Quote:
Originally Posted by Ariadne22
Where is the repeal of the Bush tax cuts which would go a long way to solving the deficit instead of raiding SS revenues?
|
There were no Social Security revenues to raid, and the tax cuts would not have solved the deficit. In fact, without the tax cuts, you would have entered recession sooner, it would have been more severe, and lasted longer. But don't worry, you'll get a chance to experience that soon enough.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ariadne22
Where is the public option in health care?
|
I think you have enough problems to solve, before adding something else that you have absolutely no hope of paying for. Your health care system is broken, and over-laying a "public option" on a system that is broken is an incredibly stupid idea.
If you are serious, and you would like to see health care costs reduced 350% to 700% practically over-night then put your money where your mouth is and resolve the real problems in health care.
For starters, outlaw the Hospital Robber Barron Monopolistic OPEC/Medellin Drug-style Cartels that exist in the US.
You will know when you are successful in your endeavor, because you will be able to use any doctor, any hospital, any medical or diagnostic facility any where in the US without paying the costly outrageous, um, "out-of-Network" fees.
When you have enough common sense to do that, and end the monopolistic practices that allow Hospital Robber Baron Cartels to illegally collude to illegal fix prices and fees for medical services, you can move on to Step #2.
Implement the Sports Franchise Rule aka the old Radio Market Rule. That means no entity can own more than one hospital in any given Metropolitan Statistical Area.
Right now, I have a choice of going to Saint Luke East owned by the Sisters of Mercy, or Saint Luke West owned by the Sisters of Mercy, or Bethesda North owned by the Sisters of Mercy, or Mercy Hospital West owned by the Sisters of Mercy or Mercy Hospital East owned by the Sisters of Mercy, or Clermont Mercy owned by the Sisters of Mercy.
That's like having a choice of McDonald's, McDonald's, McDonald's, McDonald's or McDonald's.
What kind of choice is that? How is that "Free Market Competition?"
Oh, sorry, I forgot. I can go to Jewish Hospital, which is not owned by the Sisters of Mercy, but is in the same Hospital Robber Baron Monopolistic OPEC Medellin Drug Cartel that all of the Sisters of Mercy hospitals are.
So great. Now I have a choice of McDonald's, McDonald's, McDonald's, McDonald's, McDonald's or Chipotle (owned by McDonald's).
Well, cocka-doodle-doo.
Maybe I should go "out-of-Network." Super. Now my choices are Good Samaritan owned by the Sisters of Charity, Saint George owned by the Sisters of Charity, Saint Francis owned by the Sisters of Charity or Provident Hospital owned by the Sisters of Charity.
Sure, I can go to University Hospital in the same Hospital Robber Baron Monopolistic OPEC Medellin Drug Cartel.
That would be like having a choice of KFC, KFC, KFC, KFC or Pizza Hut.
Anyone figure out that you don't have free market health care yet?
Anyway, if you had the Sports Franchise Rule, they could only own one hospital in each market, and that means they'd have to close or sell many hospitals.
Revoking Section 6001 of the Affordable Health Care Act which was written by one of Obama's major campaign donors, the American Hospital Association would help a lot too, because then you can get rid of the Hospital Model and switch to the Clinic Model and guess what?
Your health care system will now be
like Europe.
Hooray!
Isn't that what you all want? You all keep saying you want a single payer plan
like Europe. Well, if you want a single payer plan
like Europe, then you will have to change your entire health care system to be
like Europe, because that is how Europeans can (barely) afford it). So you have to repeal Section 6001, so that your health care system will be
like Europe.
Those are just some of the things that you can do that don't cost any taxes at all but will lower the cost of health care 350% to 700% almost overnight so that it is affordable to all.
Repealing...
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359
Paul believes these programs are "unconstitutional" despite a US Supreme Court decision that says otherwise. He is entitled to his opinion. I am entitled to call him a "crackpot".
|
They are unconstitutional. The Supreme Court also said slavery was legal, so what the US Supreme Court says is often meaningless.
If you lived in a unitary state, like France or Romania, then they would be constitutional, assuming your constitution established a unitary state, and not a federal state.
Except you don't live in a unitary state, you live in a federation, because your constitution says so.
In a federation, anything "national" is contrary and counter-productive. That's why Social Security fails, Medicare fails, federal minimum wage fails, Food Stamps fail, etc, etc etc.
Why, because you live in a federation.
The US is not one economy with a uniform cost-of-living in a homogenous society. You have 50 States, each a sovereign country under its own right, with 50 different economies and none of the 50 State economies are inherently dependent, co-dependent, or interdependent on the economies of other States. Worse than that, some States even have multiple economies which are not related, like Florida. If the tourist industry in south Florida goes belly up, it has no bearing on the economy in the Panhandle in north Florida. But for a State like Nebraska with a single economy, serious crop failures can ruin the whole State.
The Food Stamp program is a fail.
The "national" government says the maximum benefit is $500. Two families, one in Cincinnati, Ohio and one in New York City, are they going to eat the same? No, the family in Cincinnati will be able to stretch their Food Stamp dollars much farther and eat much better,
because of the lower cost-of-living. Liberals think it's cool that the family in New York City starves.
The whole issue of life-style revolves around disposable income. The more disposable income you have, the more things you can do with your money. That's why the federal minimum wage is a fail.
There are people in the US who are being unjustly enriched by the federal minimum wage, earning far more than the local labor market bears, and because of that, they live a Middle Class life-style, even though their wages are not "Middle Class." Yet in other places in the US, the federal minimum wage won't even cover one month's rent and utilities for a 350 sq ft efficiency apartment.
Here's a brilliant idea, let's raise the federal minimum wage, so that others can be unjustly enriched even more at the expense of others.
Medicare and Social Security fail for the same reason. Both programs falsely assume that the cost-of-living is uniform throughout the whole of the US; that the cost of a doctor's office visit is the same in every city in the US; that the cost of rent, or utilities, or even something like annual automobile registration is the same in every single city. It is not.
The sooner you people learn that, the better off you'll be. The States can set up and run their own Social Security, Medicare, Food Stamp, minimum, subsidized housing, or whatever programs and run them more efficiently and effectively than the federal government ever could, and more people would benefit greater.
If you do doubt that States can manage a Social Security-like retirement program, then I suggest you educate yourself and study history, because FDR set up and ran such a program when he was governor of New York State.
You all should have learned that in senior government class in high school, or in 1st year Economics or Political Science at university.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359
"Transitioning out" is a euphemism for ending the program.
|
What programs? Those programs are done; put a fork in them already.
You, as a citizen of the US, need to do you duty and ensure that those people born between 1978-1980 and thereafter have something in the form of Social Security.
The best thing that could ever happen is getting the government out of the Social Security business and limiting its role to merely determining what percentage of an employee's wages should be set aside for savings.
That money is the deposited by the employer into an escrow account at a financial institution of the employee's choosing. And it has full legal protections, meaning no government agencies can seize it for payment of taxes; it cannot be used for alimony or child support; no creditor can seize it through judgment, etc.
It also means no bank or lending institution can consider the escrow account as an asset when lending money for mortgages, automobiles, personal loans, business loans or credit cards.
After all, that money represents a future unfunded liability in the form of future payments (to the employee and spouse for retirement).
People can buy Certificates of Deposit and roll them over and do just as good or better than Social Security, and those who know how to invest can invest that money and get an even better return.
And the best thing is you don't need a Social Security Administration for that so you can terminate those employees, but I'm sure the Big Government people will then create the Office of Ocean Creature Health & Wellness and the former Social Security employees can now watch shrimp and other sea creatures run on treadmills.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359
I suspect since I was born in 59' that he and his kind would have no trouble "transitioning me" out despite the fact that I've paid into this system starting with my first job at age 14. The plain fact of the matter is that in a country where private defined benefit retirement plans are vanishing, the notion of eliminating social security is bizarre and ridiculous. If Paul and his sort ever get their way, I predict it will lay the pathway for a huge amount of discord and even violence in the future.
|
No one laughs at
Doctor Ron Paul more than I do, but his program wouldn't affect you and is very close to the program I described.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359
Those opposing any healthcare reform convinced more than 50% of the citizenry that abandoning our present system was a commie-pinko plot for the federal government to run the everyday lives of ordinary citizens.
|
That's what it was. If you want me to support any kind of health care plan, then you must do the things that I previously mentioned, or you can forget about.
I keep asking people to show me the money. They talk and talk, but somehow just can't muster up the courage to post any numbers to support their claims.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359
Yes, this economy is still suffering, but I'm convinced its clawing its way back. We've got unemployment figures of 8.3% this month along with a whole bunch of other economic news showing increases everywhere except in the housing sector of the economy which is not his fault.
|
I got news for you, you're wrong. Obviously you have no knowledge of economics, but that isn't an excuse not to get informed.
Why didn't you mention that your labor participation rate has declined to 63.7%.
That is a decline of 3.6% from 67.3% just a few years ago. All told, more than 5.4 Million Americans have permanently lost their jobs forever.
When all is said and done, I'm projecting an LPR of 62.8%. Not that it matters. Unless you restore your labor participation rate ot at least 66.5% you cannot fund Social Security, or Medicare and you most certainly cannot fund any national health plan, and you risk all of your other programs.
You'll see that when your FICA tax holiday ends, and when the Bush Tax Cuts expire, we'll, that'll be the end of that. Your economy is so fragile that a $12-$15 spike in oil prices for 90 days would send you back into a recession.
Transitioning...
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jesse69
...the GE CEO who outsourced jobs instead.
|
Off-shored, not out-sourced. If you fire your payroll department and hire ADP to provide payroll services, then you have out-sourced. If you fire your janitorial/cleaning staff and hire Jani-King to clean your facility, then you have out-sourced.
Your views are common for many ignorant Americans who don't know their heads from a hole in the ground.
Like it or not, you live in a global world with a global economy. You cannot undo that. There is no going back. There are emerging markets all over the world. If you wish to compete in those markets, then you must off-shore jobs. Why? Because the people in those markets cannot afford to buy products made by American workers.
This is just simple math and plain ordinary common sense (and Americans are lacking in both).
Do you know the story of Chevrolet? It's very instructive and worth repeating here.
Durant is an engineer working for GM. GM fires Durant. Durant meets Chevrolet. Durant and Chevrolet partner up and start building and selling cars under the name brand Chevrolet.
Within a few years, Durant and Chevrolet have basically cornered the market in the US. Profits are rolling in and Durant is using those profits to buy GM stock.
Eventually, Durant owns 51% of all GM stock and what does that mean?
It means Durant now owns the company that fired him.
Because Durant is the majority shareholder, he votes himself as CEO of GM.
Get it?
I'm always continually amazed that Americans are so ignorant about how things work in their country.
Proctor & Gamble is a US corporation headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio. Your average Romanian makes $2.15/hour. How in the hell is a Romanian making $2.15/hour supposed to be able to afford to buy P&G products made in the US by Americans making $25/hour?
Well, the short story is they cannot.
P&G has two choices: P&G can off-shore jobs to Romania, and sell their products in the Balkan market; or P&G can do nothing and watch foreign competitors build plants in Romania and sell products in the Balkan market.
And those foreign competitors will get more profits than P&G, and they will buy up P&G stock and take over P&G and then P&G will no longer be a US corporation.
That's what you want. You want all US corporations to be bought up and owned by foreigners, who will then close most of the US facilities and fire the employees.
Fortunately, P&G did the exact opposite of what you want, and they built (3) plants in Romania and are not at risk of being bought out by foreign competitors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jesse69
If America got rid of Social Security then the economy will get weaker... More people will be inclined to save for their retirement and so they will not spend much which will drive down the economy.
|
Well, that's the down-side of a consumer drive consumption economy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jesse69
No, the high income earners don't subsidize the low income earner. My aunt didn't earn much so her Social Security is only $200 or so per month - they based it on her earnings.
|
Sorry to hear that, but it proves the system works, and that people are not being "subsidized."
Informing...
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by hartford_renter
Social security is very progressive, high income wage earners subsidize low income earners. One of the reasons SS is not sustainable is the benefit is too rich at lower income levels.
|
$80/month is "too rich?"
I'm absolutely certain you don't understand how the system works.
There is no minimum benefit amount. I know of someone who gets $80/month for their Social Security retirement. I believe their benefit might have been slightly higher had they retired at 65 years rather than 62 years.
While their is no minimum benefit amount, it is true that Social Security will not issue benefit checks for less than $1 and yes, Virginia, there are people who worked and got their 40 quarters, but didn't earn enough to receive a Social Security check at all.
So, in spite of what you might believe, there are people who do not get any Social Security benefits whatsoever, and those people are definitely not being subsidized by high income wage earners.
Also, I would remind you that Social Security is an insurance program, not a retirement plan or retirement benefit program. Like any insurance, it is a simply a hedge.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hartford_renter
Probable changes from democrats
Increase in the retirement age from 67 to 70
Lower the SS benefit for high income earners
Capping the benefit, increasing taxes on SS, means testing
|
None of those things will save Social Security, unless they are all done and in addition, the FICA payroll tax is raised.
If you eliminate the Social Security cap, then the only thing that will happen is you'll slam those who earn $250,000 or less, while those earning more will simply defer their salaries or receive non-taxable benefits (like preferred stocks) in lieu of salaries.
Based on 2009 IRS tax returns, there were 236,883 wage earners with an adjusted gross income totaling $727 Billion. Removing the cap would generate about $45 Billion in additional income.
Sound good?
By 2020, Social Security will be paying out $1+ TRILLION annually in benefits, but only collecting ~$750 Billion annually. You have a $250 Billion short-fall and $45 Billion leaves you grasping and dancing and spinning to come up with $205 Billion.
Of course, that assumes you actually collect $45 Billion. You can't collect if people defer their salaries for other compensation or benefits, which is what they'll do. Beyhind every clever tax attorney are several very clever tax paralegals and tax accountants.
Increasing the retirement age won't help either. What that will do is drive young people out of the US in search of job opportunities in other countries. That's starting to happen even now, although you're not quite at the snow-ball effect yet.
More to the point, it will just force people to apply for OADI, and then you are really screwed. If people retire at 62, they only get partial benefits. Force them to work until 70 and they'll just get disability at 62 or 63 or 65 and then they'll get 100% benefits instead of partial benefits. You end up on the short end of the stick on that one. In fact, disability claims have jumped dramatically over the last few years, spurred by the job situation.
Means-testing won't help much either. I'm not saying don't means test, I'm just saying that none of those "solutions" are solutions by themselves, and taken together, the best case scenario is you can pay for Social Security through about 2040 or so. After that, it's pretty much dead in the water.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hartford_renter
Basically people who saved money or made a lot of money will get hit the hardest.
|
Well, it is an insurance program. That's why it's called Old Age Survivor's
Insurance. That's why I have no problem means-testing, and I suspect that is something that should have been taking place all along, but it was just never fully implemented.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hartford_renter
This is why a lot of people don't want any SS. If you are poor you make out quite well and if you have money you are better off with no program at all.
|
Explain to us all how someone getting $80/month is making out "quite well."
Quote:
Originally Posted by hartford_renter
Right! It's amazing some people don't even know the basic SS benefit formula.
Stated differently if you take your highest inflation adjusted earnings you use
90% on wages up to 10k
32% on wages from 10k to 43k
15% on wages 43k to 106k
So clearly if you make 10K and work 35 years your net benefit is roughly 90% of your income. If you are making 100K it's more like 20%.
|
So, what's your point?
You seem to have tremendous difficulty understanding the basic concepts of insurance.
Progressing....
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wendell Phillips
The so-called Social Security crisis started when President Reagan raided the trust fund and used your money to pay for general fund expenditures; and then President Bush argued disingenuously, that since the government has misspent the money, that that's good reason for reforming (i.e., "eliminating") Social Security and replacing it with private investment accounts.
|
That would be completely false.
The Democrats who controlled the House for the 48 out of 52 years since Social Security was created spent the surplus funds gained through Social Security.
It was LBJ and the Democrat-controlled House and Senate who combined Social Security with the General Fund, in order to raid it more efficiently to pay for the Grotesque Society.
It was President Ford who first noted in 1975 that the Social Security program was in jeopardy. The Treasury Department indicated that Social Security payroll taxes collected would be insufficient to meet Social Security payments by 1979. In response, the Democrat-controlled house and Senate under the Carter administration increased the tax rate incrementally and reduced benefits.
Got it? That was Democrats all the way around who increased taxes AND reduced benefits.
Not satisfied with the efforts of Carter and the Democrat-controlled House and Senate, Reagan created the Greenspan Commission in 1983. Working with the Republican-controlled Senate and Democrat-controlled House, Reagan initiated wide-scale changes including taxing Social Security benefits, added federal employees to Social Security and incrementally increased the retirement age.
Beginning in 1984, Social Security benefits were subject to taxes up to 50% under certain circumstances.
Recent changes in the law have increased that to 80%, with the first 50% earmarked to Social Security and the remaining 30% earmarked to the Medicare HI Trust Fund.
In spite of that, the House of Representatives of both parties continued to spend the surplus taxes collected, right up to 2009, when there ceased to be a surplus because the government is not collecting enough due to both the unemployment rate and the labor participation rate, plus the fact that people are earning less.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wendell Phillips
All that need be done is to raise the cap, and the problem is solved;...
|
Seem my previous comments,
with the math, which thoroughly debunk your claims.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wendell Phillips
If some people have their way, your Social Security benefits will end up being a lottery ticket and the number for Dial-A-Prayer.
|
Well, again, you don't seem to be able to understand that Social Security is insurance, not a retirement plan.
For those people whose life sucks so bad that even John Carpenter would be afraid to make a horror film about, Social Security does what it is supposed to do:
Insures.
Debunking...
Mircea
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
