• 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 divide between the rich and the rest

How serious a problem is the divide between the wealthy and the rest of us?

  • Not a problem at all.

    Votes: 32 29.4%

  • A problem, but not a serious one.

    Votes: 8 7.3%

  • A fairly serious problem.

    Votes: 34 31.2%

  • It's not just a "problem." It's a catastrophe that is only getting worse.

    Votes: 35 32.1%

  • This divide does not exist.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    109
Great thread/poll. I love how you exposed so many people who can't google anything. Corporate profits are at an all time high and workers wages are at an all time low. Money has ALWAYS been the biggest divider of nations. The ironic thing is that those who spend it don't recognize they are spending it, AND THAT'S A FACT
 
What if...? said:
Did I say I didn't have a job?

Or just that I don't do one thing my whole life?

Perhaps the specialization comment was outside your specialty.
Click to expand...
In fact, many jobs are non-specific. Surveying is one of them. While we do "specialize" in measurement it takes a lot of other knowledge and skill to do our jobs correctly, which is the main reason I latched on to it years ago. I couldn't stand doing the same thing day-in-day-out - tried that and hated it. Even though the changes in surveying are mostly seasonal (more or less repeating annually but in different locations), it was enough to keep things different so I didn't get bored. :)

Running a small business is like that, too. You have to wear a lot of hats to run a small business.
 
Last edited:
MoSurveyor said:
Like I said, even if everyone had the education and skill levels you think are required for better pay there will still be people, with higher education and/or good skills, that will be sweeping floors and waiting tables. Those jobs you so haphazardly dismiss as "unskilled labor" are no less vital to society than the computer programmers or the loan officers.
Click to expand...

And like I said numerous times now, I'm not sure what your point is. At no point have I said otherwise.

Also, I haven't haphazardly dismissed anyone. What If said technology was supposed to provide jobs and I pointed out that they did to those who went out and acquired the education and skillsets for those jobs. That's not haphazardly dismissing anyone. It's stating the obvious.
 
MoSurveyor said:
The problem you've noted is that some think it's stealing and some don't, meaning there is no real consensus among Libertarians.
Click to expand...

Correct, there is no consensus.

What about you, personally? You've been defending the turf, so to speak, what do you think?
Click to expand...

I tend to see the collection of taxes as an initiation of interpersonal violence with the goal of taking another person's property. As such, I can't support them, as I regard all initiations of violence against people who have harmed no other person or other person's property to be unjustified.
 
Federalist said:
Correct, there is no consensus.



I tend to see the collection of taxes as an initiation of interpersonal violence with the goal of taking another person's property. As such, I can't support them, as I regard all initiations of violence against people who have harmed no other person or other person's property to be unjustified.
Click to expand...

whenever I see people talking about the coercive powers of the state, I think of Marxism - specifically, people such as Louis Althusser.

Of course, you do reference the goal as the taking of personal property, but the fact that you decry "state force" in this way does put you in with some strange bedfellows.
 
Federalist said:
Correct, there is no consensus.

I tend to see the collection of taxes as an initiation of interpersonal violence with the goal of taking another person's property. As such, I can't support them, as I regard all initiations of violence against people who have harmed no other person or other person's property to be unjustified.
Click to expand...
Then you may as well kiss government goodbye because I'm pretty sure a system of supporting the government and the military through voluntary donations simply won't work.
 
MoSurveyor said:
FICA was never meant to be part of the general budget, so as long as the SSA is in the black, which will be for a long time, I don't see the issue.

But, hey, if the Federal Reserve wants to quit honoring it's obligations then everyone is pretty much SOL.
Click to expand...

SSA was in the red as of last year, and is currently assessed to remain there in perpetuity. FICA wasn't supposed to be part of the general budget, but Congresscritters made it effectively so anyway. You can be mad at them all you like, but you can't go back in time and change events to ones more suited to the present.


However, that remains a strawman. There is no plausible way to balance the budget overnight without deep reductions in entitlements and defense.
 
MoSurveyor said:
It's funny, a little over a decade ago they managed to balance the budget without cutting into SSA or welfare. Now it's impossible, according to some. Seems like a scam to me.
Click to expand...

Then you haven't been paying attention to the growing costs of our entitlements, and I would urge you to self-educate. :) SSA and Medicare/Medicaid cost alot more than they did in the 90's. ;)



SRfedspendingnumbers2012p11table1.ashx
 
cpwill said:
SSA was in the red as of last year, and is currently assessed to remain there in perpetuity. FICA wasn't supposed to be part of the general budget, but Congresscritters made it effectively so anyway. You can be mad at them all you like, but you can't go back in time and change events to ones more suited to the present.


However, that remains a strawman. There is no plausible way to balance the budget overnight without deep reductions in entitlements and defense.
Click to expand...
OK, so the SSA Trust Fund, instead of being $2,677 billion at the end of 2011 was at $2,622 billion at the end of 2012. I suppose you can call it "in the red" even if you have $2.6 trillion in the bank? I wonder how many times IBM, GE, MicroSoft and Apple have been "in the red" - and those are profit businesses, not (essentially) not-for-profits. LOL!


Then they can take the SSA back out of the budget and hand it it's $2.6+ trillion in Treasury notes. Yearly budget deficit problem from "entitlements" solved. :)
 
Last edited:
cpwill said:
Then you haven't been paying attention to the growing costs of our entitlements, and I would urge you to self-educate. :) SSA and Medicare/Medicaid cost alot more than they did in the 90's. ;)

http://www.heritage.org/~/media/Ima...ingnumbers2012p11table1.ashx?w=600&h=551&as=1
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, I was unaware that FICA paid for Medicaid or any other "entitlement" spending except SSA/Medicare. When did that happen?

And I'm pretty sure SSA was only "in the red" one year in the last couple of decades, that being last year. Quit spinning BS.
 
Last edited:
MoSurveyor said:
OK, so the SSA Trust Fund, instead of being $2,677 billion at the end of 2011 was at $2,622 billion at the end of 2012. I suppose you can call it "in the red" even if you have $2.6 trillion in the bank?
Click to expand...

They don't have $2.6 Trillion in the bank. They have a bunch of promissory notes from the General Fund.

If your Checking Account spends money in your Savings account, but writes a note pretty-promising to pay your savings account back in the future, your wealth does not increase by the worth of the note. It decreases by the amount you have spent.

But yeah. CBO says SS is in the red and is projected to stay there.
 
MoSurveyor said:
I'm sorry, I was unaware that FICA paid for Medicaid. When did that happen?
Click to expand...

What Is FICA

...Under the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) 12.4% of earned income up to an annual limit must be paid into Social Security, and an additional 2.9% must be paid into Medicare....​

Medicaid is run out of the same dept. However, that's not really here or there, as "what FICA pays for" is not the determiner of our entitlements.

And I'm pretty sure SSA was only "in the red" one year in the last couple of decades, that being last year. Quit spinning BS.
Click to expand...

Social Security to run $45 Bn deficit in 2011, CBO says

CBO: Social Security to run Permanent Annual Deficits

etc...


People don't like to hear it. But fiscal reality is that SS is not going to make it in its' current form through the 2020s, for the simple enough reason that there will not be sufficient funds in the General Fund to cover the gap.
 
cpwill said:
They don't have $2.6 Trillion in the bank. They have a bunch of promissory notes from the General Fund.
Click to expand...
You mean from Treasury, right? And when Treasury stops honoring it's obligations you let me know so I can stock up on guns and ammo.


cpwill said:
If your Checking Account spends money in your Savings account, but writes a note pretty-promising to pay your savings account back in the future, your wealth does not increase by the worth of the note. It decreases by the amount you have spent.
Click to expand...
You of all people should know national spending and finance is completely different than personal spending and finance.


cpwill said:
But yeah. CBO says SS is in the red and is projected to stay there.
Click to expand...
It's going to be awhile before the Trust Fund runs out so I'm not worried.
 
cpwill said:
What Is FICA

...Under the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) 12.4% of earned income up to an annual limit must be paid into Social Security, and an additional 2.9% must be paid into Medicare....​

Medicaid is run out of the same dept. However, that's not really here or there, as "what FICA pays for" is not the determiner of our entitlements.

Social Security to run $45 Bn deficit in 2011, CBO says

CBO: Social Security to run Permanent Annual Deficits

etc...
Click to expand...
Then I guess they're not any better than you at reading the 2011 Trustee's Report:

https://www.socialsecurity.gov/oact/TRSUM/index.html


Yes, what FICA pays for makes a big difference. You and yours keep trying to shove SSA and welfare together and they're not the same. Medicaid is not the same, either, just in case you don't count that as welfare.



cpwill said:
People don't like to hear it. But fiscal reality is that SS is not going to make it in its' current form through the 2020s, for the simple enough reason that there will not be sufficient funds in the General Fund to cover the gap.
Click to expand...
Actually, it is projected to make it through the 2020's, just not much beyond. But, then again, SSA isn't supposed to be for profit and never was, it's supposed to be not-for-profit. Financial developments since 1983, when they last changed the rules, have modified the outcome. But that doesn't mean I'm going to trust some Wall St. firm to handle all my retirement money. We've all seen too well what sometimes happens behind the doors on Wall St.
 
Last edited:
MoSurveyor said:
You mean from Treasury, right? And when Treasury stops honoring it's obligations you let me know so I can stock up on guns and ammo.


You of all people should know national spending and finance is completely different than personal spending and finance.


It's going to be awhile before the Trust Fund runs out so I'm not worried.
Click to expand...

Here's one point to consider: When the SSA needs the promissory notes to be paid back, then you can start adding dramatically to the Federal Debt and in order to service that already huge debt (and assuming that interest rates will be much higher than today), then other services will need to be cut AND taxes will need to be raised dramatically.

That's the reality of when one government entity borrows from another. Had the SSA loaned out that money to other entities, even foreign governments, then you would be much more accurate in your assessment.
 
cpwill said:
What Is FICA

...Under the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) 12.4% of earned income up to an annual limit must be paid into Social Security, and an additional 2.9% must be paid into Medicare....​

Medicaid is run out of the same dept. However, that's not really here or there, as "what FICA pays for" is not the determiner of our entitlements.



Social Security to run $45 Bn deficit in 2011, CBO says

CBO: Social Security to run Permanent Annual Deficits

etc...


People don't like to hear it. But fiscal reality is that SS is not going to make it in its' current form through the 2020s, for the simple enough reason that there will not be sufficient funds in the General Fund to cover the gap.
Click to expand...

Before posting stuff that seems to support your previously-held beliefs, you really should do a bit of reading on the subject in question
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/fi.../08-05-long-termsocialsecurityprojections.pdf
 
MoSurveyor said:
You mean from Treasury, right?
Click to expand...

From Congress.

And when Treasury stops honoring it's obligations you let me know so I can stock up on guns and ammo.
Click to expand...

These aren't bonds (which have value due to the fact that they are tradable), they are special promissory notes (which do not, because they are not).

You of all people should know national spending and finance is completely different than personal spending and finance.
Click to expand...

On the contrary, the model holds here. We already spent our savings account. Now the bills that we were saving against have come due. Woops.

It's going to be awhile before the Trust Fund runs out so I'm not worried.
Click to expand...

yeah? Where you gonna get the money to send to the Trust Fund? 'Cause the General Fund runs out of money in the 2020's, so you aren't getting it from there :).
 
AliHajiSheik said:
Here's one point to consider: When the SSA needs the promissory notes to be paid back, then you can start adding dramatically to the Federal Debt and in order to service that already huge debt (and assuming that interest rates will be much higher than today), then other services will need to be cut AND taxes will need to be raised dramatically.

That's the reality of when one government entity borrows from another. Had the SSA loaned out that money to other entities, even foreign governments, then you would be much more accurate in your assessment.
Click to expand...
Deficit spending is not the same issue as SSA and won't be for a couple of decades. What non-SSA spending we do IS part of deficit spending and should be addressed.


Personally, I think there are some very good (and somewhat popular) ideas on the table that will address SSA long-term. The FICA cap change is one along with the COLA adjustment proposal. AARP hates the COLA change (as they should, since they're all about SS) but I'm good with it.
 
MoSurveyor said:
Then I guess they're not any better than you at reading the 2011 Trustee's Report:

https://www.socialsecurity.gov/oact/TRSUM/index.html
Click to expand...

No, I've seen this. And they are right. SS is just fine under current projections until 2037 (at last count). So long as the General Fund runs a $2.6 Trillion dollar surplus.


Hey, the General Fund is going to have that extra $2.6 Trillion, isn't it? It's not, like, slated to run large deficits as far as the eye can see, or anything, right?


Yes, what FICA pays for makes a big difference.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't. Thanks to the fact that we chose to spend the friggin money, it is all now effectively General Fund.

You and yours keep trying to shove SSA and welfare together and they're not the same. Medicaid is not the same, either, just in case you don't count that as welfare.
Click to expand...

Medicaid/Medicare are funded together. You don't have to like that, but you also don't get to pretend it isn't true.

Actually, it is projected to make it through the 2020's, just not much beyond.
Click to expand...

Medicare Funding Runs Short by 2024 say Trustees

The Congressional Budget Office has said that unless the current spending plans are stopped, the US economy will collapse by 2027

Sorry, but no. We don't make it out of the 2020's without dramatic changes to our entitlement programs (to include SS). We can make those changes now and make them deliberately to protect our lower income seniors, or we can make them then and have little control over their effects.

But, then again, SSA isn't supposed to be for profit and never was, it's supposed to be not-for-profit.
Click to expand...

Well it will definitely succeed then :roll:

Financial developments since 1983, when they last changed the rules, have modified the outcome. But that doesn't mean I'm going to trust some Wall St. firm to handle all my retirement money.
Click to expand...

Agreed. You should run your retirement yourself. That being said, index funds will give you significantly higher returns than SS.


We've all seen too well what sometimes happens behind the doors on Wall St.
Click to expand...

:lamo: whereas Congress. now they are trustworthy! :lamo:
 
cpwill said:
From Congress.

These aren't bonds (which have value due to the fact that they are tradable), they are special promissory notes (which do not, because they are not).
Click to expand...
I didn't say they were bonds, I said they were Treasury obligations, which they are.


cpwill said:
On the contrary, the model holds here. We already spent our savings account. Now the bills that we were saving against have come due. Woops.
Click to expand...
Sorry, it doesn't compare.


cpwill said:
yeah? Where you gonna get the money to send to the Trust Fund?
Click to expand...
If we can borrow a trillion or so for a war then I'm sure we can figure out some way to dig up another couple of trillion to pay our Treasury obligations, if needed.


cpwill said:
'Cause the General Fund runs out of money in the 2020's, so you aren't getting it from there :).
Click to expand...
No, the SSA Trust Fund will run out sometime in the mid-2030's without any changes and the CBO confirms that. Discounting your own cited authorities now?!? LOL!
 
MoSurveyor said:
I didn't say they were bonds, I said they were Treasury obligations, which they are.
Click to expand...

They are special promissory notes without any real value.

Sorry, it doesn't compare.
Click to expand...

On the contrary, that is precisely what has happened here. I realize that you do not like this, but that does not change the fact that there is no friggin money, we spent all the money.

If we can borrow a trillion or so for a war then I'm sure we can figure out some way to dig up another couple of trillion to pay our Treasury obligations, if needed.
Click to expand...

Sorry, we're paying interest on the trillion for the war, plus we are paying for Medicare, SS Disability, and a whole host of other things :). There is no ability to fund Social Security into the 2030's through the General Fund.

No, the SSA Trust Fund will run out sometime in the mid-2030's without any changes and the CBO confirms that. Discounting your own cited authorities now?!? LOL!
Click to expand...

on the contrary. The SS Trustees state that so long as the General Fund magically has the money that it won't, that SS is good until the 2030's. The CBO says (cited above) that the General Fund isn't going to have the monies necessary to keep the Trust Fund Afloat.


But Hey. That's okay. "You're Sure" that the General Fund will find some magical way to turn trillions of dollars in deficits into trillions of dollars in surpluses, because otherwise you may have to confront the unfortunate fact that SS is going to change.


:) The one bitter silver lining in all this is the sick enjoyment I'm going to have watching the baby boomers self destruction. It couldn't happen to a better generation.
 
cpwill said:
No, I've seen this. And they are right. SS is just fine under current projections until 2037 (at last count). So long as the General Fund runs a $2.6 Trillion dollar surplus.
Click to expand...


cpwill said:
No, it doesn't. Thanks to the fact that we chose to spend the friggin money, it is all now effectively General Fund.
Click to expand...
Seen it from where? It's not from the SSA Trustee Report and I'm from Missouri, which is the Show Me State.


cpwill said:
Medicaid/Medicare are funded together. You don't have to like that, but you also don't get to pretend it isn't true.

Medicare Funding Runs Short by 2024 say Trustees
Click to expand...
No they're not. FICA pays Medicare and under-runs on Medicare come from the SSA.

cpwill said:
The Congressional Budget Office has said that unless the current spending plans are stopped, the US economy will collapse by 2027
Click to expand...
Like I said previously, take SSA out of the budget and any SSA deficit spending is solved for 20 years.

What we do with what's left, mostly welfare and the military, is a different matter.


cpwill said:
Sorry, but no. We don't make it out of the 2020's without dramatic changes to our entitlement programs (to include SS). We can make those changes now and make them deliberately to protect our lower income seniors, or we can make them then and have little control over their effects.
Click to expand...
Sorry, you'll have to separate welfare/Medcaid and the SSA. As long as you keep them together you will get bogged down.


cpwill said:
Well it will definitely succeed then :roll:
Click to expand...
It can with a few minor changes which have already been proposed.


cpwill said:
Agreed. You should run your retirement yourself. That being said, index funds will give you significantly higher returns than SS.

:lamo: whereas Congress. now they are trustworthy! :lamo:
Click to expand...
Not everyone, and certainly the people who need it the most, know how to do that without risking their life savings. That should be plain enough from all the people that DO loose their life savings every year and are left with nothing but SS to rely on.


Like I said, when Treasury has to stop honoring their debts you let me know so I can prepare for WWIII. Who bailed out the bankers?!? It wasn't other bankers!
 
MoSurveyor said:
Seen it from where? It's not from the SSA Trustee Report and I'm from Missouri, which is the Show Me State.

approximately 300 other debates on this topic where others have tried to pretend that a promissory note that you write to yourself is the same thing as cash?

No they're not. FICA pays Medicare and under-runs on Medicare come from the SSA.
Click to expand...

Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services: www.cms.gov. Yeah, they're run out of the same house, man. Medicaid is joint Federal/State funded, whereas Medicare is all Fed.

Like I said previously, take SSA out of the budget and any SSA deficit spending is solved for 20 years.
Click to expand...

:lol: no, take SSA out of the budget and SSA doesn't have funds to cover its' payments next month.

What we do with what's left, mostly welfare and the military, is a different matter.
Click to expand...

SS is welfare dude. As you yourself later put it:

That should be plain enough from all the people that DO loose their life savings every year and are left with nothing but SS to rely on.
Click to expand...

That's why we have SS. That's why when we start reducing SS expenditures we are going to cut the payments to upper income earners (hopefully) before we cut them to lower income earners.

Sorry, you'll have to separate welfare/Medcaid and the SSA. As long as you keep them together you will get bogged down.
Click to expand...

Since SS requires monies from the General Fund now, separating them from each other is not possible.

It can with a few minor changes which have already been proposed.
Click to expand...

Well.... yes and no. It can be extended as measured only by itself with some changes, however, since Social Security is not what drags down Social Security (rather, the inability of the General Fund to make up the gap in Social Security is), it cannot so long as you assume that the rest of the U.S. Government continues to exist.

Not everyone, and certainly the people who need it the most, know how to do that without risking their life savings.
Click to expand...

Yes, pretty much everyone. You're going to have to sell the "oh evil wall street will take all your money right before you retire" bit to someone who hasn't run the numbers

Like I said, when Treasury has to stop honoring their debts you let me know so I can prepare for WWIII. Who bailed out the bankers?!? It wasn't other bankers!
Click to expand...

:) Since a pretty promise you write to yourself which is not tradable is not a debt obligation, perhaps you should start prepping. Not sure who you think is going to be fighting, but, good luck, I suppose.

As for who bailed out the bankers? Broadly, savers. Through the devaluation of their holdings.
Click to expand...
 
cpwill said:
approximately 300 other debates on this topic where others have tried to pretend that a promissory note that you write to yourself is the same thing as cash?
Click to expand...
Who said it was the same thing as cash? This is the second time you've intentionally misrepresented what I posted. It's a Treasury note and whether it has the same utility as cash or T-bills doesn't change the fact it's a promissory note issued by the Fed. Dollar and T-bills are also promissory noted issued by the Fed. When the Fed decides to stop honoring it's obligations you let me know.


cpwill said:
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services: www.cms.gov. Yeah, they're run out of the same house, man. Medicaid is joint Federal/State funded, whereas Medicare is all Fed.
Click to expand...
I didn't say they were run out of different offices, I said SSA funded Medicare but not Medicaid. This is twice in this post alone that you've intentionally misinterpreted - at least three times so far in our short conversation. That's more than a little disingenuous of you.


cpwill said:
:lol: no, take SSA out of the budget and SSA doesn't have funds to cover its' payments next month.
Click to expand...
So the Fed is going to stop honoring it's obligations?!? How interesting. I wonder if China knows this.


cpwill said:
SS is welfare dude. As you yourself later put it:

That's why we have SS. That's why when we start reducing SS expenditures we are going to cut the payments to upper income earners (hopefully) before we cut them to lower income earners.
Click to expand...
SS is government held savings, not a lot different than an annuity bought over 45+ years of working. It also has the benefit of including a disability policy.


cpwill said:
Since SS requires monies from the General Fund now, separating them from each other is not possible.
Click to expand...
The Treasury notes and accounting are all there. It could be done of Congress wanted to do it.


cpwill said:
Well.... yes and no. It can be extended as measured only by itself with some changes, however, since Social Security is not what drags down Social Security (rather, the inability of the General Fund to make up the gap in Social Security is), it cannot so long as you assume that the rest of the U.S. Government continues to exist.
Click to expand...
There is no gap in Social Security, there's a gap in other Fed spending that politicians have attempted to bandaid with SSA funds.


cpwill said:
Yes, pretty much everyone. You're going to have to sell the "oh evil wall street will take all your money right before you retire" bit to someone who hasn't run the numbers
Click to expand...
I've seen the numbers and that thread.


cpwill said:
:) Since a pretty promise you write to yourself which is not tradable is not a debt obligation, perhaps you should start prepping. Not sure who you think is going to be fighting, but, good luck, I suppose.
Click to expand...
If the Fed stops honoring it's financial obligations it'll be a full-blown, country-wide riot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom