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.
True, but Society has no control over the Laws of Economics.
Economics is a construct of society. Society is preeminent. As the professor I TA'ed for when I was in college thirty years ago said, "Economics is just chicken scratches." It's a made up construct, made up by people, and if it is damaging to people it can and must be changed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
Such a requirement is immoral, unethical, unlawful, unconstitutional, and in violation of the Laws of Economics.
Luckily, the vast majority of people disagree with that rather money-gobsmacked perspective.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
Society is irrelevant.
Okay, so you are deliberately posting silly nonsense. Understood.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
Certain people have specific talents and skills, and they would have those talents and skills whether Society existed or not, and regardless of how Society was organized or structured.
Without morality, society would indeed just be a vicious "survival of the fittest" affair, with people with power taking whatever they want, whenever they want, and disputes resolved predominantly with force. We've built society to be better than that - not free from it, but better than it. I know that a lot of people long for selective fall-back to more barbarian constructs - selectively those that happen to benefit them personally - but society isn't a Chinese menu. It's a prix fixe meal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
I would suggest to you that Society -- in its present state -- impedes and harms the ability of individuals to identify and develop their inherent talents and skills.
I'd reject your suggestion, and amend it as follows: Society impedes the ability of individuals to excessively exploit others or society as a whole via their advantages, either innate or acquired.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
In fact, as a Society, you have permitted certain persons over time to violate the US Constitution and interfere in the education system in the US, resulting in tremendous damage, the full extent of which will not be known for another 20-30 years.
Cue the X-Files music.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
You falsely assume that Society in any shape, form or structure is ultimately beneficial to the individual or to Society-at-large, when in fact that is not true at all, and history as repeatedly proven that it is not true.
I won't dispute such a vague claim, especially wrapped so tightly in conspiracy-theory-speak, but I will highlight how you're failing to even address the matter comprehensively: You highlight what you don't like about society, but you don't defend the alternative, because you know you cannot. Anarchy is worse. Plain and simple. Paraphrasing... Society is the worst form, except for all those other forms...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
No one is under any obligation to inflict damage and distress upon themselves, which is precisely what you are asking people to do.
False. Again, the problem here is that you're confusing people with their money.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
It's ironic that you have twisted the Liberal argument to suit your own needs.
What's ironic is that your argument demeans humanity by reducing it down to matters of a human-created construct. You've essentially dehumanized the species in order to rationalize a distinctly money-centric view of the world and oppose a human-centric view of the world.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
No person is obligated to be selfless.
True, but this is simply FUD, since selflessness isn't any part of what anyone has said until you brought it up. It's a good sign that you realize you're just blowing smoke when you have to corrupt what others have said into some perverted extreme in order to have something you're able to post a rebuttal to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
And there is nothing wrong with being selfish
Well, let's agree to disagree about that, given that I acknowledge that you're unwilling to accept that people are something other than their money, but again you're arguing against something no one has said: People can surely be selfish: It is society's responsibility to deprive the selfish of the rewards of selfishness - moral failings like selfishness warrant no consideration or primacy, and to the extent that such moral failings make it more difficult to achieve what's in the best interest of society itself, society is obligated to do what it can in that regard. That's the very reason that society develops laws and controls over structures (such as society's economy) - to disincentivize the inclination of the self-centered.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
What you fail to understand, is that conflict is natural.
It is silly for you to assume I fail to understand anything. It's a little like public masturbation throwing such nonsense into your rhetoric. Regardless, I'm much further along in this milieu. Conflict is natural. There is no "right to take what you want" just because you're willing to engage in conflict. Society itself has an obligation to reign in those who act in a barbarian manner in that regard, and does so, whether they like it or not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
You also fail to understand that as anything increases in size/mass its potential for conflict and the amount of damage it causes increases exponentially.
Meaning as population and population density increases, the obligation of society to control the proliferation of exploitation and abuse and self-centered base instinct grows. If you truly want the kind of self-motivated world that you seem to be implying, you should be working hard to promote negative population growth, because such a thing is only viable where people have comparatively little need for interaction with others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
There are structures designed to minimize such conflicts....the US Constitution with its federal system of government is one such structure, however the government has violated the Constitution and abandoned its principles, now operating exactly like a unitary-State power, instead of the federal government it was designed and intended to be.
In other words: You don't like how the fact that the nation has responded to quadrupling of its population within practically the same boundaries in a century, and you want to deny the ramifications of increasing population density, the specter of exhaustion of natural resources, etc., in some vain attempt to justify self-serving interests. Rest assured, your position is well-understood.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
The conflict that you see now in Society is nothing....it will only grow and grow until the tipping point is reached and then a triggering event will result in civil war, secession, or better yet, the total and complete restoration of the US Constitution.
I do think that a lot of people who promote selfishness as a virtue want such a triggering event, and perhaps their intention is enough to force things down that path. However, it doesn't pay to negotiate with terrorists, because they'll simply use it as an excuse to further terrorize. Moral people will have to take a stand against selfishness, and hopefully prevail over barbarianism.
A government who cant be honest with its people and changes the rules over time (also called moving the goal posts in some circles) is not to be trusted. If a corporation acted like the feds do, they would be sued but the social security deal gets changed all the time without even telling us in some cases. Social security started is a gov created ponzi scheme where it takes more workers paying into it to pay the current benefits promised but hard to deliver when the paid in social security $ are not invested but spent like all dollars one gives to the fed gov tend to be.
We need a higher retirement age. It is not the poor subsidizing the rich, despite the twisted logic of the left. When did class warfare become good for this country? The left wants more money to spend but ignores the best ways to grow the tax revenues through economic growth in the private sector not in DC where waste lives and thrives
SS and Medicare are the 2 best run programs run by the Gov't of the USA. They can not be matched in any way with the return we all get back. We should have Medicare for all in this country
Try paying for your parents upkeep and healthcare. In the USA today no elderly person wants to be dependent on there family. They have worked hard over the years and want to stay independent as long as they are able. The idea that the govt runs a ponzie scheme is crazy.
Last edited by Boss; 03-14-2013 at 11:17 AM..
Reason: addition
Economics is a construct of society. Society is preeminent. As the professor I TA'ed for when I was in college thirty years ago said, "Economics is just chicken scratches." It's a made up construct, made up by people, and if it is damaging to people it can and must be changed.
Luckily, the vast majority of people disagree with that rather money-gobsmacked perspective.
Okay, so you are deliberately posting silly nonsense. Understood.
Without morality, society would indeed just be a vicious "survival of the fittest" affair, with people with power taking whatever they want, whenever they want, and disputes resolved predominantly with force. We've built society to be better than that - not free from it, but better than it. I know that a lot of people long for selective fall-back to more barbarian constructs - selectively those that happen to benefit them personally - but society isn't a Chinese menu. It's a prix fixe meal.
I'd reject your suggestion, and amend it as follows: Society impedes the ability of individuals to excessively exploit others or society as a whole via their advantages, either innate or acquired.
Cue the X-Files music.
I won't dispute such a vague claim, especially wrapped so tightly in conspiracy-theory-speak, but I will highlight how you're failing to even address the matter comprehensively: You highlight what you don't like about society, but you don't defend the alternative, because you know you cannot. Anarchy is worse. Plain and simple. Paraphrasing... Society is the worst form, except for all those other forms...
False. Again, the problem here is that you're confusing people with their money.
What's ironic is that your argument demeans humanity by reducing it down to matters of a human-created construct. You've essentially dehumanized the species in order to rationalize a distinctly money-centric view of the world and oppose a human-centric view of the world.
True, but this is simply FUD, since selflessness isn't any part of what anyone has said until you brought it up. It's a good sign that you realize you're just blowing smoke when you have to corrupt what others have said into some perverted extreme in order to have something you're able to post a rebuttal to.
Well, let's agree to disagree about that, given that I acknowledge that you're unwilling to accept that people are something other than their money, but again you're arguing against something no one has said: People can surely be selfish: It is society's responsibility to deprive the selfish of the rewards of selfishness - moral failings like selfishness warrant no consideration or primacy, and to the extent that such moral failings make it more difficult to achieve what's in the best interest of society itself, society is obligated to do what it can in that regard. That's the very reason that society develops laws and controls over structures (such as society's economy) - to disincentivize the inclination of the self-centered.
It is silly for you to assume I fail to understand anything. It's a little like public masturbation throwing such nonsense into your rhetoric. Regardless, I'm much further along in this milieu. Conflict is natural. There is no "right to take what you want" just because you're willing to engage in conflict. Society itself has an obligation to reign in those who act in a barbarian manner in that regard, and does so, whether they like it or not.
Meaning as population and population density increases, the obligation of society to control the proliferation of exploitation and abuse and self-centered base instinct grows. If you truly want the kind of self-motivated world that you seem to be implying, you should be working hard to promote negative population growth, because such a thing is only viable where people have comparatively little need for interaction with others.
In other words: You don't like how the fact that the nation has responded to quadrupling of its population within practically the same boundaries in a century, and you want to deny the ramifications of increasing population density, the specter of exhaustion of natural resources, etc., in some vain attempt to justify self-serving interests. Rest assured, your position is well-understood.
I do think that a lot of people who promote selfishness as a virtue want such a triggering event, and perhaps their intention is enough to force things down that path. However, it doesn't pay to negotiate with terrorists, because they'll simply use it as an excuse to further terrorize. Moral people will have to take a stand against selfishness, and hopefully prevail over barbarianism.
Not really wanting to get into the fine points of this latest discussion b/c bUU has covered it pretty well, but I gotta ask, Mircea - wth were you smoking?
Always enjoy and benefit from your posts on future of SS and all the data. No serious quarrel with your second post on its face, except you are assuming everyone would earn 8.5% on their contributions while working and also receiving benefits. Slightly ambitious, methinks. But that's another forum.
But, the first??? You are too pragmatic (not to mention probably far more humane than you care to admit) to really believe what you wrote.
It seems that one thing often overlooked in these Social Security discussions ... about raising more resources by raising the SS age and limiting 'rich people,' is this: Our 'tax and spend' politicians have been 'borrowing' (aka: stealing) from Social Security for years and leaving IOU's. This is one of the many ways they manage to spend off-budget!
The law requires excess payroll taxes collected to be converted to special treasury securities by the Secretary of the Treasury.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Wolf
If the payroll tax is not sufficent to pay out Social Security benefits, the balance comes out of the General Fund.
No, it comes out of the soon-to-be-dead OADI Trust Fund in the case of Social Security Disability, and from the OASI Trust Fund in the case of retirement benefits.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Wolf
If one does not pay any Income tax, they are not paying into the general fund that is used for Social Security.
No money from the General Fund goes to Social Security, save for the 2 years the government acted stupidly and granted a payroll tax rebate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Wolf
Redeeming those " IOU's " requires money from the general fund.
Those are special securities. They are already part of your $16+ TRILLION National. However, they currently under intra-governmental debt, as opposed to the public debt -- which is $11+TRILLION.
Converting the securities increases the public debt, but not the National Debt.
Federal law requires 3 percent per year for the special treasury securities, but marketable securities are averaging less than 3%, so that means you as a tax payer actually save money.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TuborgP
While a valid point I don't think we are there yet and are still probably 25-30 years out from the trust fund running short of special treasury notes to cash in.
Then you might want to check your math.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Wolf
The minute the intake of SS doesn't match the ouput of paying benefits,...
....which would be the case every year since 2009 and continuing until the OASDI Trust Fund is depleted
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Wolf
...the money has to come from the general fund.
No, the money comes from the Trust Fund.
If the government had a budget surplus, then the government could buy back the special treasury notes, and in that case, yes, the money would be coming from the General Fund to do that.
However, you don't have a budget surplus and no chance of one for the foreseeable future. The result is the securities are simply converted straight from non-marketable to marketable securities with no money from the General Fund -- except for interest payments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Wolf
I was told on different thred that we are already there. (not 25-30 years down the road )
The OADI Trust Fund dies in about 13 months, but the OASI Trust Fund has about 10-11 years to live (under current laws).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Wolf
Where do you think the money to redeem those-----special treasurey notes --- comes from?
China. Japan. OPEC. The Commonwealth of Kentucky. The Commonwealth of Virginia. The State of Indiana. The County of Hamilton in the State of Ohio. The City of Pittsburgh in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 5/3rd Bank. BOA. MET Life. GEICO. The AFL-CIO. The Teamsters. The Auto-Workers. The University of Arizona.
Those are just some of the entities that buy US treasury securities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by texdav
Might want to read the last SS trustee report if you think that. They estimate when there will be shortfall and just now much the cut will be.
Under the High Cost Assumption, the combined OASDI Trust Fund dies in 2027, which is certainly within 25 years, but is only 14 years from now.
Uh, but of course, that is entirely predicated on the US economy growing 5% every single year from 2012 through 2025....that is what Social Security claims, not me, I'm just reporting what Social Security claims.
Did the economy grow 5% in 2012?
No, and it won't grow 5% this year or any other between now and then, leading to a massive short-fall of revenues, causing the combined OASDI Trust Fund to assume the dying ****-roach position sometime between 2023-2024 (or earlier....perhaps 2021).
Anyway, raising the retirement age is the wrong thing to do, and it will cause more economic harm than good.
no, you did NOT pay for medicare and SS. Nobody pays anything LIKE what they wind up costing those who are still paying into it. there is no END to what you might cost, with surgeries, etc. millions and millions of $. the average person doesm't ;ay more than a few hundred k into ss, in an entire lifetime of work. the average income is 40k a year in US, and you pay 15%, and you are WRONG if you "think" employer "pays half", that's ALL your money, the boss just helps Big bro steal it from you, that's all. Most peeople don't work more than 40 years, so that's 15% of 1.6 mill, which is just 1/4 mill. ONE heart bypass, and followup care, can easily run 150k, dudes. you might wind up costing everyone else many millions of dollars, very easilly. so no you did NOT "pay for " your ss benefites, other than a small partof them. Many people live another 20 years after they start drawing SS or medicare,and quite a few million draw it almost all their lives, being born Mongoloid, get messed up in a car wreck, etc.
Not really wanting to get into the fine points of this latest discussion b/c bUU has covered it pretty well, but I gotta ask, Mircea - wth were you smoking?
Marlboro Black 100s.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ariadne22
No serious quarrel with your second post on its face, except you are assuming everyone would earn 8.5% on their contributions while working and also receiving benefits. Slightly ambitious, methinks. But that's another forum.
Uh, you lost me there.
I'm a big believer in Common Sense.
If you have anything of value -- a car, house, boat (an house-boat), musical instrument jewelry --- you insure it against loss, right?
You have employer-based retirement benefits or your own personal retirement savings or both. Aren't those valuable? Shouldn't you insure them against loss?
But, of course!
And that's what Social Security is....insurance against loss of your pension/personal retirement savings.
However, this particular brand of insurance is not "full replacement value."
You have a $Million in stocks in your 401(k) and personal retirement savings and the price drops to $0.03 per share (like Chiquita did once) and you cannot sell it so you have absolutely nothing, we cannot replace the $Million you lost, but we can provide basic subsistence living -- so-called "poverty level."
Again, that's what Social Security is.
As I have proven, the so-called "poverty level" varies from State to State, and in fact, what the government claims to be the "poverty level" is actually the average poverty level for all 50 States, and we all know how averages can be misleading and deceiving.
So the intelligent thing to do is what? The government masquerading as a federal government needs to start acting like a federal government, turn Social Security over to the States, and allow the States to operate it...and hopefully privatize it.
Of course if government did that, then how could government possibly lord over people and whip them into a frenzied state of bowel movements with the mere whisper of "entitlement cuts?"
That would allow each State to examine the cost-of-living and advise its citizens on the minimum amount of insurance coverage to obtain, and then monitor and audit the activities so there's no monkey-business.
I'm not exactly an investment wizard (as many already know) and I don't pretend to know anything about investing (other than investing is possible), so I'll leave it to others to work out the details.
Even if you privatized it, it would still be necessary to ensure any privatized version of Social Security enjoyed all of the same legal protections that Social Security has now, meaning that benefits cannot be assigned, seized, attached or anything else.
Since it represents future payments to you, it would be a liability, and therefore you could not declare your retirement insurance account to be an asset, or use it as collateral or even borrow against it (like you can with a 401(k) plan), since that would defeat the whole purpose of having insurance in the first place.
I'm all for people taking personal responsibility for their own retirement, and being empowered to do that, but there are several realities that work against that. Not everyone has the ability to make sound investment decisions, and no amount of education or training will alter that; government and society should take actions to empower and help people, but they actually cause more harm than good, and in fact government has taken action to punish people; and then finally, even when people do all the right things....sometimes they still fail.
My greatest fear is that government will crow-bar Social Security into some type of investment scheme based on the Market.
That will result in a spectacular fail, as in Fail-Boat and no, I don't mean the SS Minnow (on Gilligan's Island), I mean the SS Poseidon in the "Poseidon Adventure" --- that kind of fail --- with the "Towering Inferno" on top of it. And "Armageddon" --- without Bruce Willis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ariadne22
But, the first??? You are too pragmatic (not to mention probably far more humane than you care to admit) to really believe what you wrote.
It doesn't matter what I believe. All that matters is reality and whatever you or I or anyone else believes will not alter reality. I'm just telling how reality is...I didn't say liked it.
no, you did NOT pay for medicare and SS. Nobody pays anything LIKE what they wind up costing those who are still paying into it. there is no END to what you might cost, with surgeries, etc. millions and millions of $. the average person doesm't ;ay more than a few hundred k into ss, in an entire lifetime of work. the average income is 40k a year in US, and you pay 15%, and you are WRONG if you "think" employer "pays half", that's ALL your money, the boss just helps Big bro steal it from you, that's all. Most peeople don't work more than 40 years, so that's 15% of 1.6 mill, which is just 1/4 mill. ONE heart bypass, and followup care, can easily run 150k, dudes. you might wind up costing everyone else many millions of dollars, very easilly. so no you did NOT "pay for " your ss benefites, other than a small partof them. Many people live another 20 years after they start drawing SS or medicare,and quite a few million draw it almost all their lives, being born Mongoloid, get messed up in a car wreck, etc.
i dont want any part of my life depending upon "luck". I didn't become black belt nor ccw a pistol because I trust to luck, and I certainly don't want my freedom, livelihood or money riding on "luck". SS was set up based upon assumptions made in 1930's, and they are ALL WRONG. SS can't help but collapse under the weight of the baby boomers. the pols will inflate the dollar to try to stall off the disaster, and will end up destroying the economy.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
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.
