Warfare Kings Working to Keep Fear Alive

[Billy the Great Khan]

The current system would be fine if congress would either raise the payroll tax or slash benefits. I'm for slashing benefits because the boomers deserve to suffer for all they've done.

Don't worry, OUR generation is more than up to the task of fixing everything they've fucked up.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Also, the date people start receiving SS benefits needs to be set some amount of years away from the end of the current average lifespan, rather than being set at 65.

 

[Crashk]

Summing up, you think military spending needs to be cut, but just not right now. OK, when do you want to do it?

I would also note that the Defense Secretary disagrees with your assessment and has recommended Pentagon budget cuts right now. I don't think he goes far enough, but Congress won't even pass the modest cuts Gates is proposing.

The only legitimate reason for not cutting defense spending right now is the economy. And that's not a very good reason. The money otherwise wasted on the bloated Pentagon budget could be allocated to useful things.




Safe from whom? The Chinese? The Canadians? And why is spending as a percentage of GDP the relevant metric?

safe from ze germans...

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Where does your idea come from that people having personal accounts would just give their money to Wall St?

You'd be delusional to think that they wouldn't!

 

[cawacko]

You'd be delusional to think that they wouldn't!

How? That's not been an option. Where have you read that individuals would have the option to just give their money to a Wall St. firm and invest anyway they like? I have not seen that reported anywhere so I would argue the delusion is all yours unless you can show otherwise.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

You don't have a 401K then?

It's not so much a matter of "trusting" them. The market, historically, has a fairly unblemished record of very high, proven returns over the long haul. Unless the business community crumbles, which will have more serious ramifications than anything we're discussing here, it will continue to do so.

I might just as easily call you an idiot for trusting the gov't with our SS money. What about the system now are you so enamored of? Again - show me how it is sustainable with exponential population growth; with long lifespans, and higher costs of living. Show me the long-term prognosis.

I sure do. I also own stocks but I am also aware of the risks. With out the proper attention and regulations I could lose it all. Hell even with them I could lose it all. To the point. The fiasco on Wall Street cost me substantial amounts of money in both my 401K and my stock portfolio. Why should I trust them with my SS money? I'm depending on that money as a base that will be there no matter what, I am very risk averse towards my SS money and I don't want other people gambling it away. You want to gamble yours, fine but leave me out.

 

[apple0154]

Ouch! Not unexpected though. My privatization stance has always been a fun conversation w/ people I generally agree with on the issues.

Honestly, I don't know why privatization is seen as a "rightie" issue. SS is a budget killer, just like the military, and is wholly unsustainable in its current form. With each passing year, it reduces other discretionary spending - including spending for programs & groups that I'm sure both you and I hold dear - exponentially.

I don't see the downside to privatizing. The economy grows, workers end up with much more when the retire, we reduce the deficit. Win, win, win.

Retirement funding, which is basically what SS is, was private until the 1930s. For thousands of years retirement funding was a private matter and it was so disastrous that the government had to step in. Once people are allowed to fund their retirement as they see fit the flood gates open.

For example, if a man loans his son the money for university rather than invest it and makes a deal his son will pay a percentage of his income once he graduates the guy will make a lot more money off his investment and his son will also make a lot more money than if he didn't attend university. Both father and son will benefit as well as society, in general.

If a person buys a house rather than lives in an apartment while investing in stocks he'll have a lot more money when he retires.

Some folks feel the government should choose what stocks qualify for retirement investment. If we think there are lobbyists now imagine the lobbyists on behalf of companies trying to get on that list.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Point of order: Our spending on military bases and what not in other countries (such as Europe [yes, I know it's a continent, not a country]), isn't really to 'defend' them, as much as it is a tool for us to project a massive military force anywhere in the world, as well as prime locations for logistics bases. For example, up until 2008, the nearest level 3 hospital (one that treats extreme wounds and such) was in Rammstein Germany. After that it was in the United States (in 2008 one was completed in Iraq). This base allowed to save hundreds of soldiers, Marines, etc. If they died, it would more than likely cost more than the cost of maintaining those bases.

Now I'm not saying we need to be able to project our power globally anymore, but as long as that is our national policy, those bases serve us more than they do the country their built in.

I wouldn't argue that for a minute. What I would ask is that strategically sound and can we afford it?

 

[cawacko]

I sure do. I also own stocks but I am also aware of the risks. With out the proper attention and regulations I could lose it all. Hell even with them I could lose it all. To the point. The fiasco on Wall Street cost me substantial amounts of money in both my 401K and my stock portfolio. Why should I trust them with my SS money? I'm depending on that money as a base that will be there no matter what, I am very risk averse towards my SS money and I don't want other people gambling it away. You want to gamble yours, fine but leave me out.

First off the whole personal account deal of 2006 was an option for people to choose. No one was forced to choose a personal account. If you don't like it that's fine but why do you feel you must force others to choose as you do? And once again you have not given any evidence that individuals would have the option to just blindly give their money to people on Wall St.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

AGAIN.... NO ONE is proposing that we let wall street firms do whatever they want with SS accounts if they are privatized. NO ONE.

IT IS A FEAR MONGERING TACTIC FROM THE LEFT AND NOTHING MORE.

Really? Isn't it fear mongering from the right when they claim that SS is not sustainable when such is clearly not the case?

 

[apple0154]

PRIVATIZATION DOES NOT EQUAL INVESTING ALL YOUR MONEY IN THE STOCK MARKET.

How many fucking times are you idiots on the left going to use that fear mongering bullshit.

Privatization means the INDIVIDUAL controls their accounts... NOT THE GOVERNMENT. It means that if that individual DIES, the money goes to their heirs... NOT to Uncle Sam.

If not the stock market then what accounts, exactly? Who decides where an individual can invest their money?

 

[Mott the Hoople]

First off the whole personal account deal of 2006 was an option for people to choose. No one was forced to choose a personal account. If you don't like it that's fine but why do you feel you must force others to choose as you do? And once again you have not given any evidence that individuals would have the option to just blindly give their money to people on Wall St.

and who will have to support you if your wrong and go broke? You're gambling money with people who should not be trusted with this resource and if you don't think Wall Street wouldn't have a big hand in managing these accounts you're a fool. Who do you think is the driving force behind the fear mongers who claim SS is not sustainable.

 

[Onceler]

I sure do. I also own stocks but I am also aware of the risks. With out the proper attention and regulations I could lose it all. Hell even with them I could lose it all. To the point. The fiasco on Wall Street cost me substantial amounts of money in both my 401K and my stock portfolio. Why should I trust them with my SS money? I'm depending on that money as a base that will be there no matter what, I am very risk averse towards my SS money and I don't want other people gambling it away. You want to gamble yours, fine but leave me out.

You ignored the 2nd part of my post: why you trust the gov't w/ your SS money, and how you think it's sustainable in it's current form, as population increases, life expectancies soar & cost of living continues to grow.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

Notice cawacko starting adding qualifiers like 'give' and 'blindly' to back off his bizarre ideas that somehow ss privatization wouldn't involve wallstreet.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

You ignored the 2nd part of my post: why you trust the gov't w/ your SS money, and how you think it's sustainable in it's current form, as population increases, life expectancies soar & cost of living continues to grow.

So you're saying it would go to wallstreet.

 

[Onceler]

Frankly, the characterizations of Wall Street here are both bizarre, and somewhat naive. We're not talking about signing our life savings over to a junior cold caller on the trading floor.

Investing in the stock market is investing in business. If you don't believe business is going to succeed in the long run, I can see why you might be against it.

 

[cawacko]

and who will have to support you if your wrong and go broke? You're gambling money with people who should not be trusted with this resource and if you don't think Wall Street wouldn't have a big hand in managing these accounts you're a fool. Who do you think is the driving force behind the fear mongers who claim SS is not sustainable.

Considering we have trillions and trillions of dollars in unfunded liabilities and the number of workers per retiree shrinking how sustainable do you think S.S. is? Pointing out these facts is fear mongering to you?

Um first of all the 2006 proposal was going to allow individuals up to 4% of their S.S. money into a personal account. Taking a worse case senario an individual isn't going broke losing that. And gambling is putting your money on an individual stock. Personal accounts wouldn't allow that. And look at the stock market returns over the long haul. They are higher than treasuries.

 

[Onceler]

To me, the fear-mongering is pointing to something like the '08 crash and telling people they will lose everything, when the market will be back to its highs within 4-5 years of that, and most people will invest for over 40 years.

Mathematically, privatizing is a no brainer. I wish more people could see it with clarity.

 

[apple0154]

You don't have a 401K then?

It's not so much a matter of "trusting" them. The market, historically, has a fairly unblemished record of very high, proven returns over the long haul. Unless the business community crumbles, which will have more serious ramifications than anything we're discussing here, it will continue to do so.

I might just as easily call you an idiot for trusting the gov't with our SS money. What about the system now are you so enamored of? Again - show me how it is sustainable with exponential population growth; with long lifespans, and higher costs of living. Show me the long-term prognosis.

The difference is the government can always get the money for the retirement folks, one way or another. Raise taxes or cut other programs, for example.

Look at the folks who invested in Enron or Lehman. Whether individual companies or a varied portfolio there is no guarantee.

The bottom line is retirees require money to live on and the government is able to get the money. Being the richest country in the world the government can not go bankrupt. If necessary they can seize farms to grow food. They can get the military to build houses, if shelter is lacking. The government can do whatever is necessary.

 

[Cancel7]

SS is a security program, not an investment program. It has kept millions out of poverty since its inception. And I don't get this idea that something is being taken from you - there is no law stating you can't have a 401k and other investment plans. But SS is not just the security of individuals - insuring them from the most extreme measures of poverty in old age - but also for we as a society as a whole. It is a part of what holds our society together and keeps it just.

As for the scare mongering that has taken root, here are two pieces, one by Krugman and one by Ezra Klein. Anyone claiming Klein is anything other than a moderate is coming from the far right. He's a moderate. Period. Inarguable.

I think between the two they have debunked all of these SS Zombie lies.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/04/AR2010090400096.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/16/opinion/16krugman.html

I will never be for anything other than stregthening SS, and I don't mean it in some Blue Dog Orwellian way.