
Junkie
Location: New York
|
Quote:
Besides which, I get to pass on any 401K balance as an inheritance, which I don't get to do with Social Security. It's not the government's job to save me from myself. It's not your responsibility to provide me food and shelter and it's not my responsibility to provide you with food or shelter. ---------- Post added at 05:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:10 PM ---------- Quote:
Also, identify military programs which are redundant without good reason and merge them. |
||
10-29-2010, 02:14 PM | #55 (permalink) |
Living in a Warmer Insanity
Super Moderator
Location: Yucatan, Mexico
|
I know your position. You've got yours and screw everyone who doesn't. I disagree with that thinking.
__________________
I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club |
10-29-2010, 08:55 PM | #56 (permalink) | |
Junkie
Location: San Antonio, TX
|
Quote:
|
|
10-29-2010, 09:00 PM | #57 (permalink) | |
warrior bodhisattva
Super Moderator
Location: East-central Canada
|
Quote:
__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot |
|
10-30-2010, 01:32 AM | #59 (permalink) | |
Junkie
Location: New York
|
Quote:
No system is perfect. In the current system, if I die a year after starting retirement, the money I paid into my retirement fund is lost. How is the government confiscating approximately 12% of my income fair? |
|
10-30-2010, 09:31 AM | #60 (permalink) | ||
Junkie
Location: San Antonio, TX
|
Quote:
"Let them starve." is a perfectly reasonable answer. If I agreed with your view of government, that's the one I'd give. If it isn't the governments responsibility, then that's all there is to it. They can rely on private charity, family, or simply starve (or die of exposure to the elements). Quote:
This one is a regressive tax on income from labor, and part of the deal is that, instead of using it for something nice and useful, like killing foreigners, the government will give some of this money back when you're ready to retire (yes, assuming you live that long). If you're lucky and/or wise enough to have put away enough money for your own retirement, the SS money will just be a nice extra. If not, it should give you enough to survive on. If you ever make enough money to be truly rich, the social security tax will drop to a very small portion of your total tax burden...the SS tax is capped at something like $100k, and most wealthy people derive a fairly large percentage of their income from investments anyway, and that income isn't taxed under SS. Incidentally, one of the many ways to fix the 'about to collapse' social security system would be to raise that cap a bit. |
||
10-30-2010, 05:54 PM | #61 (permalink) | |
Junkie
Location: New York
|
Quote:
|
|
10-31-2010, 10:04 AM | #62 (permalink) |
Who You Crappin?
Location: Everywhere and Nowhere
|
that's assuming that everyone who is poor/in a bad financial situation is in that situation because of a lack of personal responsibility. that's an awfully big (and often false) assumption
__________________
"You can't shoot a country until it becomes a democracy." - Willravel |
10-31-2010, 10:54 AM | #63 (permalink) |
Crazy, indeed
Location: the ether
|
The issue about the privatization of social security that most people ignore is that to privatize it would mean that the money that is being paid into social security would be diverted to the private sector. Which would mean that people currently receiving social security would either have to have their benefits eliminated or the government would have to run a much larger deficit in the mean time.
Finally, the actual redistribution that the American federal government does is very modest by most standards. Which makes the whole "I don't want mah money going to them poor folk" a bit ridiculous (as it comes from people who have certainly used public schools, public roads, the massive government subsidy called "mortgage interest deduction" on the federal taxes, federally protected bank accounts and federally subsidized students loans, things that the poor have limited or no access to). |
Tags |
day, election, false, prior, public, things, “knows” |
|
|