Shout out to Oakman (Debt Ceiling)
-
You're late to the party, and I was discussing SS with wizardzz. No, I'm not confused. I'm for a progressive income tax, just like I said.
Majerus wrote:
You're late to the party, and I was discussing SS with wizardzz.
If you want to have a private discussion, I recommend setting up a private group. Running around telling people what they can or can't talk about in this forum is a privilege reserved to Chris. We are all, of course, permitted to ignore posts that we feel are not worth reading. A privilege I am about to exercise in this thread, since you seem to be unable to answer a simple question or defend your point of view.
The 3-legged stool of understanding is held up by history, languages, and mathematics. Equipped with these three you can learn anything you want to learn. But if you lack any one of them you are just another ignorant peasant with dung on your boots. R. A. H.
-
I'm at a point where I'm sick of people actually thinking the Democratic Party is actually going to do anything that would tax the actual rich in our country. Republicans don't hide it, you know what you are getting, but Democrats pretending to give a shit and tricking our middle and lower classes to vote them in to stick it to the man, ugh, can't handle it.
"I have a theory that the truth is never told during the nine-to-five hours. " — Hunter S. Thompson
wizardzz wrote:
I'm at a point where I'm sick of people actually thinking the Democratic Party is actually going to do anything that would tax the actual rich in our country. Republicans don't hide it, you know what you are getting, but Democrats pretending to give a sh*t and tricking our middle and lower classes to vote them in to stick it to the man, ugh, can't handle it.
I pretty much agree - not that it makes the old guard republican like Boehner any more acceptable as a leader of this nation.
The 3-legged stool of understanding is held up by history, languages, and mathematics. Equipped with these three you can learn anything you want to learn. But if you lack any one of them you are just another ignorant peasant with dung on your boots. R. A. H.
-
Also, great info graphics on this: http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph[^]
"I have a theory that the truth is never told during the nine-to-five hours. " — Hunter S. Thompson
wizardzz wrote:
Also, great info graphics on this:
Back when I was working for a fortune 500 company, (2001-2004) I was told, three years running, that I was being given raises that were among the top ten (in percentage) being given in IT dept (about 400 of us.) The raises were around 5% and were offset, to some extent, by an increase in the percentage of the insurance costs I had to pay. Shortly after I left, some secret files were released by a disgruntled employee that showed that senior management had, during the same three years tripled their own salary and benefits packages.
The 3-legged stool of understanding is held up by history, languages, and mathematics. Equipped with these three you can learn anything you want to learn. But if you lack any one of them you are just another ignorant peasant with dung on your boots. R. A. H.
-
wizardzz wrote:
Bankruptcy grants you protection
For a business not a nation. Countries have been invaded for not paying their debts.
wizardzz wrote:
the strategy is often as I said; you ditch or gut the assets from programs that will become a liability, as our social security program will be...
But sometimes the simplistic answer is not the right answer (in the real world, as opposed to B-School) There are been a number of proposals put forth that would make SS totally sound and that might require you to wait a few more years to benefit from it. It is relatively easy to spot the primary "problem" with social security. It's medicare. Starting in 1965, seniors began getting better health care. Almost immediately, the life expectancy of Americans began increasing and I believe it is about 15 years more than it used to be - which is 15 years more that everyone is collecting social security. The simplest solution, proposed by the Bowles-Simpson tax plan simply requires your age group to wait a couple of extra years to start collecting and puts the plan on an even keel for beyond your (expanded) life expectancy. If your B-school training tells you that it is better to cause the kind of financial upheavals that defaulting on the Social Security debt than to move the portal down the road a little bit, I'd suggest the college ripped you off.
wizardzz wrote:
What is the scenario in which I recommended this?
"If the SS surplus helps us get out of debt, then I say do as you may with it."
The 3-legged stool of understanding is held up by history, languages, and mathematics. Equipped with these three you can learn anything you want to learn. But if you lack any one of them you are just another ignorant peasant with dung on your boots. R. A. H.
Oakman wrote:
For a business not a nation. Countries have been invaded for not paying their debts.
That's what I was saying, oak. I was not referring to it as a national strategy, what I was saying is that strategies to survive a bankruptcy (business) can be applied to a nation with mounting debt. Greece has taken small steps in the same manor a business would. Might as well employee the strategies now.
Oakman wrote:
But sometimes the simplistic answer is not the right answer (in the real world, as opposed to B-School) There are been a number of proposals put forth that would make SS totally sound and that might require you to wait a few more years to benefit from it.
It is relatively easy to spot the primary "problem" with social security. It's medicare. Starting in 1965, seniors began getting better health care. Almost immediately, the life expectancy of Americans began increasing and I believe it is about 15 years more than it used to be - which is 15 years more that everyone is collecting social security. The simplest solution, proposed by the Bowles-Simpson tax plan simply requires your age group to wait a couple of extra years to start collecting and puts the plan on an even keel for beyond your (expanded) life expectancy. If your B-school training tells you that it is better to cause the kind of financial upheavals that defaulting on the Social Security debt than to move the portal down the road a little bit, I'd suggest the college ripped you off.Your cause of the problem and solution to it, are not complimentary. Isn't it a temporary solution? Meaning, do you feel science and medicine will continue to raise the average lifespan? Will SS keep having to raise its age requirement to meet the always growing number of elderly? What if the average lifespan is prolonged, but the ability of people to work remains around the same age? How will it be possible to support a growing number of people on SS for either A- age requirement, or B- physical ability. You can raise the age to 80 to retire, but wouldn't a majority qualify for it via disability before then? The problem with a program like SS is that since it has always been paid forward, to stop it, or change it too drastically would be ripping someone off that has paid into it with some expectation. People of my generation have no expectation of SS.
Oakman wrote:
-
Majerus wrote:
You're late to the party, and I was discussing SS with wizardzz.
If you want to have a private discussion, I recommend setting up a private group. Running around telling people what they can or can't talk about in this forum is a privilege reserved to Chris. We are all, of course, permitted to ignore posts that we feel are not worth reading. A privilege I am about to exercise in this thread, since you seem to be unable to answer a simple question or defend your point of view.
The 3-legged stool of understanding is held up by history, languages, and mathematics. Equipped with these three you can learn anything you want to learn. But if you lack any one of them you are just another ignorant peasant with dung on your boots. R. A. H.
Oakman wrote:
Running around telling people what they can or can't talk about in this forum is a privilege reserved to Chris.
And when have I told you what you can or cannot discuss? Curious how you take "I was discussing SS" and take from it that I was telling you what you can discuss. This is clearly something you and wiz have in common.
Oakman wrote:
A privilege I am about to exercise in this thread,
Thank god! I'm so glad it only took two posts to get it into that thick skull of yours that I have no interest in hearing you drone on about the latest faux news talking point.
Oakman wrote:
unable to answer a simple question
Simply not interested. You couldn't figure that out in my first response to you?
-
wizardzz wrote:
I'm at a point where I'm sick of people actually thinking the Democratic Party is actually going to do anything that would tax the actual rich in our country. Republicans don't hide it, you know what you are getting, but Democrats pretending to give a sh*t and tricking our middle and lower classes to vote them in to stick it to the man, ugh, can't handle it.
I pretty much agree - not that it makes the old guard republican like Boehner any more acceptable as a leader of this nation.
The 3-legged stool of understanding is held up by history, languages, and mathematics. Equipped with these three you can learn anything you want to learn. But if you lack any one of them you are just another ignorant peasant with dung on your boots. R. A. H.
Oakman wrote:
I pretty much agree - not that it makes the old guard republican like Boehner any more acceptable as a leader of this nation.
Yes, but I wish Dems would try to nominate some proper candidates. Unfortunately the '08 Obama hysteria was not a result of looking into his experience or actual plans to deal with the problems that were already surfacing.
"I have a theory that the truth is never told during the nine-to-five hours. " — Hunter S. Thompson
-
wizardzz wrote:
Also, great info graphics on this:
Back when I was working for a fortune 500 company, (2001-2004) I was told, three years running, that I was being given raises that were among the top ten (in percentage) being given in IT dept (about 400 of us.) The raises were around 5% and were offset, to some extent, by an increase in the percentage of the insurance costs I had to pay. Shortly after I left, some secret files were released by a disgruntled employee that showed that senior management had, during the same three years tripled their own salary and benefits packages.
The 3-legged stool of understanding is held up by history, languages, and mathematics. Equipped with these three you can learn anything you want to learn. But if you lack any one of them you are just another ignorant peasant with dung on your boots. R. A. H.
-
Oakman wrote:
For a business not a nation. Countries have been invaded for not paying their debts.
That's what I was saying, oak. I was not referring to it as a national strategy, what I was saying is that strategies to survive a bankruptcy (business) can be applied to a nation with mounting debt. Greece has taken small steps in the same manor a business would. Might as well employee the strategies now.
Oakman wrote:
But sometimes the simplistic answer is not the right answer (in the real world, as opposed to B-School) There are been a number of proposals put forth that would make SS totally sound and that might require you to wait a few more years to benefit from it.
It is relatively easy to spot the primary "problem" with social security. It's medicare. Starting in 1965, seniors began getting better health care. Almost immediately, the life expectancy of Americans began increasing and I believe it is about 15 years more than it used to be - which is 15 years more that everyone is collecting social security. The simplest solution, proposed by the Bowles-Simpson tax plan simply requires your age group to wait a couple of extra years to start collecting and puts the plan on an even keel for beyond your (expanded) life expectancy. If your B-school training tells you that it is better to cause the kind of financial upheavals that defaulting on the Social Security debt than to move the portal down the road a little bit, I'd suggest the college ripped you off.Your cause of the problem and solution to it, are not complimentary. Isn't it a temporary solution? Meaning, do you feel science and medicine will continue to raise the average lifespan? Will SS keep having to raise its age requirement to meet the always growing number of elderly? What if the average lifespan is prolonged, but the ability of people to work remains around the same age? How will it be possible to support a growing number of people on SS for either A- age requirement, or B- physical ability. You can raise the age to 80 to retire, but wouldn't a majority qualify for it via disability before then? The problem with a program like SS is that since it has always been paid forward, to stop it, or change it too drastically would be ripping someone off that has paid into it with some expectation. People of my generation have no expectation of SS.
Oakman wrote:
wizardzz wrote:
Isn't it a temporary solution? Meaning, do you feel science and medicine will continue to raise the average lifespan?
Yes, unless science and technology combine to decrease the lifespan via a not-so-nice little war.
wizardzz wrote:
Will SS keep having to raise its age requirement to meet the always growing number of elderly?
What would be wrong with that? in the 45 years since medicaid was instituted the lifespan has increase by around ten years. Not years of infirmity and illness, but, for many, activity and productivity. It'll take you 38 years to be my age, and I see no reason to assume that the lifespan of a well-cared for human wouldn't have gone from 79, to 87 as you aged. And that the life-stage that you find yourself at at 30, has increased likewise to somewhere between 35 and 40. Hell, there are a number of folks that believe that, for those who move out into space, a productive life-span of 200 years will not be uncommon. Gravity is the greatest ager of them all. If all that blue skying also meant that the entry level to Social Security was up to 75, so what?
wizardzz wrote:
People of my generation have no expectation of SS.
I think you are wrong, now - and I think that as you-all pay more and more in, the number who expect a return on their forced investment will increase.
wizardzz wrote:
The problem with a program like SS is that since it has always been paid forward
Not true. For all of its existence until last year, Social Security has brought more in than it has paid out, just like any insurance program. If the employment situation somehow turned around in 2011 and the tax breaks are rolled back as they are supposed to be, in 2012 SS would again take in more than it paid out again. The problem is that every president since Reagan has taken the money out of the fund, and put I.O.U's in. And, unfortunately, everything I have said about social security is untrue when it comes to medicare. It has never paid for itself. Rock-ribbed Republicans like to lump the two programs together because they seem them both as socialist (and with good reason), but LBJ created a giveaway from the get-go, FDR created an insurance program that made money for the government from the get-go. All SS has to do is change with the times and it can continue
-
I was going to say that I hope the company is no longer around, but that would just mean they all got golden parachutes.
"I have a theory that the truth is never told during the nine-to-five hours. " — Hunter S. Thompson
wizardzz wrote:
I was going to say that I hope the company is no longer around, but that would just mean they all got golden parachutes.
It's stock is up, and it is doing quite well.
The 3-legged stool of understanding is held up by history, languages, and mathematics. Equipped with these three you can learn anything you want to learn. But if you lack any one of them you are just another ignorant peasant with dung on your boots. R. A. H.
-
People need to pray to God more.