Post by: RadioFreeSeaLab on January 15, 2008, 08:41:05 AM
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/011608dnmettransportationstudy.2502f256.html
Quote
More and higher tolls won't be enough to pay for the nation's highway needs, a bipartisan study panel chaired by the U.S. Secretary of Transportation said today in a long-awaited report.
Instead, Congress will need to raise the federal gas tax by 25 to 40 cents a gallon over five years, according to the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission. The 12-member commission is a bipartisan panel formed by Congress in 2005 to rethink the way the nation builds and pays for its highways and transit systems.
Also Online
Link: National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Commission
Transcript: Field hearing in Dallas in 2006
Report: Argument for involvement of private companies in toll roads
"There is no free lunch," Jack Schenendorf, vice chairman of the commission, said at a news conference Tuesday morning. "No way to accomplish what we are talking about without spending money, and therefore you have to raise money. There is no way to avoid that."
Higher gas taxes, new taxes on transit tickets, and higher freight fees are also part of the panel's recommendations.
"We have concluded that our surface transportation system in America is at a cross roads. We have a looming crisis coming," Mr. Schenendorf said. "A failure to act would be catastrophic to this nation."
In addition to higher fuel taxes a politically explosive recommendation the report calls for substantial streamlining of the system used now to build highways, bridges and other major transportation projects.
The report recommends that the nation spend at least $225 billion a year for the next 50 years to improve its highways, passenger rail lines, and transit systems. Thats nearly triple what the nation spends now, including local, state and federal level, Mr. Schenendorf said.
Its conclusions represent an endorsement in part, and repudiation in part, of the approach championed by Texas Gov. Rick Perry. Mr. Perry and his appointees to the Texas Transportation Commission have resisted calls to raise state gas taxes, and instead pushed hard to expand the use of tolling to pay for new roads.
But Mr. Perry will find more support on another key aspect of his transportation agenda: Expanding the use of tolls to ease congestion and generate money to build other, free highways.
The report recommends that laws be changes to make it easier to toll both new and existing interstates, though only in metropolitan areas of more than 1 million residents.
On the issue of private companies building and operating toll roads, the recommendation is more mixed, and not as finely in line with Mr. Perrys approach.
The report strongly supports the use of private firms to help pay for, and often operate, toll facilities. Such proposals are already alive and well in Texas, where the Spanish firm Cintra has a planning contract to develop the first phase of the massive Trans Texas Corridor, and where private firms are expected to bid later this year to build six new toll lanes on the LBJ Freeway in Dallas.
But the report also urges states impose strong restrictions on the contracts associated with such deals, something that advocates of so-called public-private partnerships say the companies will find onerous.
The recommendations are not binding. They are expected to be used as a starting point for Congress, which is set to debate calls for major reforms to the transportation program between now and 2009, when the current authorizing legislation expires. Every five years, Congress passes a sweeping transportation bill that sets overall policy.
Underlining how political contentious some of the proposals will be, all three members appointed by the Bush Administration issued a dissenting report that rejects gas-tax increases, Instead, they want the focus kept on private investment and higher tolls.
Hearings on the report are scheduled for tomorrow in the House, and for later this month in the Senate.
Instead, Congress will need to raise the federal gas tax by 25 to 40 cents a gallon over five years, according to the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission. The 12-member commission is a bipartisan panel formed by Congress in 2005 to rethink the way the nation builds and pays for its highways and transit systems.
Also Online
Link: National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Commission
Transcript: Field hearing in Dallas in 2006
Report: Argument for involvement of private companies in toll roads
"There is no free lunch," Jack Schenendorf, vice chairman of the commission, said at a news conference Tuesday morning. "No way to accomplish what we are talking about without spending money, and therefore you have to raise money. There is no way to avoid that."
Higher gas taxes, new taxes on transit tickets, and higher freight fees are also part of the panel's recommendations.
"We have concluded that our surface transportation system in America is at a cross roads. We have a looming crisis coming," Mr. Schenendorf said. "A failure to act would be catastrophic to this nation."
In addition to higher fuel taxes a politically explosive recommendation the report calls for substantial streamlining of the system used now to build highways, bridges and other major transportation projects.
The report recommends that the nation spend at least $225 billion a year for the next 50 years to improve its highways, passenger rail lines, and transit systems. Thats nearly triple what the nation spends now, including local, state and federal level, Mr. Schenendorf said.
Its conclusions represent an endorsement in part, and repudiation in part, of the approach championed by Texas Gov. Rick Perry. Mr. Perry and his appointees to the Texas Transportation Commission have resisted calls to raise state gas taxes, and instead pushed hard to expand the use of tolling to pay for new roads.
But Mr. Perry will find more support on another key aspect of his transportation agenda: Expanding the use of tolls to ease congestion and generate money to build other, free highways.
The report recommends that laws be changes to make it easier to toll both new and existing interstates, though only in metropolitan areas of more than 1 million residents.
On the issue of private companies building and operating toll roads, the recommendation is more mixed, and not as finely in line with Mr. Perrys approach.
The report strongly supports the use of private firms to help pay for, and often operate, toll facilities. Such proposals are already alive and well in Texas, where the Spanish firm Cintra has a planning contract to develop the first phase of the massive Trans Texas Corridor, and where private firms are expected to bid later this year to build six new toll lanes on the LBJ Freeway in Dallas.
But the report also urges states impose strong restrictions on the contracts associated with such deals, something that advocates of so-called public-private partnerships say the companies will find onerous.
The recommendations are not binding. They are expected to be used as a starting point for Congress, which is set to debate calls for major reforms to the transportation program between now and 2009, when the current authorizing legislation expires. Every five years, Congress passes a sweeping transportation bill that sets overall policy.
Underlining how political contentious some of the proposals will be, all three members appointed by the Bush Administration issued a dissenting report that rejects gas-tax increases, Instead, they want the focus kept on private investment and higher tolls.
Hearings on the report are scheduled for tomorrow in the House, and for later this month in the Senate.
Post by: charby on January 15, 2008, 08:46:51 AM
Post by: HankB on January 15, 2008, 08:48:11 AM
Global warming - raise taxes.
Global cooling - raise taxes.
Climate change - raise taxes.
Too many illegals - raise taxes.
Too few illegals - raise taxes.
Energy shortage - raise taxes.
Energy surplus - raise taxes.
Sun rises in the east - raise taxes.
Sun sets in the west - raise taxes.
I'm at a loss for words . . . that would be acceptable for use on APS. Just imagine a stream of foul expletives which would go on . . .and on . . .and on.
Post by: RadioFreeSeaLab on January 15, 2008, 08:50:51 AM
Cut welfare and other leaching programs.. take the money saved and put into roads. Put the able bodied welfare recipients to work building these roads. No productive work, no pay, you go hungry. Taxes stay the same rate.
Interestingly, that would also fix this "Illegals just do jobs americans won't do!" argument. Able bodied welfare recipient? Fantastic! Here's the address of several farmers and factories that need your assistance. You have six months to find gainful employment, then the checks stop. Have a nice day.
Post by: charby on January 15, 2008, 09:05:08 AM
Cut welfare and other leaching programs.. take the money saved and put into roads. Put the able bodied welfare recipients to work building these roads. No productive work, no pay, you go hungry. Taxes stay the same rate.
Interestingly, that would also fix this "Illegals just do jobs americans won't do!" argument. Able bodied welfare recipient? Fantastic! Here's the address of several farmers and factories that need your assistance. You have six months to find gainful employment, then the checks stop. Have a nice day.I agree, at least put a cap on subsidies. I agree with some subsidies regarding food stuff because I want the farmer to farm so we still have food come harvest time.
Corporate subsidies? I don't really have a good answer to that.
Post by: Paddy on January 15, 2008, 09:45:29 AM
Post by: RadioFreeSeaLab on January 15, 2008, 09:46:20 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on January 15, 2008, 09:56:47 AM
Quote
"There is no free lunch," Jack Schenendorf, vice chairman of the commission, said at a news conference Tuesday morning. "No way to accomplish what we are talking about without spending money, and therefore you have to raise money. There is no way to avoid that."
No, you stop spending the money on welfare, public "art", asinine public transit projects that turn into money sucks, and other porkbarrel #$%&!!!!
ARRRRRGH!
Post by: Boomhauer on January 15, 2008, 09:59:58 AM
Quote
Well, they weren't voted in by space aliens. They were voted in by rubes who wanted the 'lesser of two evils'. At least they didn't 'throw their vote away'.
Uh, Riley, it doesn't matter whether they were the "lesser of two evils" or not. Just about EVERY damn politician believes in raising taxes. There are only a couple of politicians that I would care to spare from the tar and feathers. The Dems just happen to be worse about levying and raising taxes in most cases- and once taxes are raised, they rarely come back down or are removed.
Post by: charby on January 15, 2008, 10:08:32 AM
Why does government spending over shoot income brought in?
Post by: The Viking on January 15, 2008, 10:26:41 AM
Why can't taxes stay the same rate?
Why does government spending over shoot income brought in?
Because its easy and fun to play with other people's money. Also, there are the bribes to be paid to the worthless part of the population, the part that flat out refuses to get an honest job. Why does government spending over shoot income brought in?
Its the same over here really. A smaller and smaller population of productive are supposed to support a larger and larger population of moochers. I've said it before, so I might as well say it again - the next few years will most likely prove to be quite interesting, if also a bit violent...
Post by: MechAg94 on January 16, 2008, 07:22:44 AM
In Texas, we already pay 30 to 40 cents a gallon on gas. I agree with others. They are just squandering the money elsewhere.
There is no free lunch for private citizens, but apparently there is for govt bureaucrats (according to them).
Post by: HankB on January 16, 2008, 07:31:57 AM
. . . There are only a couple of politicians that I would care to spare from the tar and feathers . . .
Tar and feathers? SOME people are thinking more along the lines of boiling oil and a wood chipper . . . 
Post by: Tallpine on January 17, 2008, 03:00:50 PM
poly - meaing "many"
ticks - meaing "blood sucking parasites"
Post by: Tecumseh on January 17, 2008, 08:14:16 PM
Cut welfare and other leaching programs.. take the money saved and put into roads. Put the able bodied welfare recipients to work building these roads. No productive work, no pay, you go hungry. Taxes stay the same rate.
You realize the majority of social program recipients are children, right?I would suggest ending the war of terror and using the money at home or returning it to the American populace.
Post by: seeker_two on January 18, 2008, 02:21:06 AM
Cut welfare and other leaching programs.. take the money saved and put into roads. Put the able bodied welfare recipients to work building these roads. No productive work, no pay, you go hungry. Taxes stay the same rate.
You realize the majority of social program recipients are children, right?Then it's time for the parents to step up and deliver the goods or start terminating a lot of parental rights.....
Post by: Manedwolf on January 18, 2008, 03:45:43 AM
Cut welfare and other leaching programs.. take the money saved and put into roads. Put the able bodied welfare recipients to work building these roads. No productive work, no pay, you go hungry. Taxes stay the same rate.
You realize the majority of social program recipients are children, right?I would suggest ending the war of terror and using the money at home or returning it to the American populace.
Oh, BRILLIANT.
So we get another planeload of people crashing into a building, while the people who can't feed their own kids keep popping out more welfare spawn.
How about we have a WAR instead of messing around, and quit wasting money on what costs far more, supporting worthless parasites, paying for porkbarrel projects, and buying "public art"?
I could care less about the children of welfare queens, and don't want the government vacuuming out my wallet to pay for them. If they can't pay for them, THEY SHOULD STOP HAVING THEM.
That'd solve a lot of problems if they'd just STOP - Less mouths to feed on the public dole, and less badly-raised "good boys" who commit armed robbery and do drive-bys when they reach their teens.
Post by: Boomhauer on January 18, 2008, 03:50:17 AM
Quote
You realize the majority of social program recipients are children, right?
Bull. *expletive deleted*it.
I have seen certain "families" share kids when the social workers come around to check on them, in order to meet the head count. There was a girl that held my job before I was hired. She on welfare. Yet she was driving a brand new car (including an hour each way commute), holding a government job, had her education payed for fully by the gov't, and bragged about how she had it made all the time. She was over 18, making her an adult.
I have seen people at the grocery store buy a bunch of food, all of it name-brand, pay nothing for it by using a food stamp card, and walk out to thier brand new Lexus.
THAT is screwed up, and I see that kind of stuff every damn day. DROP THE WELFARE!
Quote
Why does government spending over shoot income brought in?
Because you don't have to worry about bounced checks when you stole the money in the first place. And can steal more anytime you want to , because the people don't resist.
Post by: Manedwolf on January 18, 2008, 04:02:49 AM
I have seen people at the grocery store buy a bunch of food, all of it name-brand, pay nothing for it by using a food stamp card, and walk out to thier brand new Lexus.
This. THIS.
Post by: HankB on January 18, 2008, 05:37:39 AM
You realize the majority of social program recipients are children, right?
Someone else's family is NOT my responsibility - I work to provide for me and mine, not some stranger I have no authority or control over. Unless the family are survivors of a GI killed in the line of duty or something of the kind, the State has no moral authority to seize the fruits of my labor and simply give them to someone else; that's purely theft. I have seen people at the grocery store buy a bunch of food, all of it name-brand, pay nothing for it by using a food stamp card, and walk out to thier brand new Lexus.
I haven't actually seen this - I've seen them get into new Caddys and Town Cars, but not a Lexus.Post by: Manedwolf on January 18, 2008, 05:51:04 AM
Post by: Tecumseh on January 18, 2008, 08:22:49 AM
You realize the majority of social program recipients are children, right?
Someone else's family is NOT my responsibility - I work to provide for me and mine, not some stranger I have no authority or control over. Unless the family are survivors of a GI killed in the line of duty or something of the kind, the State has no moral authority to seize the fruits of my labor and simply give them to someone else; that's purely theft. I have seen people at the grocery store buy a bunch of food, all of it name-brand, pay nothing for it by using a food stamp card, and walk out to thier brand new Lexus.
I haven't actually seen this - I've seen them get into new Caddys and Town Cars, but not a Lexus.I do agree they are not my responsibility. I can get behind that line of thought.
However for the survivors of the GI killed, tough cookies. They should have thought of that before they signed up, right? The widower can find a job right?
Here is are some old articles about welfare reform and welfare...
http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/VA-news/VA-Pilot/issues/1994/vp941206/12060564.htm
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1355/is_n21_v90/ai_18744024
http://www.urban.org/Uploadedpdf/discussion99-17.pdf
Let me clarify that when I say children, I mean the children of welfare recipients.
I will be looking for more.
Ei
Post by: MechAg94 on January 18, 2008, 09:16:46 AM
I find it funny about your arguments. I have heard them before. You don't care if 99 people are cheating the system if you just help that one poor kid who needs it.
Post by: jefnvk on January 18, 2008, 09:52:42 AM
Quote
I have seen certain "families" share kids when the social workers come around to check on them, in order to meet the head count. There was a girl that held my job before I was hired. She on welfare. Yet she was driving a brand new car (including an hour each way commute), holding a government job, had her education payed for fully by the gov't, and bragged about how she had it made all the time. She was over 18, making her an adult.
I have seen people at the grocery store buy a bunch of food, all of it name-brand, pay nothing for it by using a food stamp card, and walk out to thier brand new Lexus.
THAT is screwed up, and I see that kind of stuff every damn day. DROP THE WELFARE!
I have seen people at the grocery store buy a bunch of food, all of it name-brand, pay nothing for it by using a food stamp card, and walk out to thier brand new Lexus.
THAT is screwed up, and I see that kind of stuff every damn day. DROP THE WELFARE!
No, don't do that. Make them keep records of all income earned and all money spent. If their paycheck is coming in, and it is all being spent on food, heat, housing, etc, help them. If it is coming in and being spent on computers, TV's, extravagent cars, etc, then tell them to cut out the glut before they get help.
I know a few people on both sides. One was a guy going to college, co-oping at an aerospace engineering company. Purposefully worked only a certain amount of hours to recieve federal aid, welfare and food stamps. Had two planned kids, wife also went to college full time on a degree she had no plans on using, so they had free childcare. In less than 6 months, somehow afforded a $3000 computer, PS3, XBox 360 and Wii, brand new TV top play them on, and random useless toys.
I also know a few people who live pretty poorly (not college kids, older peopel with families working retail or shop jobs). In my opinion, they could use aid, and at times they do. However, the majority of the time they understand they are poor, they know there is aid when tehy need it, and only use it when necessary.
I have no problem helping the people in the second case. I have a lot of problems with helping the first.
Post by: HankB on January 18, 2008, 10:16:18 AM
. . . However for the survivors of the GI killed, tough cookies. They should have thought of that before they signed up, right? The widower can find a job right?
Uhhh . . . I assume this is attempted sarcasm by the questions you pose . . . you did see the word "Unless" at the beginning of the line where I used the example of GIs killed in action, right? 
Post by: RadioFreeSeaLab on January 18, 2008, 10:36:53 AM
Post by: SteveS on January 18, 2008, 10:41:44 AM
Cut welfare and other leaching programs.. take the money saved and put into roads. Put the able bodied welfare recipients to work building these roads. No productive work, no pay, you go hungry. Taxes stay the same rate.
You realize the majority of social program recipients are children, right?I would suggest ending the war of terror and using the money at home or returning it to the American populace.
But then terror would win.
Post by: RadioFreeSeaLab on January 18, 2008, 10:42:43 AM
Post by: Tecumseh on January 18, 2008, 02:12:03 PM
I would be happy to give to charity to help those kids. Then I might be assured that at least over 50% of my dollar is actually going to help them. With welfare, it is much less. The government is not a good charitable organization and never will be.
I find it funny about your arguments. I have heard them before. You don't care if 99 people are cheating the system if you just help that one poor kid who needs it.
I find it funny about your arguments. I have heard them before. You don't care if 99 people are cheating the system if you just help that one poor kid who needs it.
I agree with you very much about the ineffectiveness of government. The government is horrible at just about everything it decides to do. Whether that be charity, keeping roads repaired, or administering social services. However I am going to consider the hole thing. I am tired of hearing those stereotypes about people on welfare and who benefits. I just wanted to point out that there are consequences of eliminating the welfare state.
And I do care about those who cheat the system, however I just wanted to add that if we eliminate social programs expect to see children suffering moreso than adults.
Post by: RadioFreeSeaLab on January 18, 2008, 02:23:04 PM
Quote
And I do care about those who cheat the system, however I just wanted to add that if we eliminate social programs expect to see children suffering moreso than adults.
Actually, I would expect to see children and adults benefit greatly. Private charity would come in, and the conditions for both children and adults would improve dramatically.
Post by: RevDisk on January 18, 2008, 04:51:43 PM
While I do believe there needs to be welfare reform, corporate welfare kinda annoys me.
Medicare Part D, which is regarded as some as a handout moreso to pharm companies than folks need prescription coverage, estimates 2006 costs are $37.4 billion. Projecting the costs out to 2015 is around $724 billion. S&L bailout was $150 billion. $3.625 billion bailout of Long-Term Capital Management. $1.5 billion in loan guarantees to Chrysler. $15 billion airline bailout in 2001. Farm subsidies have averaged $16 billion per year since 1996.
You know, that starts adding up to real money. Other things annoy me too. I won't even touch on the hundreds of billions in assistance programs to other countries. Tens of billions spent on the failed War on Drugs. etc, etc. It adds up. I'd prefer time caps on welfare.
Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC) and other food stamp programs generally don't annoy me too much. I have a hard time getting upset at feeding folks. JUST feeding them. In a manner that does not put cash in their hands at any point.
Post by: charby on January 18, 2008, 05:17:14 PM
I have seen folks buy a five gallon jug of water, deposit on the jug is like $5, go out side and dump the water out then return and get $5 for the deposit. Heard of folks buying store brand soda, dumping it then getting the deposit money back as cash.
I've seen smoked salmon fillets bought ($20 Lb), lobster and other expensive foods bought with food stamps.
I know not all folks on food stamp do this, but there has to be some controls on what can be bought.
Post by: jefnvk on January 18, 2008, 05:32:10 PM
Quote
I've seen smoked salmon fillets bought ($20 Lb), lobster and other expensive foods bought with food stamps.
I know not all folks on food stamp do this, but there has to be some controls on what can be bought.
I know not all folks on food stamp do this, but there has to be some controls on what can be bought.
Places around here all have signs saying what is food stamp approved, isn't it that way everywhere? Or does no one just pay attention to what is bought?
Post by: charby on January 18, 2008, 05:35:49 PM
Quote
I've seen smoked salmon fillets bought ($20 Lb), lobster and other expensive foods bought with food stamps.
I know not all folks on food stamp do this, but there has to be some controls on what can be bought.
I know not all folks on food stamp do this, but there has to be some controls on what can be bought.
Places around here all have signs saying what is food stamp approved, isn't it that way everywhere? Or does no one just pay attention to what is bought?
I'm not sure, what I have seen lately is a food stamp card, kind of like a debit card. I figure that would be easy to track what people are buying.
Post by: CAnnoneer on January 19, 2008, 05:53:39 AM
Post by: grislyatoms on January 19, 2008, 01:25:40 PM
He was attempting to buy a box of cake mix with food stamps. I thought that a bit incongruous, considering his appearance.
The cashier said "You may not buy cake mix with food stamps." At that, I thought it was a bit silly. But...
Mr. GQ said "I'll just go get some cash from my wife."
I paid for my stuff, just one or two items, and walked out right behind Mr. Dapper.
He walked over to an illegally parked (it was right in the middle of a crosswalk, if I remember correctly), brand-new Mustang convertible. I saw him lean inside, take something (presumably cash) and then walk back towards the store.
Post by: RadioFreeSeaLab on January 19, 2008, 03:01:58 PM
There is a simple solution - people on welfare should not have the right to vote. Otherwise, they can vote themselves anything. Politicians will likely not cater to them either once that is done.
I am behind that idea 100%
Post by: drewtam on January 19, 2008, 07:45:35 PM
FY2007 Federal Budget
* $586.1 billion - Social Security
* $548.8 billion - Defense
* $394.5 billion - Medicare
* $367.0 billion - Unemployment and welfare
* $276.4 billion - Medicaid and other health related
* $243.7 billion - Interest on debt
* $89.9 billion - Education and training
* $76.9 billion - Transportation
* $72.6 billion - Veterans' benefits
* $43.5 billion - Administration of justice
* $33.1 billion - Natural resources and environment
* $32.5 billion - Foreign affairs
* $27.0 billion - Agriculture
* $26.8 billion - Community and regional development
* $25.0 billion - Science and technology
* $23.5 billion - Energy
* $20.1 billion - General government
So the biggest dead weight is Social Security. Then Defense, which is at least, a legitimate function of federal government. Then medicare/medicaid and unemployment/welfare. Those items are 76% of the federal budget. I think many on this site will agree that SS, M/M, and Unemployment/Welfare are illegitimate federal programs. These items take up 57% of the fed's budget.
So all the other junk: National Endowment for the Arts (<1%), subsidies for farmers (1%), international aid (1%), EPA (1%), etc that conservatives waste their breath making hay about, hardly make a dent in the budget compared to these colossal programs. If conservatives and libertarians could whip these major programs our budget issues could be resolved within months.
Post by: Tecumseh on January 19, 2008, 08:28:39 PM
So I would rather spend the money that is going to defense on probgrams that are illegitimate but may help AMERICAN citizens rather than be used to further corporate interests and lead to the deaths of 600,000 innocent Iraqi's. But that is just me.
Post by: Paddy on January 19, 2008, 08:46:52 PM
Quote
So the biggest dead weight is Social Security.
So you measure expenditures without the offsetting income. How intellectually dishonest is that? How much money has been paid in to the Social Security/Medicare system since 1980? How much has been ripped off and squandered by every President since Reagan?
Either get honest or STFU and pay your SS/Medicare taxes. I'll be 62 in a few months (along with several million others) and we want our money.
Post by: Boomhauer on January 20, 2008, 02:22:47 AM
Quote
How much money has been paid in to stolen for the Social Security/Medicare system since 19801935?
I could provide for my own retirement MUCH more effectively than the Fed. gov., and I don't appreciate the .gov seizing the money I earn. So I will NOT STFU about the SS/Medicare taxes. Ya'll didn't pay into the system nearly the amount ya'll will be taking out, and that's THEFT.
Post by: Manedwolf on January 20, 2008, 06:54:48 AM
Quote
How much money has been paid in to stolen for the Social Security/Medicare system since 19801935?
I could provide for my own retirement MUCH more effectively than the Fed. gov., and I don't appreciate the .gov seizing the money I earn. So I will NOT STFU about the SS/Medicare taxes. Ya'll didn't pay into the system nearly the amount ya'll will be taking out, and that's THEFT.
I agree. I resent that I have to pay into a system for money I'll never see (it'll be bankrupt by then!), just to support the same baby boomers that brought about the age of leftist hell.
I want to invest MY OWN MONEY. Screw the baby boomers. They should have planned better, they're in MY wallet now instead.
Social Security should have been privatized and optional years ago. Every one of my generation would cut off payments into it IMMEDIATELY. And I want every cent I've paid into it, to invest on my own instead.
Once more people of Gen X and Y realize that they're never going to see a penny out of the chunk taken out of every paycheck, the backlash is going to be unstoppable. Social Security will be gone within a few years, hopefully, and good riddance.
If the baby boomers have a problem with the fact that the government spent their money, they can march on Washington. Instead, they're content to sit back and vacuum out OUR wallets.
Post by: RadioFreeSeaLab on January 20, 2008, 06:55:47 AM
* dasmi waits for Riley's response...
In 32
1...
Post by: Paddy on January 20, 2008, 08:28:39 AM
The thieves are every President since Reagan, who was the first to discover (after Greenspan told him) that he could take the SS Trust money, put it in the general fund, and spend it. Which he did. He pissed it away on Star Wars and still left debt as far as the eye could see. Then 'thousand points of light new world order Bush Sr. came along and did the same. Then Clinton used our SS money to 'balance the budget'. Bush Jr. is now doing the same thing in the name of the WOT.
So you Gen X & Y's can just consider our money an interest free loan to you, so that Reagan/Bush/Clinton/Bush could deliver a safe commie, nuke and terrorist free world to you.
It's ok. We don't need your thanks. Knowing we've done the right thing for you young people is enough.
Post by: drewtam on January 20, 2008, 09:26:36 AM
Post by: crawdaddyjim on January 20, 2008, 09:34:41 AM
And being from the greatest generation once removed and the people who brought us "The great society" you should take another one for the team and call it even.
Post by: Manedwolf on January 20, 2008, 10:01:32 AM
GCA 1968.
"Free love".
Hippies.
"No nukes".
Drug culture.
The welfare state.
A societal sense of entitlement.
Big Government.
The changing of Republicans from Goldwater Republicans to...whatever the hell they've become.
Yeah. Thanks. Thanks a lot. You took the ship of state, ran it up on a reef and had a party on the tilted deck, and now you want a free lifeboat.
No thanks. Gen X and Y is going to be busy belowdecks for decades, bailing and patching to fix the DAMAGE you did.
And we have to work for our own lifevests, too, thanks.
Post by: Perd Hapley on January 20, 2008, 01:02:41 PM
Riley, I didn't know that Reagan and W took SS money, and pumped it into defense spending. Thank God they diverted it to a legitimate, constitutional function of government.
Post by: Tecumseh on January 20, 2008, 01:33:46 PM
Get off your high horse Riley. Your argument is weaker than water. Lets see, who voted for every president from Reagan till now.. hmmm lets see, the name starts with "R" and ends with "Mc". It was YOUR retarded generation that voted for those buffoons in Congress who spent the money, not mine. I want my money back. If invested my self, it could make millions by time I retire. I will never see a dime, because your generation spent it all on medicare, medicaid, welfare, and military. Didn't loan a thing. Your generation screwed us, so I couldn't care how awesome you think you are.
Maybe it is my CHristian upbringing speaking, but attackin other people on the forums with personal attacks is not right.
Either way, RileyMc is correct. Reagan did piss a lot of his money away on stupid programs. Not to mention the Bush Sr. and Clinton. Now we have a chance to stop Bush Jr. from doing it but the GOP is resisting. The War of Terror is a bad idea and it is not doing anything productive for the country. What is the point of spending Billions on Iraq when we could spend it here to help Americans? Why does the GOP insist that waging this war of terror on an innocent nation is defending the USA?
Post by: Paddy on January 20, 2008, 01:47:36 PM
First, you can thank the GG that you aren't goosestepping and speaking German and Japanese. That war was a real threat (the last real threat to the U.S., btw) and had we lost it, you would have really known the meaning of screwed. The GG grew up during the depression, fought and won a World War (FDR got us through it, and Truman finished it), came back, built homes, raised families and created the most prosperous middle class in the history of the world.
As a result, my generation didn't experience fear or want. The GG gave us everything, largely, I think, because they grew up with so little. Neither did X's and Y's experience fear or want; only prosperity, like us.
I assume all of you live indoors, eat regularly, drive good cars, and have money to spend on cheapazz Chinese crap, right?
Don't bitch to me about SS, 'cause I can't fix it for you. You're adults, go out and change the law(s) so that you can invest your own money, rather than giving it to the government to continue to squander.
So you think that all of us Boomers, after working for 40+ years and paying trillions of dollars into the system, should just relinquish our claim on the promised benefits? At this point in our lives, when we're 60+ years old? Rather than insult you, (which I'd really like to do), I'll just say that's unreasonable of you. How dare you come along at this point in our lives and demand what is ours.
We've kept our part of the bargain with the government. It's now their turn to give us what they've promised. If you have a problem with that, take it up with them. A deal is a deal, and that's the way life is. Grow up.
Post by: Paddy on January 20, 2008, 01:55:01 PM
Otherwise, I might find myself sitting around all day posting on internet forums or something.
Post by: Dntsycnt on January 20, 2008, 02:19:28 PM
I'm sick of them uglying up my nation and slowing down my checkout lanes with their cut-out coupons and their paper checks.
Old people should either keep working, mooch off their children, or die. If you've outlived your usefulness and nobody loves you enough to pay for your existence, well...maybe its just time to throw in the towel.
(On the other hand, there is the fact that our current batch of old timers have been continually stolen from, just as we all have, and so should get that stolen money back. Theoretically, it is only AFTER that stolen money has been reclaimed and spent that my 'get useful, get loved, or die' proposition would kick into effect.)
Post by: Manedwolf on January 20, 2008, 03:07:17 PM
So you think that all of us Boomers, after working for 40+ years and paying trillions of dollars into the system, should just relinquish our claim on the promised benefits? At this point in our lives, when we're 60+ years old? Rather than insult you, (which I'd really like to do), I'll just say that's unreasonable of you. How dare you come along at this point in our lives and demand what is ours.
We've kept our part of the bargain with the government. It's now their turn to give us what they've promised. If you have a problem with that, take it up with them. A deal is a deal, and that's the way life is. Grow up.
We've kept our part of the bargain with the government. It's now their turn to give us what they've promised. If you have a problem with that, take it up with them. A deal is a deal, and that's the way life is. Grow up.
The problem I have is that you're saying that the government spent all the money you put into the system.
So why aren't you marching on Washington? Because you're content to take OUR money that we're putting in now instead, because that's more convenient.
What will you do in a few years when it really becomes apparent to all the Gen X and Y sorts that they'll never see a penny of what they're putting in, and they demand that Social Security be ended immediately? There won't be any more money.
Post by: Antibubba on January 20, 2008, 05:17:33 PM
What if the next President is a Democrat, one who buys the Global Warming pablum completely. What would happen if the taxes to repair and maintain the roads aren't raised? What if they are raised, but instead directed to rail networks and local mass transit? How much of what is carried nationally by truck now couldn't be carried on a strengthened and improved rail system? Yes, there would be losers under such a plan, but with the majority of Americans in urban centers, where the roads would (of course) be maintained--you need to have "the people" behind you after all--how hard would it be to implement? And city dwellers are easier to keep an eye on, and less likely to have more than token ideas of independence and freedom--and are therefore easier to control.
We'll never be road-free, of course, but it would be so much easier to control the flow of people and materials if they are forced to rely on specific lines of travel.
I'll stop there.
Post by: roo_ster on January 21, 2008, 03:05:08 AM
First, people my age have been paying taxes, including SS, for 40+ years. Second, the SS rates were increased in '82, enough so that Boomers were the first generation to pre-pay our own retirement. IOW, we 've put trillions of dollars into the SS system. We're not the thieves; we've already paid with our hard earned money.
The thieves are every President since Reagan, who was the first to discover (after Greenspan told him) that he could take the SS Trust money, put it in the general fund, and spend it. Which he did. He pissed it away on Star Wars and still left debt as far as the eye could see. Then 'thousand points of light new world order Bush Sr. came along and did the same. Then Clinton used our SS money to 'balance the budget'. Bush Jr. is now doing the same thing in the name of the WOT.
So you Gen X & Y's can just consider our money an interest free loan to you, so that Reagan/Bush/Clinton/Bush could deliver a safe commie, nuke and terrorist free world to you.
It's ok. We don't need your thanks. Knowing we've done the right thing for you young people is enough.
The thieves are every President since Reagan, who was the first to discover (after Greenspan told him) that he could take the SS Trust money, put it in the general fund, and spend it. Which he did. He pissed it away on Star Wars and still left debt as far as the eye could see. Then 'thousand points of light new world order Bush Sr. came along and did the same. Then Clinton used our SS money to 'balance the budget'. Bush Jr. is now doing the same thing in the name of the WOT.
So you Gen X & Y's can just consider our money an interest free loan to you, so that Reagan/Bush/Clinton/Bush could deliver a safe commie, nuke and terrorist free world to you.
It's ok. We don't need your thanks. Knowing we've done the right thing for you young people is enough.
Just to add a note of reality to these fun & games:
Nixon and the Dem Congress was the first to use the SS surplus to make deficits look smaller. Every Pres & Congress since has used the same accounting method.
IMO, it is the correct way to account for it, as the "SS Surplus" was never stored away in any sort of "lockbox" or other accounting fiction. It has always been plowed back into the general fund and given shiny new pieces of paper that have a really official name, but are worth less then the paper they were printed on.
Such is the "substance" of Social Security.
Oh, the baby boomers deserve quite a bit of derision for the whole mess they made...but they were not the first to start this nation down the path to profligate statism. IMO, Wilson was the first no-bullshiite fascist of hte 20th century and all others followed in his wake.
Like others in this thread, I have no expectation of ever getting a dime of SS. I think some of the outrage felt and expressed by folks is that the ponzi-scheme nature of SS was apparent from and pointed out in the beginning, given the history I have read. Every follow-on group of folks has just tried to kick the can down the road a bit farther so they could "get theirs" from the ponzi-scheme, instead of doing something about it...letting those now & the future take it in the poop chute.
Post by: HankB on January 21, 2008, 03:32:43 AM
I could provide for my own retirement MUCH more effectively than the Fed. gov., and I don't appreciate the .gov seizing the money I earn. So I will NOT STFU about the SS/Medicare taxes. Ya'll didn't pay into the system nearly the amount ya'll will be taking out, and that's THEFT.
Some years back there was a column in Fortune magazine that addressed the value of your Social Security "investment."They took the hypothetical case of a man retiring that year at 65 who'd been paying the maximum SS taxes each year, matched, of course, by his employer. They then assumed he would have achieved a real rate of return of 3% if he'd invested the money himself.
The number they came up with was enough for their hypothetical retiree to buy a lifetime annuity paying 75% more than the maximum SS benefit.
I've got three pet peeves about SS - the first is that a LOT of people who are nowhere NEAR retirement age are collecting. The second is that the Bushmen want to extend benefits to illegal aliens, and the third is that Reagan (and later Clinton) made SS retirement benefits taxable, with the money collected going into general revenues rather than back into the SS system . . . this way, they STEAL from the SS system without even pretending they'll pay it back, using the elderly to launder the money.
Post by: Paddy on January 21, 2008, 05:21:34 AM
Quote
What will you do in a few years when it really becomes apparent to all the Gen X and Y sorts that they'll never see a penny of what they're putting in, and they demand that Social Security be ended immediately? There won't be any more money.
I keep hearing this. "I have no expectation of ever getting a dime back from SS" Where does this come from and why do you think government will get away with it some time in the future? SS is broke now, elst gov woiuldn't have to rob from the young to pay the old (after they stole the old's money). If 'there is no more money' for SS, why not just tell the Boomers right now that we won't be collecting any benefits? Why will they wait another thirty rears down the road until you guys are ready to retire? Because it won't fly any better in 30 years than it will now. Government wouldn't get away with it now or in the future.
It's unrealistic to think you won't get your SS benefits when you retire. There may be some changes ie., an element of privatization where you can choose where to invest your SS money. But there is no way government can get away with not paying your promised benefits.
Post by: HankB on January 21, 2008, 06:51:22 AM
Quote
But there is no way government can get away with not paying your promised benefits.
They can tax the benefits at a higher rate, effectively reducing your benefit. They can implement means testing. Incrementally, they're going to keep whittling away at it. Reagan taxed benefits for the first time, Clinton increased the tax, and the COL increases do not keep pace with inflation.It's not unreasonable to project that they'll keep reducing what you get to keep, since they've been doing it already.
Post by: Tallpine on January 21, 2008, 07:07:12 AM
I don't really expect much from SS, if I even live another 10 years to start collecting. I'm just trying to get the "ranch" paid off and have a little set aside. I don't really plan to ever stop working, just hopefully back off to part time.
But I can remember 20+ years ago when we were trying to start a business, and at the end of the year having to cough up 15% of what meager profits we had made.
Post by: Scout26 on January 21, 2008, 10:43:38 AM
Quote
Whoever got the idea that old people should be able to retire and laze about anyway?
Otto von Bismarck. He did it as a sop to the socialists in Germany, but he set the age at 65, because damn few people actually lived to that age in late 1800's. It would be the same as setting the retirement/SS age at 100 or 105 today. When FDR came to power here in the US, the .gov basically copied what Germany had done without understanding why it was done.
Post by: ilbob on January 21, 2008, 12:37:34 PM
Quote
What will you do in a few years when it really becomes apparent to all the Gen X and Y sorts that they'll never see a penny of what they're putting in, and they demand that Social Security be ended immediately? There won't be any more money.
I keep hearing this. "I have no expectation of ever getting a dime back from SS" Where does this come from and why do you think government will get away with it some time in the future? SS is broke now, elst gov woiuldn't have to rob from the young to pay the old (after they stole the old's money). If 'there is no more money' for SS, why not just tell the Boomers right now that we won't be collecting any benefits? Why will they wait another thirty rears down the road until you guys are ready to retire? Because it won't fly any better in 30 years than it will now. Government wouldn't get away with it now or in the future.
It's unrealistic to think you won't get your SS benefits when you retire. There may be some changes ie., an element of privatization where you can choose where to invest your SS money. But there is no way government can get away with not paying your promised benefits.
Government may not "get away with it", but the basic numbers don't lie. There is no money to pay the benefits, so the people who recieve them will get less. They will try to make it less painful, but it will happen.
Post by: drewtam on January 21, 2008, 02:00:39 PM
Don't bitch to me about SS, 'cause I can't fix it for you. You're adults, go out and change the law(s) so that you can invest your own money, rather than giving it to the government to continue to squander.
So you think that all of us Boomers, after working for 40+ years and paying trillions of dollars into the system, should just relinquish our claim on the promised benefits? At this point in our lives, when we're 60+ years old? Rather than insult you, (which I'd really like to do), I'll just say that's unreasonable of you. How dare you come along at this point in our lives and demand what is ours.
We've kept our part of the bargain with the government. It's now their turn to give us what they've promised. If you have a problem with that, take it up with them. A deal is a deal, and that's the way life is. Grow up.
Ever hear the joke about those who "assume"?So you think that all of us Boomers, after working for 40+ years and paying trillions of dollars into the system, should just relinquish our claim on the promised benefits? At this point in our lives, when we're 60+ years old? Rather than insult you, (which I'd really like to do), I'll just say that's unreasonable of you. How dare you come along at this point in our lives and demand what is ours.
We've kept our part of the bargain with the government. It's now their turn to give us what they've promised. If you have a problem with that, take it up with them. A deal is a deal, and that's the way life is. Grow up.
Who suggested we take away your SS benefits? Not I. I'm all for the gov't living up to its agreements. But that does not mean that we should squander this brief window of opportunity to change the system. But the fact is, it is the AARP generation that blocked and killed any proposal that would begin a revamp of SS into a savings account structure.
Quote
I keep hearing this. "I have no expectation of ever getting a dime back from SS" Where does this come from and why do you think government will get away with it some time in the future? SS is broke now, elst gov woiuldn't have to rob from the young to pay the old (after they stole the old's money). If 'there is no more money' for SS, why not just tell the Boomers right now that we won't be collecting any benefits? Why will they wait another thirty rears down the road until you guys are ready to retire? Because it won't fly any better in 30 years than it will now. Government wouldn't get away with it now or in the future.
Do you honestly not understand why it won't work in the future? I can't believe you don't know why. Goes to show, arrogance and ignorance go hand in hand.
Quote
What will you do in a few years when it really becomes apparent to all the Gen X and Y sorts that they'll never see a penny of what they're putting in, and they demand that Social Security be ended immediately? There won't be any more money.
Politically we don't even have to do anything. There are only two possibilities if nothing is done:
1 Raise taxes
If the gov't raises taxes any more to cover its obligations the economy will start to fall apart. Talk about a dwindling middle class; I can just imagine when I don't pay 50% in taxes but 60 -70% in taxes.
2 Default on debt
This would likely be an TEOTWAWKI situation. Why would it get this bad? Because the majority of America won't accept paying in the tax and taking a benefit cut at the same time. There would be the same honest indignation at the very thought, much like what Riley writes.
The only soft third way is to act immediately and begin transitioning to privatized system. But our window of opportunity is closing fast. As I understand it, we have maybe 6 to 12yrs. Thats not many election cycles.
Post by: Paddy on January 22, 2008, 06:23:43 AM
My reply #39 to your post #37 was unnecessarily rude, and for that I apologize.
Your post #37 opens with the declaration
Quote
Lets just through some facts into this discussion:
FY2007 Federal Budget
* $586.1 billion - Social Security
* $548.8 billion - Defense
* $394.5 billion - Medicare
* $367.0 billion - Unemployment and welfare
* $276.4 billion - Medicaid and other health related..............
FY2007 Federal Budget
* $586.1 billion - Social Security
* $548.8 billion - Defense
* $394.5 billion - Medicare
* $367.0 billion - Unemployment and welfare
* $276.4 billion - Medicaid and other health related..............
Following which you conclude:
Quote
So the biggest dead weight is Social Security.
Your "facts" and conclusion are purposefully misleading and therefore inherently dishonest. Dishonest because you quote an amount for SS disbursements without regard to any offsetting revenues for FY2007. You not only ignore the revenues for 2007, but also the total accumulated surpluses of revenues in excess of disbursements for prior years. Where did those surpluses come from? They came from those of us who have been working and paying into SS for the last 40 years. IOW, if you add up all the contributions (through payroll taxes) paid into SS by the Boomer generation, and deduct all the payments from SS to the GG, you have a huge net surplus of cash. Your $586.1 billion number is a reduction of that surplus, not an out of pocket expense.
OTOH, there is no offsetting revenue for Defense, the number 2 expense on your list. There is no tax labelled 'for Defense', is there? There is no paid in accumulated surplus against which to charge the waste, fraud and mismanagement known as "Defense". Defense is truly the 'dead weight'.
Quote
Do you honestly not understand why it won't work in the future? I can't believe you don't know why.
Apparently not to your satisfaction. So why don't you just explain it so that everyone can understand why you won't get any of your SS benefits when the time comes?
Until then, your 'argument' remains fear based rather than fact based and therefore irrational. You have no evidence to support your conclusion that you will not receive your promised SS benefits. It's just so much fearmongering and wild speculation. In its entire history, SS has never failed to pay benefits to those eligible, yet you've decided they're going to start with you.
I think rather than continue the hysteria, you need to explain why, OK?
Post by: drewtam on January 23, 2008, 08:12:25 PM
drewtam-
My reply #39 to your post #37 was unnecessarily rude, and for that I apologize.
Thank you, too many men are too weak to say such a thing these days. I appreciate that quality. I am sorry for my part in stirring up further rudeness and strife. Can't we all just get along... uh nevermind... My reply #39 to your post #37 was unnecessarily rude, and for that I apologize.
So then continuing on with the productive discussion...
Your "facts" and conclusion are purposefully misleading and therefore inherently dishonest. Dishonest because you quote an amount for SS disbursements without regard to any offsetting revenues for FY2007. You not only ignore the revenues for 2007, but also the total accumulated surpluses of revenues in excess of disbursements for prior years. Where did those surpluses come from? They came from those of us who have been working and paying into SS for the last 40 years. IOW, if you add up all the contributions (through payroll taxes) paid into SS by the Boomer generation, and deduct all the payments from SS to the GG, you have a huge net surplus of cash. Your $586.1 billion number is a reduction of that surplus, not an out of pocket expense.
OTOH, there is no offsetting revenue for Defense, the number 2 expense on your list. There is no tax labelled 'for Defense', is there? There is no paid in accumulated surplus against which to charge the waste, fraud and mismanagement known as "Defense". Defense is truly the 'dead weight'.
Apparently not to your satisfaction. So why don't you just explain it so that everyone can understand why you won't get any of your SS benefits when the time comes?
OTOH, there is no offsetting revenue for Defense, the number 2 expense on your list. There is no tax labelled 'for Defense', is there? There is no paid in accumulated surplus against which to charge the waste, fraud and mismanagement known as "Defense". Defense is truly the 'dead weight'.
Quote
Do you honestly not understand why it won't work in the future? I can't believe you don't know why.
Apparently not to your satisfaction. So why don't you just explain it so that everyone can understand why you won't get any of your SS benefits when the time comes?
Let me start by restating the two arguments I will be answering from this post more concisely. If I restate it inaccurately, I will be sure to address the error. There were more than just the two major points, but I will address the minor ones at the end.
1. SS isn't a burden because a special tax is levied to support the program. In fact, it collects more by this levy than it is required to pay out. For that cause, its not dead weight but rather a bonus to the rest of the Federal budget.
2. The government has legislated obligation to pay the SS benefits. It has lived up to that law for 60+ years, and therefore has a track record for delivering on its promise that should not be disregarded lightly.
Response:
#1
There are a couple major problems with point number one. The first is a presumption of responsibility and authority. I see no basis for the Federal government to support a program like SS. They lack responsibility because it is not the job of a national government to pretend to support an individual retirement. They lack authority from the Constitution to implement such a system.
The second major problem is much more subtle. The problem rests on government ineffectiveness. We all surrender to a 15% tax rate for SS (for many half of it is hidden, but its still there).
If an individual were to invest that money rather than give it to the government, then they could see a 7-12% yearly appreciation on that asset. Instead, the economy only sees a few percentage points, if any. So rather than having millions waiting for the individual when they retire, it will only (at best) be a few hundred thousand. So they are basically giving money away with no benefit (much more can be said about opportunity cost). This large taxation percent without economic benefit is very powerful at the national level. It has been proved that tax reductions spur even greater levels of wealth for all, even when the tax reduction is poorly designed. There is an upper limit for taxation rates our nation can withstand before the rate causes unavoidable consequences. If the aggregate rate is too large then the economy will suffer and actually reduce total tax receipts. So the subtle but major problem is that the SS tax takes a large chunk of that maximum taxation rate. So the current SS structure is a burden, not on the front end, but on the back end. It prevents greater growth in economic activity because it removes assets from useful work and creates an opportunity cost.
Opportunity cost:
In response to the miserly payouts from SS, individuals are now required to create their own supplemental retirement account. In fact, this supplemental becomes the primary because even with fewer assets it will mature to a much larger value. Furthermore, a retired person with an IRA now has the cash advantage. They do not need to plan their costs based on their SS monthly benefits. Under such a monthly restriction, large purchases must be financed. But with the cash advantage, no money is wasted on monthly interest from installment plans.
#2
The primary motivator for argument #1 immediately shows the fallacy of argument #2 above. The govt has a history of supporting its outlays because it set the rate so high that it was always bringing in more than the program needed. The rest was snorted up its crack addicted nose (A GWB pun for you Riley
, you deserve it if you read this long of a post ). If the outlays exceed the levy then there are two options. Raise taxes again to support both SS and the other programs. Or cut benefits. The outlays are expected to exceed the levies at around 2012 2016. If you cut benefits, then my generation will be paying for benefits for yours but the favor cannot be returned by the next generation. As explained in detail above, raising taxes is now a suicide pact. The tax rate for the middle class is approx 50%. This high rate makes our whole economy very sensitive to changes in tax rates. A small percentage drop sees huge increases in available money and economic boom. So if rates are raised to cover the program costs, then economy will slow. Then we will need to raise rates again because of the shortfall in receipts. The suicide pact becomes apparent. Another major component of this tax shortfall is that there are not enough young to support the old. The boomers dont have enough children and grand children.
Heres another way of explaining it:
http://www.socialsecurity.org/daily/05-11-99.html
Why is Social Security often called a Ponzi scheme?
May 11, 1999
Charles Ponzi, an Italian immigrant, started the first such scheme in Boston in 1916. He convinced some people to allow him to invest their money, but he never made any real investments. He just took the money from later investors and gave it to the earlier investors, paying them a handsome profit on what they originally paid in. He then used the early investors as advertisements to get more investors, using their money to pay a profit to previous investors, and so on.
To keep paying a profit to previous investors, Ponzi had to continue to find more and more new investors. Eventually, he couldn't expand the number of new investors fast enough and the system collapsed. Because he never made any real investments, he had no funds to pay back the newer investors. They lost all the money they "invested" with Ponzi.
Ponzi was convicted of fraud and sent to prison for two years. When he came out, he returned to Italy, where he became a top economic adviser to Benito Mussolini.
Just like Ponzi's plan, Social Security does not make any real investments -- it just takes money from later "investors," or taxpayers, to pay benefits to earlier, now retired, taxpayers. Like Ponzi, Social Security will not be able to recruit new "investors" fast enough to continue paying promised benefits to previous investors. Because each year there are fewer young workers relative to the number of retirees, Social Security will eventually collapse, just like Ponzi's scheme.
Closing minor points:
I agree the DoD is deadweight. The defense department creates very little productive beside some scientific and engineering research. Research is a small portion of what the DoD does. But from my engineering perspective, DoD is not productive. But nobody should be under the illusion that they are; and it doesnt change its necessity. They create death and carnage and thats what we want them to do. Just as the DoD is unproductive, police are unproductive. Police and DoDs main function is to limit the destructive power of criminals and threatening nations. They are loss prevention, not industry. If we didnt have criminals, there would be no police. If we didnt have war, there would be no soldiers. To tie it back to my main points, defense is the job of the federal govt as strictly enumerated in its powers. And its a well understood sap on a nations economy that has no other choice, whereas SS is not needed due to much more effective private investment.
Whew&good night everybody.
Post by: roo_ster on January 24, 2008, 02:40:26 AM
Post by: Paddy on January 25, 2008, 07:45:21 AM
Quote
The first is a presumption of responsibility and authority. I see no basis for the Federal government to support a program like SS. They lack responsibility because it is not the job of a national government to pretend to support an individual retirement. They lack authority from the Constitution to implement such a system.
Agreed. OTOH, fedgov does lots of things for which it has no Constitutional authority.
Quote
If an individual were to invest that money rather than give it to the government, then they could see a 7-12% yearly appreciation on that asset. Instead, the economy only sees a few percentage points, if any. So rather than having millions waiting for the individual when they retire, it will only (at best) be a few hundred thousand.
Again agreed. Social Security contributions over the years not only should have been off limits to Presidential theft, but also judiciously invested. The stock market has returned an annual average of about 11% over the last 90 years or so. However, that is an aggregate average. There were plenty of stocks that lost big money and several periods of protracted decline in values. So the trick is knowing what stocks to pick. If most of us had that ability, we wouldn't need regular jobs.
I'd rather see the bulk of SS contributions in something like a quasi government agency like a FNMA or GNMA (who I realize don't now directly fund mortgages) IOW invested in home mortgages in the U.S. Now the annual return would be nowhere near 11%, but it the risk would be very low; almost assured.
Quote
The govt has a history of supporting its outlays because it set the rate so high that it was always bringing in more than the program needed. The rest was snorted up its crack addicted nose.......If the outlays exceed the levy then there are two options. Raise taxes again to support both SS and the other programs. Or cut benefits. The outlays are expected to exceed the levies at around 2012 2016.
Around 1982 Reagan dramatically cut the income tax of the very wealthiest by more than half. At the same time, he roughly doubled the social security tax on people earning $30k or less. This doubling came about as a result of actuaries at SSA worried about the coming Boomer retirement beginning in another 25 years or so. One author likened it to 'a rabbit going through a python' bulge that would require a few trillion more than SS would be able to produce.
So, they doubled the SS tax . The tax created, for the first time in history, a giant savings account that SS could use to pay for the Boomer's retirement. Prior to that, SS had always paid for today's retirees with money from today's workers. So the Boomers were the first generation to fund current retirees and prepay their own retirement.
After the Boomers retired and the savings account was spent, the rabbit would have gone through the python and SS would return to a 'pay as you go' system.
But, Reagan had a problem. His big tax cuts (almost entirely for the very wealthy) didn't leave him enough to run the fedgov. So, along comes Greenspan, and tells Reagan he can just 'borrow' from the Boomer's savings account, and because he's using 'government money' to fund 'government expenses', he doesn't have to list it as part of the deficit. So Reagan took the money and squandered it on Star Wars and still left deficits as far as the eye could see. (some 'conservative' HA!
)So, Presidents after him continued to pilfer and spend the money we've paid in. Trillions $. If Reagan had left the money alone, we wouldn't have the problem we have today.
Oh yeah, the Ponzi Scheme analogy doesn't work. Ponzi's 'fund' wasn't a subfund of some larger entity that could borrow and print money, as is the SS 'fund' to the fedgov, so the comparison fails. SS is more of 'slush fund' than anything else.
Post by: Otherguy Overby on January 25, 2008, 04:12:40 PM
There were some people who found fault with the way the government handled it's obligations. The people marched on Washington D.C. and the government responded:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_Army
Any guesses on how the current government would respond?
Post by: seeker_two on January 26, 2008, 01:14:32 AM
Along time ago...
There were some people who found fault with the way the government handled it's obligations. The people marched on Washington D.C. and the government responded:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_Army
Any guesses on how the current government would respond?
There were some people who found fault with the way the government handled it's obligations. The people marched on Washington D.C. and the government responded:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_Army
Any guesses on how the current government would respond?
Probably outlined in the Patriot Act already....
Post by: RevDisk on January 26, 2008, 06:06:32 PM
Along time ago...
There were some people who found fault with the way the government handled it's obligations. The people marched on Washington D.C. and the government responded:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_Army
Any guesses on how the current government would respond?
There were some people who found fault with the way the government handled it's obligations. The people marched on Washington D.C. and the government responded:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_Army
Any guesses on how the current government would respond?
Same way. Roll in the Army, smash the protestors, burn their homes to the ground.
Not exactly MacArthur's finest moments.
Post by: Gewehr98 on January 26, 2008, 06:47:32 PM
Note to the wise: We don't issue STFU orders here at APS, regardless of how heated the discussion gets.
I'm also EXTREMELY weary of Tecumseh's "Christian Upbringing" moral superiority crap, and he will indeed regret using that tired old saw if I see it from his username again - I promise.
Next.