• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The results are in on social security

Misterveritis said:
Do you believe all wealth belongs to the government?
Click to expand...

Hell no, I believe that we shouldn't start multiple optional wars that we can't pay for without adding to the national debt and money payed in through FICA.

The rich can't have their tax cuts and spend almost as much as the rest of the world combined on the military at the same time.
 
Misterveritis said:
It is an IOU. It is worthless. It has always been worthless. It was a fraud. I wish we could go after the wealth of every politician that has ever voted for these entitlement that are so far out of control. I would start by bankrupting them and their heirs.
Click to expand...

It is a contract with American workers and retirees. What we need to do is raise the cap on FICA and do what Gore suggested, lock the funds from General fund use. Problem solved. At the beginning of the Bush Administration we had a $2.6 trillion dollar surplus in SS revenue.
 
Last edited:
Catawba said:
It is a contract with American workers and retirees. What we need to do is raise the cap on FICA and do what Gore suggested, lock the funds from General fund use. Problem solved. At the beginning of the Bush Administration we had a $2.6 trillion dollar surplus in SS revenue.
Click to expand...

Still doesn't change the fact that the money would grow faster in private hands than in the governments
 
xpiher said:
Still doesn't change the fact that the money would grow faster in private hands than in the governments
Click to expand...

SS was never intended to be a high risk investment program.
 
Catawba said:
SS was never intended to be a high risk investment program.
Click to expand...

And neither is allowing people to manage their own retirement plans. IRAs are pretty stable
 
xpiher said:
The distorted price signals occur largely because no one pays for health insurance themselves so hospitals get away from largely charging anything they want. Its not because of tax code.
Click to expand...

this is incorrect - the tax code is the reason we have a system based on employer provided health insurance - because it is tax-free. The Tax Code currently distorts prices to the tune of your tax rate plus both sides of the payroll tax rate towards third-party-payments. :) You can thank FDR for that one.

The price for the mortgage wasn't reduced or even tried to be reduced.
Click to expand...

this is also incorrect. reduction in the price of mortgages was the explicit reason for existence of the GSE's, and the explicit goal of housing policy on both sides of the aisle. From Barney "I want to roll the dice a little more in favor of sub-prime mortgages" Frank to George "ownership society" Bush, everyone was in agreement that government economic policy could distort the market towards home-ownership with only benign consequences. Those few who spoke out in disagreement were smacked down by a bipartisan consensus in favor of price distortion and de facto bubble-creation.

With a national sales tax, no matter how it is written, downward pressure is applied to credit.
Click to expand...

do you mean to the price of credit? or to the incentive to borrow v spend v invest?
 
Misterveritis said:
Adults know that defense is an enumerated Constitutional responsibility of government. Those educated in government schools by public sector union teacher might not know this. Which side are you on? Are you a Constitutionalist or a Statist?
Click to expand...

You mention "defense". So how many out of the last 10 major "conflicts", we don't declare war anymore because that requires an act of Congress instead of a personal edict by the Commander in Chief., were direct defense of the sovereignty of the US?

James Madison says it best:

"Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people.... [There is also an] inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and ... degeneracy of manners and of morals.... No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare. "
 
xpiher said:
And neither is allowing people to manage their own retirement plans. IRAs are pretty stable
Click to expand...

You have more people borrowing on their IRA,s than anytime since they been in existence. What do you think will be the effect of that when these people get to retirement age?
 
cpwill said:
this is also incorrect. reduction in the price of mortgages was the explicit reason for existence of the GSE's, and the explicit goal of housing policy on both sides of the aisle. From Barney "I want to roll the dice a little more in favor of sub-prime mortgages" Frank to George "ownership society" Bush, everyone was in agreement that government economic policy could distort the market towards home-ownership with only benign consequences. Those few who spoke out in disagreement were smacked down by a bipartisan consensus in favor of price distortion and de facto bubble-creation.
Click to expand...

The price of the mortgages never went down, the amount you paid per month might have, but at the end of the term you still owed more than you borrowed and usually more with sub-primes. It was not designed to drive the price down, it was designed to allow more people to get loans. It was retarded


do you mean to the price of credit? or to the incentive to borrow v spend v invest?
Click to expand...

If the latter is affected by less people borrowing than the former will get cheaper as well.

donc said:
You have more people borrowing on their IRA,s than anytime since they been in existence. What do you think will be the effect of that when these people get to retirement age?
Click to expand...

Not my problem. You can't force people to be intelligent and SS will eventually run out of money.
 
xpiher

Not my problem.
Click to expand...

It will be when people start starving, unless you’re OK with fellow citizens dying while standing in line waiting for a bowl of soup and a couple of crackers.


You can't force people to be intelligent
Click to expand...


Many of the people borrowing from there 401k,s thought what they were doing at the time was the intelligent thing to do (feed hungry children).Yeh, I know, in winger land that is an unintelligent thing to do. :roll:

They thought of it as a bridge loan, that would only be for a few weeks, or at the most a couple of months until they got a job. Sadly, the bush recession got in the way. :(



SS will eventually run out of money.
Click to expand...


Not if we take the cap off at $300 k and start paying the money that uncle sugar borrowed out of it.

Ya no, like honoring a debt made that we made 40 years before we started borrowing from China for our wars.
 
xpiher said:
The price of the mortgages never went down
Click to expand...

this is incorrect - the price you pay for borrowing money with which to purchase a home was driven down as far as monetary policy could push the fixed rates, and then even further with the variables.

If the latter is affected by less people borrowing than the former will get cheaper as well.
Click to expand...

i'm just not sure what you are saying - are you arguing that rates will fall under a sales tax?
 
donc said:
They thought of it as a bridge loan, that would only be for a few weeks, or at the most a couple of months until they got a job. Sadly, the bush recession got in the way.
Click to expand...

not the bush recession any more.

UCLA economists say they have figured out why the Great Depression dragged on for almost 15 years, and they blame a suspect previously thought to be beyond reproach: President Franklin D. Roosevelt... "Why the Great Depression lasted so long has always been a great mystery, and because we never really knew the reason, we have always worried whether we would have another 10- to 15-year economic slump," said Ohanian, vice chair of UCLA's Department of Economics. "We found that a relapse isn't likely unless lawmakers gum up a recovery with ill-conceived stimulus policies."...
Click to expand...


Not if we take the cap off at $300 k and start paying the money that uncle sugar borrowed out of it.
Click to expand...

1. yes, even if we take off the cap and
2. paying money back into the SS Trust fund requires that the US General budget run a surplus of hundreds of billions of dollars every year from here on out - do you see us running hundreds of billions in surpluses any time soon?
 
Catawba said:
It is a contract with American workers and retirees. What we need to do is raise the cap on FICA and do what Gore suggested, lock the funds from General fund use. Problem solved. At the beginning of the Bush Administration we had a $2.6 trillion dollar surplus in SS revenue.
Click to expand...
You would have loved Ponzi. He was a very nice guy. A ponzi scheme is still a ponzi scheme. It requires more and more suckers as time goes on. We are running out of suckers.

There has never been a surplus. It is a lie. You have been lied to and like most suckers you prefer to believe it. Fine with me. I can discount anything you type here.
 
toddwv said:
You mention "defense". So how many out of the last 10 major "conflicts", we don't declare war anymore because that requires an act of Congress instead of a personal edict by the Commander in Chief., were direct defense of the sovereignty of the US?
Click to expand...
I know there is a reasonable question in there somewhere.

Are you asking me to tell you how many of the last ten conflicts were fought with a declaration of war? Name the conflicts and let's run through them if that is important to you. Or are you asking how many were important to us? You list the conflicts and let's go through them.
 
donc said:
It will be when people start starving, unless you’re OK with fellow citizens dying while standing in line waiting for a bowl of soup and a couple of crackers.
Click to expand...

Thats what other government programs, i.e food stamps and private charity i.e. food banks is for.



Many of the people borrowing from there 401k,s thought what they were doing at the time was the intelligent thing to do (feed hungry children).Yeh, I know, in winger land that is an unintelligent thing to do. :roll:
Click to expand...

See above

cpwill said:
i'm just not sure what you are saying - are you arguing that rates will fall under a sales tax?
Click to expand...

If demand falls, which should happen under a national sales tax, then rates should as well.
 
xpiher

Thats what other government programs, i.e food stamps private charity i.e. food banks is for.
Click to expand...

We have a record of 31.8 million fellow countrymen receiving food stamps so far this year. So what do our compassionate, newly minted, house republicans do when they first take office? Why reduce women, Infants and children Programs by $500 million as part of this year's budget OF COURSE!!

Now lets hear from someone that says
“Not my problem. (Post #137) “
Click to expand...
In answer to
” What do you think will be the effect of that when these people get to retirement age? “
Click to expand...


Show us the Compassionate Conservative Charity, which you want to slough our 31.8 million fellow countrymen who now receive food stamps (which average $115 a month), off on.:2wave:
 
What is your point donc? Conservatives are not compassionate? Is that all?

I understand that some people do not have jobs. I know some people that are on food stamps. All of them have cell phones. Most of them have cable and/or internet. Would they really starve to death if not for food stamps?
 
Last edited:
cpwill
1. yes, even if we take off the cap and
2. paying money back into the SS Trust fund requires that the US General budget run a surplus of hundreds of billions of dollars every year from here on out - do you see us running hundreds of billions in surpluses any time soon?
Click to expand...



One big problem with Social Security funding can be traced to fact that on the top of the income pile, sets a whole bunch of people and they are growing, even during the GREAT BUSH RECESSION that hit the cap limit in about a month.

Then you have the shrinking middle class, or what’s left of it, going the other way.SSSoo… deduct SS from ALL income - including interest and investment income. Thata work.:2wave:
 
Neomalthusian said:
What is your point donc? Conservatives are not compassionate? Is that all?

I understand that some people do not have jobs. I know some people that are on food stamps. All of them have cell phones. Most of them have cable and/or internet. Would they really starve to death if not for food stamps?
Click to expand...

Read post #137, thru post #144. Hint, look at the posts of xpiher that I quoted with your blinders off.
 
donc said:
Read post #137, thru post #144. Hint, look at the posts of xpiher that I quoted with your blinders off.
Click to expand...

I read them. You sort of made two points. Your first point was to remove the SS cap. Couple of questions on this:

1) Just generally speaking, should people who want and need a type of insurance pay for said insurance? (this one's easy)
2) Should people who do not and will not need a type of insurance be required to pay for said insurance anyway? If so, why?

Your second point had something to do with people starving in soup lines and people borrowing against their 401(k)s to feed hungry children. I couldn't really discern this point, so you may wish to clarify. But my main questions is this: Is it really true that the folks borrowing against their retirement funds are doing so to feed their hungry children? Can you cite support of this claim anywhere? I would be utterly baffled by such a fact, if demonstrated. Considering 401(k)s are things people with jobs have, and so food to the kids should be the one of the very last things parents found themselves unable to afford on their own.
 
Last edited:
Neomalthusian

Is it really true that the folks borrowing against their retirement funds are doing so to feed their hungry children?
Click to expand...

I believe I read in a US News and Report that approximately 28 percent of 401(k) participants had an outstanding loan in 2010.

I believe that the author was Aon Hewitt.

Considering 401(k)s are things people with jobs have, and so food to the kids should be the one of the very last things parents found themselves unable to afford on their own.
Click to expand...


Your right, “401(k)s are things people with jobs have “ but the latest jobs report by the bls has the number of unemployed at 13.9 million and the unemployment rate was 9.1 percent and 28% of that number comes to pretty close to four million many of whom have 401(k)s. Now why do you think that unemployed Americans would be tapping their 401(k)s?

I’m thinking that it’s a pretty desperate act, considering the price that they pay; check this link out.
 
Last edited:
donc said:
We have a record of 31.8 million fellow countrymen receiving food stamps so far this year. So what do our compassionate, newly minted, house republicans do when they first take office? Why reduce women, Infants and children Programs by $500 million as part of this year's budget OF COURSE!!

Now lets hear from someone that says In answer to


Show us the Compassionate Conservative Charity, which you want to slough our 31.8 million fellow countrymen who now receive food stamps (which average $115 a month), off on.:2wave:
Click to expand...

I think it funny you put me in the same category as repubs. I support social welfare programs and a livable wage, just like Hayek.

SS is simply just useless. There isn't any reason why a private company cannot do the something thing that the government fails to do, prevent people from taking the money out. You can easily have a contract with a bank that x amount of dollars will be taken from your check and put into a fund that is inaccessible, by anyone, until you are age 65. Unlike the gov, you could sue the bank to get the money should it "vanish"

Neomalthusian said:
Your second point had something to do with people starving in soup lines and people borrowing against their 401(k)s to feed hungry children. I couldn't really discern this point, so you may wish to clarify. But my main questions is this: Is it really true that the folks borrowing against their retirement funds are doing so to feed their hungry children? Can you cite support of this claim anywhere? I would be utterly baffled by such a fact, if demonstrated. Considering 401(k)s are things people with jobs have, and so food to the kids should be the one of the very last things parents found themselves unable to afford on their own.
Click to expand...

401ks follow you even when you aren't employed. Most of the middle class that lost their jobs have almost completely exhausted, if not exhausted, their entire life savings while looking for work. The problem with SS tax is that the government has done the same thing, and will do it again even if it was illegal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom