MK said:
The US will probably push the age at which people receive social security benefits to 70 or later , that would take care of the so-called ponzi scheme. As far as Rand Paul is concerned, he is a crazy little punk and once people realize how deranged he is it will be over. People in Kentucky do not want to eliminate the Department of Agriculture. Yes, other government benefits will be cut as time passes because the money won't be there. when social security was first implemented in the 1930s, 65 was chosen as the age to receive benefits because most people didnt' live long past 65. But on the other had I don't think too many baby boomers are actually counting on government benefits to retire on.My response:
Thank you for your email.
"So called Ponzi Scheme". It seems you are dismissing Social Security and Medicare as Ponzi Schemes while saying the cure for the Ponzi scheme is to STIFF the people that paid into the Ponzi Scheme by changing the rules by which you accepted their money.... Is that correct? If so, isn't that the definition of a Ponzi Scheme (no qualifying "so called" required)?
Of course the government is going to raise the age for the benefits! But not before confiscating the nearly $500k I have paid into the program during my working years (90% of my career I was self-employed and paid both employee and employer contributions) and distributing that money to people that did not pay in what they are taking out. What choice do they have? Lower the monthly cash payment or raise the age! Since we don't live forever... average age for a man is, what, 77.5? So they just stiffed me for 40%? That's not a "so called Ponzi scheme"... that's a JACK.
Rand Paul is a "crazy little punk"? And the people of Kentucky what? The man ran for the nomination against TPTB of the Republican party and WON. Get a grip. The man is the next junior Senator from Kentucky, and there will likely be 3 or 4 other Senator's raising their right hands next January that come from his political base.
As for Social Security and the average Life expectancy in 1935... Here is a link to the Wikipedia entry on what is commonly called "Social Security". Please read it! Your suppositions are ALL F&^%%ED UP! While it is true that Life expectancy at that time was lower than today, the percentage and the cap for the program have been moving steadily up to the point of crushing employment here in the U.S.!! The introduction of Medicare and health insurance in general did more to incite the explosion of health care costs than anything else that could have possibly been done. A doctor's fee for a non-complicated baby delivery in the year Medicare was enacted was about $35. Today it is about $4,000, over 100X while general inflation was 10X... Congratulations! Wanna see me do the same trick for college tuition and Sallie Mae? Home prices and Fannie Mae?
The fact of the matter is that the unintended consequences of ALL OF THESE PROGRAMS were a F&^*ing DISASTER for the U.S., and while the programs did benefit a small percentage of the population, they did so at the expense of everyone else while creating grossly outrageous expectations - expectations that will not be met under any circumstances. Worse, the moral hazard - not saving and providing for one's old age - created by the jag-offs that enacted all of these programs will find the jag-offs in question BLAMING the folks that resisted this drek in the first place!
Both the Left and the Right, the two-headed-single-party that has been ripping us off for several generations are TERRIFIED that they might lose their grip.
I ask you: Can Rand Paul be ANY WORSE than the jerks now running the train set? What have we got to lose??!!
15 comments:
Rand Paul was a cry for help, just like Obama, and nothing more. With Obama at 42% approval today, the "magic" that was to follow Obama into office is gone. With Rand Paul, there won't even be any magic from the beginning.
Yeah, we know others are coming (Schiff maybe). Governor (wrestler) Jesse Ventura showed up at the Minnesota legislature saying he was going to change things. He was quickly marginalized by the legislature.
While it is difficult to fix social security as the average age of retirees is 63, and half retire cause they want to, and half retire cause they HAVE to, you can raise the longevity, but people still start falling apart long before they die (especially if they smoke). Make them retire at 70 if you want, but expect workers be a LOT less effective in their last decade of work, if they can even get to work.
You can fix all these governmental problems. It just requires a realization that we can't live as we have (the cheap oil is gone), the wealthy and near-wealthy are robbing us blind, and taxes have to go up here like in socialist backwaters like Germany, France, UK and Canada -- horrible places to live.
How are the "wealthy and near wealth" robbing us blind?? What is near wealthy? BTW... how'd they get that way?
There IS a fix. Its called savings.
"The first years of man must make provision for the last."
People will NOT be as productive in the later years... what they need is to be reincentivised to be FRUGAL and provident in their EARLY years.
There IS NO FREE LUNCH.
My parents (born 1938) have money they saved & invested, money they inherited, and money they saved by starving the kids (just kidding a little). These two trust no one (especially their children) and believe they deserve everything they have. They also think they deserve to KEEP everything they have.
In addition, they see no problem at all receiving tens of thousands of dollars of Social Security and Medicare benefits that they paid in a FRACTION for, and they enjoy the safety of living in America, which is defended by a very expensive military.
There are millions of people who "did the right thing" and believe they have the right to benefit from it.
We can all agree my parents deserve a good rest of their life. We can also all agree the U.S. is now $13 trillion in rising debt. We can fight about how a lot of the ultra-rich got to be rich (I say they gamed the system and had the regulatory apparatus shut down to "bubble" the economy nearly over the edge.)
But the fact remains ... where do we get the tax money to remain a viable country? How about whereever the money is.
With our 'consumer' economy, frugality if done at a large scale, moving toward a less materialistic society, will in the short run just help to destroy jobs/businesses created by the debt-deficit-cheap energy system. Remember Pres. Bush asked people to spend, so ultimately frugality once seen as a virtue, is now a further danger to speeding up the demise of this economic system, no?
I've voted almost entirely for 3rd party candidates my entire voting life, some of them obscure, I've felt the 2 party system was primarily a sham since I began voting in 92 (voted for goofy Perot--even though he dropped out). So people like Rand Paul don't bother me, my goal is to vote for whoever I think isn't going to be owned by the parties/or the Corporations/Oligarchies--I never agree with a candidate across the board, since I'm not a true believer type, and not a big fan of empty rhetoric even if I like the sound.
-Meiyo
Ronald Reagan fixed Social Security in the mid '80's by doubling the payroll tax and putting it into huge surplus for the past 25 years.
He can't have made a mistake, he's Reagan, so social security has to be ok now.
There is a huge surplus of social security funds in the treasury.
Now if they want to monetize all the debt that surplus covered up, they should just go ahead and do it.
No one talks about this.
Even Billy Bob Clinton didn't have a surplus once you take out the payroll tax surplus.
And anyway, Uncle Dick Cheney says deficits don't matter...and they don't. Not since Nixon ended Bretton Woods.
Inflation/deflation is all that matters.
Frugality and savings always matter. We'd all better off with fewer taxes and less debt service. Both feed the liberal elite beast. In the long run both rob buying and savings.
Regards,
Coal Guy.
There is NO surplus of social security funds in the US Treasury. The pols spent it all as fast as it came in. Those surplus SS funds are only future promises to pay benefits via extra taxes on future US serfs OOPS- I meant "taxpayers".
Supposedly, those SS funds were
used to "offset" the US deficit LOLOL.
If SS payouts are not to be forthcoming, they sure better stop the payroll deductions.
Also, SOMEBODY will be paying for the expenses of the elderly- most of whom have greatly reduced productivity. If those expenses are not paid by general revenues, they will be paid directly by the kids of the elderly.
Got a spare bedroom for your 80yo Mom who is incontinent and confined to a wheelchair? And don't forget her $5000/month for "medications".
Regards, Marshall
On another note, how many people out there have the Castle law or similar type laws for home-protection?
Here in PA they push-pull continues between what is basically a Philadelphia vs. smaller town/city rural mentality on gun rights.
http://blog.pafoa.org/2010/05/24/committee-vote-on-castle-doctrine-and-3-anti-gun-bills-tuesday/
Ultimately I agree with Mr. Jeffer's--whether well intentioned or not all political power come's at the barrel of a gun by the State. The more power the state has and the more risk for tyranny, the 20th century was one big list of genocides/mass murders done by nation states--often own portions of their own population. Philosophically, taxation, especially when felt as extreme feels like state sanctioned robbery, regardless of the "good" it does. With a yearly cost of about 1 trillion for the military industrial complex (with off book costs) this alone is the largest line item for our national 'budget' but its defended by many republicans that claim they want 'small gov't'. Libertarianism promotes freedom, most people don't want true freedom, since it comes with costs and in certain cases seems darwinian--people often take the path of least resistance, even if that path leads to being a slave of sorts, but fat apathetic slaves apparently are roles many are comfortable with, pass the frito's and stare at the TV ahh what a vigorous/adventurous life it is to be a voyeur of other people's lives as one numbs the mind with high fructose corn syrup and magical thinking.
-Meiyo
Meiyo!
OUCH! But thank you!
When one leaves all of the emotion out, that pretty much captures the issues.
Hi Marshall,
You,re right about that! Back to the old model.
Regards,
Coal Guy
There is only a Social Security (SS) system surplus on paper. That surplus was borrowed for spending on ther Federal programs long ago. There is no box with money in it sitting and waiting for SS.
Of the $13 trillion national debt, about $4.5 trillion of that is internally-held debt, which the government owes to itself. That $4.5 trillion includes the Social Security "Trust Fund", MY PENSION AND TSP/401k DAMMIT!!!, and lots of other "trust funds" for the Federal government, like the road tax and unemployment compensation trust funds.
Bottom line is every dollar spent on everything Federally either ultimatley comes from tax revenue or borrowing. The rest is just bookeeping nonsense.
Meiyo:
Yes, savings would come out of demand and hence current GDP... BUT consuming does not make a society "wealthier" (however you define that), saving and investing that accumulated capital does.
The real issue is trying to rebalance all of our systems, which have been terribly f**ked up by some really, really bad policies and programs.
I know we over use metaphors... but because it feels good now.... doesn't mean it ain;t gonna kill ya later!
YAYYY Rand Paul!!!! ...
(from Bill Bonner/Agora) ..
"Well, Rand Paul, Ron’s son, has already put his foot in his mouth.
He’s quoted in the news telling the media to back off and give BP a break. “Everybody makes mistakes…” he says."
Is there such a thing as casting a negative vote for someone? :)
From AP today ...
"Despite his pedigree as the son of former Libertarian presidential candidate Ron Paul, Libertarian Vice Chairman Joshua Koch said Rand Paul has betrayed the party's values with stands he's taken, and they were considering finding a candidate to run for the seat."
Um, I think the Libertarians are reconsidering their "it boy."
Post a Comment