Warfare Kings Working to Keep Fear Alive

apple0154 said:
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.

.
Click to expand...

That sums it up in a nutshell.

Check a pie chart of gov't spending. SS is going to keep growing in that pie, as life expectancies continue to increase throughout the century. Eventually, it will crowd out many programs that most of us would see as unthinkable to cut today. Theoretically, it will never stop expanding within the pie.

It's a monster, really. Or maybe that's too fear-mongering. But it's insane to think it's sustainable as a gov't program. It was flawed from the start.
 
apple0154 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes, let's look at the folks who invested in Enron or Lehman. There is a reason that with personal accounts you CANNOT investment in individual stocks. Not sure why you refuse to accept that and continue to use it as an argument against personal accounts.
 
Onceler said:
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.
Click to expand...

Who specifically are you talking about? This is awfully close to a dumbass "some people . . ." argument.

Onceler said:
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.
Click to expand...

Really stepping up the rhetoric and level of argument here. Nice.
 
Onceler said:
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.
Click to expand...

It's an accurate characterization and we're right to be wary, and afraid.

You said it wasn't going into wallstreet. Now it is, but wallstreet is being mischaracterized? You people are confusing with your layers of conflicting denial.
 
Darla said:
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.
Click to expand...


I don't know how many times I have to explain to the rubes that Social Security is an insurance program, not an investment program and that talking about "returns" on insurance is fucking stupid. Save your breath.
 
Darla said:
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.
Click to expand...

I understand that it's not SUPPOSED to be an investment program.

But what if it makes more sense if it IS an investment program? We're living in a time that requires some pretty radical thinking. "Unsustainable" is a very popular buzzword, but if it applies, it applies. America can't continue as we are; if we're going to learn any lessons from history, we have to adapt, and change some things. For example, the original intent of SS.

And why can't it be a security AND investment program? What if an investment model not only makes fiscal sense for the country, but actually leaves retirees much better off than they would have been w/ SS as a gov't program?

Even if they could tweak SS enough to survive for another generation, the checks to seniors are just going to be less & less & less in terms of real dollars.
 
Onceler said:
I understand that it's not SUPPOSED to be an investment program.

But what if it makes more sense if it IS an investment program? We're living in a time that requires some pretty radical thinking. "Unsustainable" is a very popular buzzword, but if it applies, it applies. America can't continue as we are; if we're going to learn any lessons from history, we have to adapt, and change some things. For example, the original intent of SS.

And why can't it be a security AND investment program? What if an investment model not only makes fiscal sense for the country, but actually leaves retirees much better off than they would have been w/ SS as a gov't program?

Even if they could tweak SS enough to survive for another generation, the checks to seniors are just going to be less & less & less in terms of real dollars.
Click to expand...

No. ss is like the permanent bailout fund for individuals, just like the one banks secured from themselves with FINREG.
 
NigelTufnel said:
I don't know how many times I have to explain to the rubes that Social Security is an insurance program, not an investment program and that talking about "returns" on insurance is fucking stupid. Save your breath.
Click to expand...

Seriously?

That's like being told to wait by a river, and someone drowning yelling for your help, and you saying "but I was told to wait by the river."
 
Onceler said:
I understand that it's not SUPPOSED to be an investment program.

But what if it makes more sense if it IS an investment program? We're living in a time that requires some pretty radical thinking. "Unsustainable" is a very popular buzzword, but if it applies, it applies. America can't continue as we are; if we're going to learn any lessons from history, we have to adapt, and change some things. For example, the original intent of SS.

And why can't it be a security AND investment program? What if an investment model not only makes fiscal sense for the country, but actually leaves retirees much better off than they would have been w/ SS as a gov't program?

Even if they could tweak SS enough to survive for another generation, the checks to seniors are just going to be less & less & less in terms of real dollars.
Click to expand...

I guess we just have a very different way of viewing this Onceler. there's no point in arguing over it. I dislike arguing with other liberals unless it's about women's issues. I love doing that. :)
 
Just to get back to RS's original post for a moment, because the crazy military budget and these endless wars are things that are on top of my list of issues dear to me. Really one of the best anti-war songs ever. I love the lyrics to it so much. From tie a yellow ribbon around the amputee to the pentagon knows how to turn us on, it's so America.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbMyELNEDLs"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbMyELNEDLs[/ame]
 
NigelTufnel said:
Your metaphor isn't terribly illuminating. Try again.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I was shaky on that metaphor. It was all I had on the fly.

The only point was, it's not enough to say "it's not supposed to be an investment program." This is a program that was devised in a much different era, under much different circumstances, and when the federal gov't was a much different thing in America.

I want to hear why it doesn't make logical sense for it to be an investment program, as long as it stays true to its main intent (protecting seniors from poverty).
 
Darla said:
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.
Click to expand...

Excellent articles! :hand:
 
Darla said:
I guess we just have a very different way of viewing this Onceler. there's no point in arguing over it. I dislike arguing with other liberals unless it's about women's issues. I love doing that. :)
Click to expand...

That's cool. I'm against abortion now, too, and think women shouldn't be in the workforce (well, except as nurses & secretaries).
 
NigelTufnel said:
And don't bother pointing out that SS is projected to be able to pay scheduled benefits in full until 2037 and 78% of scheduled benefits thereafter. Complete waste of time.
Click to expand...

I don't think that's a terribly good statistic to use in an argument against privatization.

Try telling any senior today that their benefit is going to be cut to 78%.

So, what you're essentially saying is, we're good for another generation, and then the next one after that is going to have to think of something....
 
Onceler said:
Yeah, I was shaky on that metaphor. It was all I had on the fly.

The only point was, it's not enough to say "it's not supposed to be an investment program." This is a program that was devised in a much different era, under much different circumstances, and when the federal gov't was a much different thing in America.

I want to hear why it doesn't make logical sense for it to be an investment program, as long as it stays true to its main intent (protecting seniors from poverty).
Click to expand...


I've explained this at length before. It's all about who assumes the risk. Privatization shifts the risk from the government to individuals, which was the problem SS was designed to protect against in the first instance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top