The Social Security Death Trap.

[aammondd]

President Bush has decided again to risk the politcal minefield in order to actually promote a better world.

Im talking about Social Security. To be honest the Social Security system was doomed from its start. The basis for implementing the system had numerous flaws in the reasoning.

The first flaw was that they never predicted a time when the ration of payers and payees would not be adequate. Population growth could not be sustained while mortality rates declined. It was doomed to fail sometime but it was a problem for future generations if it was even considered at all.

The next was that legislators did not predict the fiscal irresponsibility of future generations with regard to the funds collected. As the excess funds piled up government found ways to spend them.


The final and most fatal flaw of the entire thing was the fact that it was a knee jerk reaction to a downturn in the economy of the country without thought to the root cause of the failing. It started a welfare state to save those who's life savings had been robbed of them by the recent events.

Once started down the welfare state road it becomes increasingly difficult to get off. So we now come to fork in the road where one generation must take on the responsibility of correcting past generations mistakes.
It must find a way to reverse the concept of entitelments and place once again the burden of retirement on the shoulders of the worker.

The problems of making that change are many fold least of which is the the transition cost wherein the current and future generations must pay the cost of retiring the aged system.

In the midst of all this we have a growing population that feels government should do more not less. That the minimum standards of living should be raised and placed on the backs of the most productive of our citizens.

As welfare states across Europe are finding the harsh realities of mother government hitting home. I hope we learn our lesson soon.

Of course there is a need to extend aid and security to a certain segment of the population who are the victims of circumstance but let us never again implement a system which will breed an entire class who look solely to government for thier well being.

I hope President Bush succeeds I hope that we educate our children to the realities of government aid and never again blindly enter into the trap of believing we can ensure social security by absolving people of personal responsibility.

Just my $1.25

Enjoy

[B. Ungaro]

We should get rid of the Social Security Scam. We should do what they used to do in Japan or Korea long time ago. When old people could no longer take care of themselves, they tok them up on a High Mountain where they died in a few days.

That would be a perfect solution for the Conservatives. It would free up more tax dollars to give to Halliburton.

[aammondd]

Bill took the bait.

No Bill I dont begrudge old people thier retirement at all. I believe Government does have a role in helping to ensure that retirement is achievable for all citizens but the current system has none of the controlls needed to ensure the system is workable nor does it provide much of a safety net.

What should have occured is when creating the Social Security system was for the Social Security tax to provide a defined benefit to those approaching retirement years who had lost thier savings. On top of this should have come a forced savings plan which guarenteed 80% of principle paid as downside protection and be handled as a private account with the government qualifying investment options to financial standards.
Basicly you would be able to buy a government approved annuity with an 80% guareentee against loss of prinicple in the event of early death or future economic disasters.

Medicare as a supplemental program should have been instituted with popular vote override of all increased spending and each new benefit program requiring new taxation or reserve spending. Excess reserves would be returned to the public via refunds annually.

Excess social security reserves would be reduced through reductions in Social security tax rates and would eventually be redirected to
the new Medicare plan or refunded.

These are just a couple of ways in which I think a radical overhaul would ensure that government was accountable to the people and that individuals learned to look to thier own productivity to retire comfortably.

The concept here is that government is to only provide some measure of stability of economic opportunity. It is not responsible for meeting every whim of convienience which we could have provided for ourselves.

Im just scratching the surface there would have to be much better control over financial institutions and various other things for this all to work. The limits should have been in place long before the actions to set up these programs were taken.

Many economic conditions upon which these programs were founded had no real thought for the future applied to them.

Like I said the original safety net was a knee jerk reaction. It should have had a definte end date in mind and a true long term individual plan inplemented.

[mphare]

I'm not sure why government should have any hand in whether one can retire (stop working and still have a lively hood) or not.

Social Security was not intended as a retirement plan, it was a safty net for widows.

The age for SocSec redemption was what 62? 65? I bet most males didn't live long beyond that when SocSec was started. That's why that age was set. I work my whole life and at least when I do die, my wife is not put out on the street.

What needs to happen is for the redemption age to track mortality.

I fully expect to work until I am dead, minus what I have in savings and investments.

If you want a retirement plan, then start a savings or investment account.

Don't expect the public to pay for your lively hood just because you lived past 70.

[aammondd]

The problem is that the public would will be held responsible for the care of the aged population that has made no preparations for itself. Where do you draw the line.

You are correct about the original intention of Social Security however the "net" has kept getting bigger over time and has lured many to believe that this "net" absolves themselves of responsibility.

Medicare is very similar.

However we just cant as Bill puts it just dispose of those unable to work.

The issue I think is that any change to the social security system is going to have to involve a radical change in the thought process of what we collect taxes for and spend it on.

The plan was not thought out well when it was originally invisioned and there were not provisions for the eventual shift in demographics and economic realities.

[B. Ungaro]

This LITTLE JEWEL is being totally overlooked. The Social Security has been running a SURPLUSS since it's inception. Our politicians have spent the Surpluss on the Blood Sucking Capitalist. If we made them pay back the money with minimum interest, you folks could all retire tomorrow with a handsome income.

Our Medicare is being bankrupted by the Blood Sucking Greedy Health Care Providers flying around on their own airplanes. Social Security was bankrupted by those who spent the surplus and are not willing to demand that the recepients pay it back.

Tax Revenue SPENT WRONG is our problem. All this MEALY-MOUTHING will get us nowhere until we demand that Taxes be spent on the PEOPLE and let BUSINESS STAND or FAIL on it's own MERIT.

What is wrong with you folks?

[aammondd]

Bill in theory you and I agree on this. However we probably differ as to which spending we should cut.

[pbrauer]

Originally Posted by mphare

I'm not sure why government should have any hand in whether one can retire (stop working and still have a lively hood) or not..

• We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

[B. Ungaro]

OUCH, OUCH OUCH. You go my man!!!!!!

[boedark]

Wow Bill that's some endorsement. Tell me again how that applies to specifically to Social Security? - especially since SS did not exist until the mid 20th century.

I can only guess the appearance of pb (comb-over kid) - has, in some way emboldened you in light of the recent beatings you've sustained.

I've been preparing for years for my eventual retirement. I don't trust the government to provide for my retirement needs. Tell me Bill or you relying on Social Security for your retirement?

Bill, your presence is requested here. We've some issues that still need to be resolved.

[mphare]

Originally Posted by pbrauer

• We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

You had me going for a moment. I actually thought you were serious.

Good one PB.

[B. Ungaro]

Just Imagine a Government that collected only the minmum amount of TAXES to accomplish the above. Without spending one Dollar on Hallibuton. It would be almost like Europe.

[aammondd]

Bill

Nice platitude there now how exactly do you define General Welfare
Common Defense and Domestic Tranquility

I think we do fairly well on the first two but that last bit seems to be a bit at odds with the whole idea of needing to defend oneself.

Also is it tranquillity they have in Germany heck Europe right now.

[B. Ungaro]

What they implied by Domestic Tranquility? Keeping the Slaves Busy and the Indians on the Run. What does it mean today? Your guess.

Europe is having Social Changes and as ususal, way ahead of the United States. Their Economy is not as much Consumer Driven. It's a combination private and public spending and EXPORTING. Currently, although Germany is still the biggest exporting Nation, those things are tight.

Don't be concerned. Eastern Europe is coming on line with GREAT ECONOMIC STRENGTH. Germany and other Westren European Countries will greatly benefit from that.

Unfortunately, the USA is in collusion with China who can produce cheaply but their buying power is ZERO. Ten years from now, it will still be ZERO or slightly more than ZERO.

Germany and other Western European Countries made a large investment in Eastern Europe. It's about to start paying dividends.

[boedark]

Originally Posted by B. Ungaro

Their Economy is not as much Consumer Driven. It's a combination private and public spending and EXPORTING.

Oh really?

FRANKFURT (AFP) - German retail sales took an unexpected tumble in November, denting hopes for a noticeable pick-up in consumer spending in the eurozone's biggest economy, where chronically weak domestic demand remains the main stumbling block to recovery, any time soon.

Source

[aammondd]

Bill needs a reeducation in Economics.

Consumer spending is what drives all economies.

The Government cannot collect taxes without someone making money.
A person cannot make money unless they have something to sell.
A person cannot sell something unless someone else wants to buy it.

The statement

Their Economy is not as much Consumer Driven. It's a combination private and public spending and EXPORTING

Just goes to show how freaking stupid he is.

The only way your economy is not driven by consumer spending is if you have a completely self sufficent isolated commune.

Im changing my signature line Im adding

"I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person"