How is austerity doing in Europe

[RKMBrown]

It's social insurance which has benefited Americans immensely.

Not in my opinion. But I can see how a Marxist would believe that. Why stop at retirement why not just pay everyone from cradle to grave through the same redistribution system? Why should anyone have to work at all? Why should anyone have to save at all?

I’m not a Marxist. I’ve also never advocated that the government control the means of production.

This whole SS debate is based on how this liability of the federal government is an asset to the public. The corresponding assets are never mentioned during this ridiculous debate. The total SS wealth of the US population is real as the financial liabilities which support it.

SS isn’t a Ponzi scheme. We’re talking social insurance for the elderly, disabled and their families. Before it was implemented, fifty percent or so of the elderly would live in abject poverty. I’m sorry, this isn’t the type of country we should regress to as a modern society.

All we need is a funding guarantee from Congress.

>>> I’m not a Marxist.
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs".

Aka. "redistributing" wealth. If your insurance program were an optional program, I'd be ok with it. But the act of FORCING me to participate turns it into a redistribution program. I will have been forced against my will to pay ten times what I'll get back out of it.

 

[RKMBrown]

corrections

Social isn't an investment or savings plan. It's social insurance which has benefited Americans immensely.

Here's how we should change it: eliminate FICA and get rid of the trust fund. The trust fund is a magnet for nutty ideologues who obsess whether it's in surplus of deficit. We fund it out of the general revenue. We pass legislation and the problem is solved. I'd also like to see payments increased by at least 30%-40% and/or guarantee yearly COLA increases.

CBO already says that SS will pay out 75% of what is promised in 30 years so jacking up payments isn't a good idea, particularly with expected soaring Medicare spending.

SS has been sold as a retirement scheme, not a wealth transfer mechanism. It is effectively run like a giant commingled bond pool backing the liabilities of the Treasury.

It should be structured as a real pension fund. It should be run like a real pension plan like in Canada and Norway, and people should have the option to opt out.

Toro,

If we’re to understand what’s not Kosher at the macro level, we first have to understand that SS participation is functionally the equivalent of purchasing a government bond.

With our current SS program we, some of us, are forced to give Uncle Sam dollars now, and it gives us back some of the dollars later if we are lucky enough to live long enough. This exactly the opposite of what happens when we purchase a government bond (you know, just like a savings account). We give Uncle Sam our dollars now and we may get back some dollars and for some lucky few, they may get some accumulated interest.

This is what drives me up a fucking wall about SS privatization. SS privatization would reshuffle the ownership of bonds and stocks in the economy – shifting risky assets held by seniors and safer ones to wealthier people – without any associated economic effects so to speak.

 

[Kimura]

Not in my opinion. But I can see how a Marxist would believe that. Why stop at retirement why not just pay everyone from cradle to grave through the same redistribution system? Why should anyone have to work at all? Why should anyone have to save at all?

I’m not a Marxist. I’ve also never advocated that the government control the means of production.

This whole SS debate is based on how this liability of the federal government is an asset to the public. The corresponding assets are never mentioned during this ridiculous debate. The total SS wealth of the US population is real as the financial liabilities which support it.

SS isn’t a Ponzi scheme. We’re talking social insurance for the elderly, disabled and their families. Before it was implemented, fifty percent or so of the elderly would live in abject poverty. I’m sorry, this isn’t the type of country we should regress to as a modern society.

All we need is a funding guarantee from Congress.

>>> I’m not a Marxist.
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs".

Aka. "redistributing" wealth. If your insurance program were an optional program, I'd be ok with it. But the act of FORCING me to participate turns it into a redistribution program. I will have been forced against my will to pay ten times what I'll get back out of it.

It’s not a redistribution scheme. It boils down to public purpose. The majority of Americans will need SS, that’s the reality of the situation.

SS benefit payments are done through keystrokes. The whole point being able to move resources to grandpa, so we credit his bank account so he can purchase groceries rather than dumpster dive like good old days before SS.

Why do we have a payroll tax? It’s actually not to fund benefits, but rather to discourage workers from purchasing all the available output, which would compete with grandpa’s small SS checks he uses to buy the minimal amount of real goods and services. If we exhausted capacity, then we would have inflation.

The only thing that should concern us would be real resources. The idea is about having sufficient capacity to satisfy grandpa, grandma, average workers, disabled people, and their family members who receive Social Security. We don’t have a problem with real resources today, and we haven’t had a problem since the WWII era when half of production went to the war effort.

The US has operated way under capacity. In point of fact, our economy would perform much better if we paid all of our grandpas more SS benefits. This would increase aggregate demand, increase employment, and give businesses a chance to sell more stuff, so then can increase profits which translated into increased investment and capacity.

If people like Paul Ryan and nuts like Ron Paul get their way, each generation of workers will to increasing set aside more savings. This is so they can avoid eating dog food or reduced to dumpster diving or living with their children who probably rent that fact the mom and dad are living with them. Basically, consumption from wages will not be sufficient for firm to recover their costs. It creates a vicious cycle. Savings would be lower since enticement to innovate and invest would be much lower, etc. Attempting to save more doesn’t mean you’ll save more; we call this Paradox of Thrift. We’d have to have trade surpluses or budget deficits increase to make up for the gap of decreased investment. We then end up with much less savings with having to support seniors and others kicked out of the SS safety net.

Historically, we know that workers really never acquire enough savings. Take a look at the 193s before SS. It was fucking deplorable. Surveys tell us the elderly had no means of support and were relegated to fighting with stray animals for food and living in poor houses.

Thanks….but no thanks. This why Americans contribute to SS. Or we can go back to the glorious days of the 19th century and early 20th century.

Edit to add:

Personally, I’ve always been vehemently opposed to the payroll tax, since it's a shitty way to ensure that overall demand doesn’t outstrip our ability to produce. We’re better off with a progressive tax for everyone. Payroll taxes decrease the incentive to work so to speak. This is the exact opposite of what's needed if the problem is decreased production.

 

[RKMBrown]

I’m not a Marxist. I’ve also never advocated that the government control the means of production.

This whole SS debate is based on how this liability of the federal government is an asset to the public. The corresponding assets are never mentioned during this ridiculous debate. The total SS wealth of the US population is real as the financial liabilities which support it.

SS isn’t a Ponzi scheme. We’re talking social insurance for the elderly, disabled and their families. Before it was implemented, fifty percent or so of the elderly would live in abject poverty. I’m sorry, this isn’t the type of country we should regress to as a modern society.

All we need is a funding guarantee from Congress.

>>> I’m not a Marxist.
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs".

Aka. "redistributing" wealth. If your insurance program were an optional program, I'd be ok with it. But the act of FORCING me to participate turns it into a redistribution program. I will have been forced against my will to pay ten times what I'll get back out of it.

It’s not a redistribution scheme. It boils down to public purpose. The majority of Americans will need SS, that’s the reality of the situation.

SS benefit payments are done through keystrokes. The whole point being able to move resources to grandpa, so we credit his bank account so he can purchase groceries rather than dumpster dive like good old days before SS.

Why do we have a payroll tax? It’s actually not to fund benefits, but rather to discourage workers to purchasing all the available output, which is would compete with grandpa’s small SS checks he uses to buy the minimal amount of real goods and services. If we exhausted capacity, then we would have inflation.

The only thing that should concern us would be real resources. The idea is about having sufficient capacity to satisfy grandpa, grandma, average workers, disabled people, and their family members who receive Social Security. We don’t have a problem with real resources today, and we haven’t had a problem since the WWII era when half of production went to the war effort.

The US has operated way under capacity. In point of fact, our economy would perform much better if we paid all of our grandpas more SS benefits. This would increase aggregate demand, increase employment, and give businesses a chance to sell more stuff, so then can increase profits which translated into increased investment and capacity.

If people like Paul Ryan and nuts like Ron Paul get their way, each generation of workers will to increasing set aside more savings. This is so they can avoid eating dog food or reduced to dumpster diving or living with their children who probably rent that fact the mom and dad are living with them. Basically, consumption from wages will not be sufficient for firm to recover their costs. It creates a vicious cycle. Savings would be lower since enticement to innovate and invest would be much lower, etc. Attempting to save more doesn’t mean you’ll save more; we call this Paradox of Thrift. We’d have to have trade surpluses or budget deficits increase to make up for the gap of decreased investment. We then end up with much less savings with having to support seniors and others kicked out of the SS safety net.

Historically, we know that workers really never acquire enough savings. Take a look at the 193s before SS. It was fucking deplorable. Surveys tell us the elderly had no means of support and were relegated to fighting with stray animals for food and living in poor houses.

Thanks….but no thanks. This why Americans contribute to SS. Or we can go back to the glorious days of the 19th century and early 20th century.

Edit to add:

Personally, I’ve always been vehemently opposed to the payroll tax, since it's a shitty way to ensure that overall demand doesn’t outstrip our ability to produce. We’re better off with a progressive tax for everyone. Payroll taxes decrease the incentive to work so to speak. This is the exact opposite of what's needed if the problem is decreased production.

Heh... you realize of course that you are trying to convince me that redistributing my income by force is not redistributing my income. It does not matter that the purpose of the redistribution was intended to be good for society. It's still redistribution. When it started out it was for a very few people, and the cost was but a very very very small fraction of the current cost.

 

[Kimura]

>>> I’m not a Marxist.
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs".

Aka. "redistributing" wealth. If your insurance program were an optional program, I'd be ok with it. But the act of FORCING me to participate turns it into a redistribution program. I will have been forced against my will to pay ten times what I'll get back out of it.

It’s not a redistribution scheme. It boils down to public purpose. The majority of Americans will need SS, that’s the reality of the situation.

SS benefit payments are done through keystrokes. The whole point being able to move resources to grandpa, so we credit his bank account so he can purchase groceries rather than dumpster dive like good old days before SS.

Why do we have a payroll tax? It’s actually not to fund benefits, but rather to discourage workers to purchasing all the available output, which is would compete with grandpa’s small SS checks he uses to buy the minimal amount of real goods and services. If we exhausted capacity, then we would have inflation.

The only thing that should concern us would be real resources. The idea is about having sufficient capacity to satisfy grandpa, grandma, average workers, disabled people, and their family members who receive Social Security. We don’t have a problem with real resources today, and we haven’t had a problem since the WWII era when half of production went to the war effort.

The US has operated way under capacity. In point of fact, our economy would perform much better if we paid all of our grandpas more SS benefits. This would increase aggregate demand, increase employment, and give businesses a chance to sell more stuff, so then can increase profits which translated into increased investment and capacity.

If people like Paul Ryan and nuts like Ron Paul get their way, each generation of workers will to increasing set aside more savings. This is so they can avoid eating dog food or reduced to dumpster diving or living with their children who probably rent that fact the mom and dad are living with them. Basically, consumption from wages will not be sufficient for firm to recover their costs. It creates a vicious cycle. Savings would be lower since enticement to innovate and invest would be much lower, etc. Attempting to save more doesn’t mean you’ll save more; we call this Paradox of Thrift. We’d have to have trade surpluses or budget deficits increase to make up for the gap of decreased investment. We then end up with much less savings with having to support seniors and others kicked out of the SS safety net.

Historically, we know that workers really never acquire enough savings. Take a look at the 193s before SS. It was fucking deplorable. Surveys tell us the elderly had no means of support and were relegated to fighting with stray animals for food and living in poor houses.

Thanks….but no thanks. This why Americans contribute to SS. Or we can go back to the glorious days of the 19th century and early 20th century.

Edit to add:

Personally, I’ve always been vehemently opposed to the payroll tax, since it's a shitty way to ensure that overall demand doesn’t outstrip our ability to produce. We’re better off with a progressive tax for everyone. Payroll taxes decrease the incentive to work so to speak. This is the exact opposite of what's needed if the problem is decreased production.

Heh... you realize of course that you are trying to convince me that redistributing my income by force is not redistributing my income. It does not matter that the purpose of the redistribution was intended to be good for society. It's still redistribution. When it started out it was for a very few people, and the cost was but a very very very small fraction of the current cost.

It's not redistribution when you really look at it.

The point is that the SS solvency crisis is detached from reality. It boils down to Congress, what they can do vs what the original Congress did that wrote the SS Act. Specifically, that it would be paid for with revenues from FICA and placed in a trust fund rather than making payments from the general revenues. All Congress has to do is make a decision between today and 2037, to automatically fund SS benefits through general revenue, sort of the same way the government pays for SMI (Supplementary Medical Insurance). Problem solved.

At the end of the day, funding boils down to a political choice. All we have to do is look at the Annual Report of the Trustees. All the funding problems boil down to there being no provisions under current law which would enable payments once the funds are tapped out in the “Trust Fund”. It also states SMI is solvent because there are laws in place to guarantee funding.

It’s that ridiculous. SS is in trouble because the government has made a commitment to payments. On the other hand, SMI is flush with funds because government will always make payments.

The perceived SS problems aren’t based in reality.

Fantasy Problem: We can’t afford SS because the costs will someday surpass payroll tax receipts

Real Problem: We aren’t capable of producing the real goods and services required by the elderly to keep them clothed, fed, and with a roof over their heads.

The fantasy problem is about the amount of dollars. The US is the monopoly issuer of the currency. We’re off the gold standard and on a floating exchange rate. This means any and all availability of dollars is merely a political issue. Out tax revenue aren’t needed, borrowing isn’t needed. It all boils down to Congress and any constraints they wish to employ.

Would you support funding via the general revenue and the elimination of FICA? Just curious....

 

[RKMBrown]

Would you support funding via the general revenue and the elimination of FICA? Just curious....

No. I prefer the current system of funding SS through a flat income tax percentage and with the outlays measured, in part, by the amount you put in. I don't want to turn SS, even further, into a progressively taxed welfare program. If that was your question.

The inequity in the system is bad enough right now. What you propose would only increase the inequity by orders magnitude.

 

[RKMBrown]

The way to fix SS and improve our economy at the same time. Is to continue to increase the age of retirement. The SS system was originally created to be a supplement beyond typical life expectancy. Now it is an early retirement low bar.

 

[AmazonTania]

SS isn't a ponzi scheme. SS is a well-run program with exceeding low administrative costs that provides Americans with decent retirement income. Old age in this country used to mean relegating 50% or so of seniors to abject poverty.

You can't be this blind and naive. Each subsequent generation has had to pay double what the prior generation had to pay for SS. SS started out as and continues to be outright theft by current retirees of current income earners wages.

"A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to its investors from their own money or the money paid by subsequent investors, rather than from profit earned by the individual or organization running the operation."

Ayup that is SS in a nutshell. At best you could argue that it's not "fraudulent" because it's law. It's good to be the law, you can do anything you want, even run a ponzi that redistributes from peter to pay paul.

You do realize that by your definition all financial investments including bonds, CD's, and savings accounts are Ponzi schemes?

CD's, Savings Accounts and Bonds are merely tools. The plan itself, social security, is the ponzi scheme. There is really nothing wrong with investing in a bond, and being paid with the reoccurring interest income. However, if I'm investing in a bond and my returns are merely earnings received from the money from other investments, why isn't that a ponzi scheme? It's not like the Government has an other legitimate forms of income.

The US Bond Market is just one giant ponzi scheme.

 

[Kimura]

Would you support funding via the general revenue and the elimination of FICA? Just curious....

No. I prefer the current system of funding SS through a flat income tax percentage and with the outlays measured, in part, by the amount you put in. I don't want to turn SS, even further, into a progressively taxed welfare program. If that was your question.

The inequity in the system is bad enough right now. What you propose would only increase the inequity by orders magnitude.

Americans, whatever cards they’ve been dealt, make contributions to American society during their lifetime. We can’t measure contributions in a monetary sense all the time. Since they’re Americans, and have made contributions, they deserve a dignified retirement and old age by the country in the form of SS and Medicare.

The money required to fund these things doesn't come from taxes, but from government through constitutional authority. It’s not money taken from you or I or the guy down the block, nor is it redistributed, once you understand our monetary system. It’s not from a limited supply of gold in a vault or coming out of my pocket so to speak. This money obtains its value from real wealth produced by American society, which is the result of present and past production by everyone, and the sum total of the all capacity that we as Americans have produced and will create in the future.

We don't have to the right to share this wealth equally, and there’s no right for the disabled, sick, elderly or children to make younger people sacrifice opportunity or go without. Our society is wealthy enough that it can provide for the elderly a lifestyle that doesn’t consist of fear or need.

FDR completely understood this and it’s why he put it on his 2nd Bill of Rights. But FDR had enemies, such as the Hooverians. We call then neo-liberals or austerians nowadays. Whatever we call them, the message is the same: money is limited, that when we give it some, we must take it from others. It’s inherently preposterous.

Austerity is anti-American and not part of our outlook. We know money isn’t a limited resource and that our constitution allows us to create enough of it to create the economy we all want. Real resources are limited. We also know that real wealth – and the stock of real goods and services – is increasing all the time as a combination of capital, knowledge, and overall human effort which will change as society changes. Real wealth can be increased and mobilized through nominal wealth so to speak. This isn’t some zero sum game where you either have to win or lose.

At the end of the day, we don’t have to take anything away from the elderly, because of some phony fiscal crisis. We can easily keep SS and other entitlements; even increase their benefits at no cost to you or me. All we need to do is fix some laws to guarantee funding through the general funds, and eliminate any and all trust funds.

How old are you, btw? Just curious….

 

[Kimura]

You can't be this blind and naive. Each subsequent generation has had to pay double what the prior generation had to pay for SS. SS started out as and continues to be outright theft by current retirees of current income earners wages.

"A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to its investors from their own money or the money paid by subsequent investors, rather than from profit earned by the individual or organization running the operation."

Ayup that is SS in a nutshell. At best you could argue that it's not "fraudulent" because it's law. It's good to be the law, you can do anything you want, even run a ponzi that redistributes from peter to pay paul.

You do realize that by your definition all financial investments including bonds, CD's, and savings accounts are Ponzi schemes?

CD's, Savings Accounts and Bonds are merely tools. The plan itself, social security, is the ponzi scheme. There is really nothing wrong with investing in a bond, and being paid with the reoccurring interest income. However, if I'm investing in a bond and my returns are merely earnings received from the money from other investments, why isn't that a ponzi scheme? It's not like the Government has an other legitimate forms of income.

The US Bond Market is just one giant ponzi scheme.

Current SS participation is functionally the same as buying a government bond.

LOL @ the US bond market.

 

[Toro]

Social isn't an investment or savings plan. It's social insurance which has benefited Americans immensely.

Here's how we should change it: eliminate FICA and get rid of the trust fund. The trust fund is a magnet for nutty ideologues who obsess whether it's in surplus of deficit. We fund it out of the general revenue. We pass legislation and the problem is solved. I'd also like to see payments increased by at least 30%-40% and/or guarantee yearly COLA increases.

CBO already says that SS will pay out 75% of what is promised in 30 years so jacking up payments isn't a good idea, particularly with expected soaring Medicare spending.

SS has been sold as a retirement scheme, not a wealth transfer mechanism. It is effectively run like a giant commingled bond pool backing the liabilities of the Treasury.

It should be structured as a real pension fund. It should be run like a real pension plan like in Canada and Norway, and people should have the option to opt out.

Toro,

If we’re to understand what’s not Kosher at the macro level, we first have to understand that SS participation is functionally the equivalent of purchasing a government bond.

With our current SS program we give Uncle Sam dollars now, and it gives us back dollars later. This exactly what happens when we purchase a government bond (you know, just like a savings account). We give Uncle Sam our dollars now and we get back dollars and some accumulated interest.

This is what drives me up a fucking wall about SS privatization. SS privatization would reshuffle the ownership of bonds and stocks in the economy – shifting risky assets held by seniors and safer ones to wealthier people – without any associated economic effects so to speak.

You are correct that SS essentially works like a fund that is invested 100% in government bonds. That's why I think it should be broader. I don't know of a single pension fund or annuity pool that is invested in 100% government debt. (If there is, let me know. MM funds don't count.) Countries like Canada and Norway invest their pension systems across a variety of asset classes to achieve higher returns. The US should do the same.

 

[Rshermr]

It's social insurance which has benefited Americans immensely.

Not in my opinion. But I can see how a Marxist would believe that. Why stop at retirement why not just pay everyone from cradle to grave through the same redistribution system? Why should anyone have to work at all? Why should anyone have to save at all?

Do you always call people who do not agree with you marxists? Do you know how stupid that is? Do you recognize that sucking noise? That is what happens when you pull your head out of your ass. Marxists. What a dipshit you are.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

The way to fix SS and improve our economy at the same time. Is to continue to increase the age of retirement. The SS system was originally created to be a supplement beyond typical life expectancy. Now it is an early retirement low bar.

If the system was more efficient; people would be retiring at 55 or 60; not 68. You want that? Get the government out of the business of social security and let the private markets do what they do.

 

[Political Junky]

You can't be this blind and naive. Each subsequent generation has had to pay double what the prior generation had to pay for SS. SS started out as and continues to be outright theft by current retirees of current income earners wages.

"A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to its investors from their own money or the money paid by subsequent investors, rather than from profit earned by the individual or organization running the operation."

Ayup that is SS in a nutshell. At best you could argue that it's not "fraudulent" because it's law. It's good to be the law, you can do anything you want, even run a ponzi that redistributes from peter to pay paul.

You do realize that by your definition all financial investments including bonds, CD's, and savings accounts are Ponzi schemes?

CD's, Savings Accounts and Bonds are merely tools. The plan itself, social security, is the ponzi scheme. There is really nothing wrong with investing in a bond, and being paid with the reoccurring interest income. However, if I'm investing in a bond and my returns are merely earnings received from the money from other investments, why isn't that a ponzi scheme? It's not like the Government has an other legitimate forms of income.

The US Bond Market is just one giant ponzi scheme.

Yep, Wall Street is so anxious to get all that Soc. Sec. money.

 

[RKMBrown]

Would you support funding via the general revenue and the elimination of FICA? Just curious....

No. I prefer the current system of funding SS through a flat income tax percentage and with the outlays measured, in part, by the amount you put in. I don't want to turn SS, even further, into a progressively taxed welfare program. If that was your question.

The inequity in the system is bad enough right now. What you propose would only increase the inequity by orders magnitude.

Americans, whatever cards they’ve been dealt, make contributions to American society during their lifetime. We can’t measure contributions in a monetary sense all the time. Since they’re Americans, and have made contributions, they deserve a dignified retirement and old age by the country in the form of SS and Medicare.

The money required to fund these things doesn't come from taxes, but from government through constitutional authority. It’s not money taken from you or I or the guy down the block, nor is it redistributed, once you understand our monetary system. It’s not from a limited supply of gold in a vault or coming out of my pocket so to speak. This money obtains its value from real wealth produced by American society, which is the result of present and past production by everyone, and the sum total of the all capacity that we as Americans have produced and will create in the future.

We don't have to the right to share this wealth equally, and there’s no right for the disabled, sick, elderly or children to make younger people sacrifice opportunity or go without. Our society is wealthy enough that it can provide for the elderly a lifestyle that doesn’t consist of fear or need.

FDR completely understood this and it’s why he put it on his 2nd Bill of Rights. But FDR had enemies, such as the Hooverians. We call then neo-liberals or austerians nowadays. Whatever we call them, the message is the same: money is limited, that when we give it some, we must take it from others. It’s inherently preposterous.

Austerity is anti-American and not part of our outlook. We know money isn’t a limited resource and that our constitution allows us to create enough of it to create the economy we all want. Real resources are limited. We also know that real wealth – and the stock of real goods and services – is increasing all the time as a combination of capital, knowledge, and overall human effort which will change as society changes. Real wealth can be increased and mobilized through nominal wealth so to speak. This isn’t some zero sum game where you either have to win or lose.

At the end of the day, we don’t have to take anything away from the elderly, because of some phony fiscal crisis. We can easily keep SS and other entitlements; even increase their benefits at no cost to you or me. All we need to do is fix some laws to guarantee funding through the general funds, and eliminate any and all trust funds.

How old are you, btw? Just curious….

Just turned 50. I got the letter for the SS Administration congratulating me on being fully funded for the max payout for SS checks when I was 32. Whether you know it or not, admit it or not, your views that we should redistribute based on need and ability are Marxian.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

SS isn't a ponzi scheme. SS is a well-run program with exceeding low administrative costs that provides Americans with decent retirement income. Old age in this country used to mean relegating 50% or so of seniors to abject poverty.

You can't be this blind and naive. Each subsequent generation has had to pay double what the prior generation had to pay for SS.

"A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to its investors from their own money or the money paid by subsequent investors, rather than from profit earned by the individual or organization running the operation."

Ayup that is SS in a nutshell. At best you could argue that it's not "fraudulent" because it's law. It's good to be the law, you can do anything you want, even run a ponzi.

Social isn't an investment or savings plan. It's social insurance which has benefited Americans immensely.

Here's how we should change it: eliminate FICA and get rid of the trust fund. The trust fund is a magnet for nutty ideologues who obsess whether it's in surplus of deficit. We fund it out of the general revenue. We pass legislation and the problem is solved. I'd also like to see payments increased by at least 30%-40% and/or guarantee yearly COLA increases.

It's not a "social insurance" program in the way you put it. Individuals have to make money at various levels to get various reimbursements. It is much more an individual retirement account than a societal safety net. But, the government is not strictly accountable in the ways they administer those funds on our behalfs. Idiots like you support it b/c....Well frankly I don't give a fuck what your reasons are. I just know you're an idiot.

 

[RKMBrown]

It's social insurance which has benefited Americans immensely.

Not in my opinion. But I can see how a Marxist would believe that. Why stop at retirement why not just pay everyone from cradle to grave through the same redistribution system? Why should anyone have to work at all? Why should anyone have to save at all?

Do you always call people who do not agree with you marxists? Do you know how stupid that is? Do you recognize that sucking noise? That is what happens when you pull your head out of your ass. Marxists. What a dipshit you are.

Nope. Just the ones that advocate progressive taxation to fund monetary distributions based on need. It's pure marx. No denying it. You can dance all you like, but you can't get away from the facts. Distributing wealth from those that have the means to those that have the need, is marx.

 

[Rshermr]

No. I prefer the current system of funding SS through a flat income tax percentage and with the outlays measured, in part, by the amount you put in. I don't want to turn SS, even further, into a progressively taxed welfare program. If that was your question.

The inequity in the system is bad enough right now. What you propose would only increase the inequity by orders magnitude.

Americans, whatever cards they’ve been dealt, make contributions to American society during their lifetime. We can’t measure contributions in a monetary sense all the time. Since they’re Americans, and have made contributions, they deserve a dignified retirement and old age by the country in the form of SS and Medicare.

The money required to fund these things doesn't come from taxes, but from government through constitutional authority. It’s not money taken from you or I or the guy down the block, nor is it redistributed, once you understand our monetary system. It’s not from a limited supply of gold in a vault or coming out of my pocket so to speak. This money obtains its value from real wealth produced by American society, which is the result of present and past production by everyone, and the sum total of the all capacity that we as Americans have produced and will create in the future.

We don't have to the right to share this wealth equally, and there’s no right for the disabled, sick, elderly or children to make younger people sacrifice opportunity or go without. Our society is wealthy enough that it can provide for the elderly a lifestyle that doesn’t consist of fear or need.

FDR completely understood this and it’s why he put it on his 2nd Bill of Rights. But FDR had enemies, such as the Hooverians. We call then neo-liberals or austerians nowadays. Whatever we call them, the message is the same: money is limited, that when we give it some, we must take it from others. It’s inherently preposterous.

Austerity is anti-American and not part of our outlook. We know money isn’t a limited resource and that our constitution allows us to create enough of it to create the economy we all want. Real resources are limited. We also know that real wealth – and the stock of real goods and services – is increasing all the time as a combination of capital, knowledge, and overall human effort which will change as society changes. Real wealth can be increased and mobilized through nominal wealth so to speak. This isn’t some zero sum game where you either have to win or lose.

At the end of the day, we don’t have to take anything away from the elderly, because of some phony fiscal crisis. We can easily keep SS and other entitlements; even increase their benefits at no cost to you or me. All we need to do is fix some laws to guarantee funding through the general funds, and eliminate any and all trust funds.

How old are you, btw? Just curious….

Just turned 50. I got the letter for the SS Administration congratulating me on being fully funded for the max payout for SS checks when I was 32. Whether you know it or not, admit it or not, your views that we should redistribute based on need and ability are Marxian.

Uh, let me unerstand you. You suggest that I pay in to ss all my life. Then I take out ss when I retire. And so I am a Marxist? Or am I a marxist because I approve of ss.

And since you are against redistribution of wealth, then I guess you are against the wealthy who have been becoming more and more wealthy while the middle class has no new gains. Or are you ok with the rich getting larger and larger portions of income and wealth causing redistribution of both to the wealthy? Because if you are, by your definition, you are a marxist.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

^^^
If you want the govt. to take other people's monies and redistribute it to lower income classes; you're a Marxian. It's not difficult dude.

 

[Rshermr]

Not in my opinion. But I can see how a Marxist would believe that. Why stop at retirement why not just pay everyone from cradle to grave through the same redistribution system? Why should anyone have to work at all? Why should anyone have to save at all?

Do you always call people who do not agree with you marxists? Do you know how stupid that is? Do you recognize that sucking noise? That is what happens when you pull your head out of your ass. Marxists. What a dipshit you are.

Nope. Just the ones that advocate progressive taxation to fund monetary distributions based on need. It's pure marx. No denying it. You can dance all you like, but you can't get away from the facts. Distributing wealth from those that have the means to those that have the need, is marx.

Good. So now it is clear. You do hate the wealthy, and the politicians they own, and the con tools. Uh, carefull there, me boy. You will be hating yourself. And you are, again, all marxist because you
ARE for redistribution of wealth. Yup, and you can not dance around it. You are a marxist. Damned commie.