Why? You can't seriously think you'll ever draw Social Security can you?
If you can read a damn actuarial chart you should expect to. The idea that social security is insolvent is the biggest lie in modern American politics.
It's not strictly an actuarial argument. I do not foresee happy things when the boomers hit "retired old grumpy voting like hell" stage of their development.
Tea Party rallies filled with medicare paid for scooter riders bitching about government taking all their money is just the beginning.
There's definitely things that can be done to fix SS. But no one in power's even talking of doing them, unless it's the right saying it should be fixed by dismantling it. It'll be decades before it gets more than a bandaid.
And if there's no bandaid it's good at 75% of payouts until I'm 90 (2075). The one thing one of the parties is talking about that would make it more solvent is immigration reform. Which is yet another reason to pass that.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
To be honest I've never bought that "it'll drop to 75% and then stay there forever" bit. I've never seen the math but it seems to me that once it starts dropping, that's gonna be a continuous trend. And does that even cover inflation?
I have looked at the math, and yes, it does. I mean it won't be a sudden drop it'll be continuous from 100 -> 75, but it stabilizes again around there. Of course you're also dealing with budget projections 50 years off which are inherently ridiculous, but still!
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
To be honest I've never bought that "it'll drop to 75% and then stay there forever" bit. I've never seen the math but it seems to me that once it starts dropping, that's gonna be a continuous trend. And does that even cover inflation?
It's based in large part on the expected ratio of young to old people in America. That's part of what puts the burden on the system now: fewer young people supporting more old people.
Why? You can't seriously think you'll ever draw Social Security can you?
If you can read a damn actuarial chart you should expect to. The idea that social security is insolvent is the biggest lie in modern American politics.
Can you do a quick run through of this? Or like, link to one?
Cause I'm curious and would, frankly, love to understand it better so I can throw it in the face of Republicans I know.
I think the basic idea is that there's too many retired people, and their cost of living is too high. So the amount of money being pulled is more than what the workforce is putting in.
And then healthcare and medicare/medicaid is a mess, with some things being covered and others not, and insurance companies making some things overpriced, etc etc.
US Age Demographic from 2000 (so bump the graph up 10 years):
It's a problem, but not a crisis and there are a couple simple options to fix it. Neither of which Republicans will agree to because one is an effective tax hike on people making six figures and the other doesn't fuck Mexicans.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
To be honest I've never bought that "it'll drop to 75% and then stay there forever" bit. I've never seen the math but it seems to me that once it starts dropping, that's gonna be a continuous trend. And does that even cover inflation?
It's based in large part on the expected ratio of young to old people in America. That's part of what puts the burden on the system now: fewer young people supporting more old people.
I know, right? The Greatest Generation survives the Great Depression, goes over to Europe and beat the Nazis, swing by the Pacific to defeat Imperial Japan, brought a bunch of German scientists home with them so we could walk on the moon and have satellites and stuff and then they went and ruined everything by going on a six month long bender that eventually yielded us a generation of baby boomers who may have done relatively nothing with their professional lives relative to their parents but that's apparently only so they could save all of their energy for retirement, and they're bound and determined to live forever once they all start hitting 65 in a couple of years and get to enroll on a socialized health plan with medicare -- just so long as none of the rest of us get it because it stops seeming special when the rest of us who didn't go to segregated high schools can use it, too.
A boomer slipping out of his lane of traffic and into senility nearly ran me off the Clara Barton and into the canal this evening, so I'm particularly frustrated with my parents' generation this particular evening.
Baby Boomers would all be between 55 and 65 right now (born between 1945 and 55), so either already retired or just retired, or holding out on retirement.
Their retirement funds prolly got fucked up by the past 5-10 years, with all the speculation going on and then crashing. So we can probably blame a bunch of people between 30-50 for causing the problems; AKA the baby boomer's children.
On the other hand, when social security is failing that means the old people don't have enough money to gas their car to make it to the voting center, or don't have enough money for the bus. They also don't have a good memory, so if you just say you'll fix it right before elections and then don't do anything, they'll still vote for you. As long as healthcare is bad enough that their altzheimer's doesnt get treated.
To be fair, each side wants to fix it "their way." Because the other party's ideas are horrible and will destory the country. I really wish we could just get some dam compromise.
Or find a way to make voting a lot easier, because I'm not convinced that with such low voter turnout we're getting an accurate representation of the will of the people.
To be fair, each side wants to fix it "their way." Because the other party's ideas are horrible and will destory the country. I really wish we could just get some dam compromise.
Or find a way to make voting a lot easier, because I'm not convinced that with such low voter turnout we're getting an accurate representation of the will of the people.
Umm if you have two terrible ideas how is compromising and mixing them going to get you a better one?
I don't know, I think events have shown that Bush's plan 'fix' social security by turning over the management of the fund to the big investment firms might not have been the best move.
To be fair, each side wants to fix it "their way." Because the other party's ideas are horrible and will destory the country. I really wish we could just get some dam compromise.
Or find a way to make voting a lot easier, because I'm not convinced that with such low voter turnout we're getting an accurate representation of the will of the people.
Umm if you have two terrible ideas how is compromising and mixing them going to get you a better one?
If it fails halfway in two aspects, it can be salvaged with small reforms later. Or it can get fixed by systems outside of Congress.
tehmarken on
0
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
Just remove the cap on income taxation and you're golden.
If employers had to add the "Employer portion" of people's payroll taxes onto the gross income of paystubs, I believe there would be some serious populous rage going on.
Watching the rerun of tonights Maddow, she has a good segment on the Bush tax cuts. And how the Dems, if they were smart, could really fuck over the Republicans.
But shit, they PASSED a huge tax cut for the middle class and NO ONE KNOWS ABOUT IT.
So much hate for how much the Dems let the Republicans run all over them in the media.
Just remove the cap on income taxation and you're golden.
If employers had to add the "Employer portion" of people's payroll taxes onto the gross income of paystubs, I believe there would be some serious populous rage going on.
FICA is some seriously regressive shit.
Class warfare! Socialism! Marxist-Leninism!
Brian Krakow on
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Watching the rerun of tonights Maddow, she has a good segment on the Bush tax cuts. And how the Dems, if they were smart, could really fuck over the Republicans.
But shit, they PASSED a huge tax cut for the middle class and NO ONE KNOWS ABOUT IT.
So much hate for how much the Dems let the Republicans run all over them in the media.
To be fair, the strategy was to make it so no one would notice so that they would spend it.
Watching the rerun of tonights Maddow, she has a good segment on the Bush tax cuts. And how the Dems, if they were smart, could really fuck over the Republicans.
But shit, they PASSED a huge tax cut for the middle class and NO ONE KNOWS ABOUT IT.
So much hate for how much the Dems let the Republicans run all over them in the media.
To be fair, the strategy was to make it so no one would notice so that they would spend it.
yeah, while the 2001 tax cuts were noticable since most of us received a nice fat check for $300 big ones courtesy of our beloved president, G.W. Bush.
It also seems like the rich use their power and wealth to get richer, which includes managing the media, so that they can get even more power and more media puppetry.
While the middle just work on making things better for the middle, which doesn't give them extra power to spread the word.
It also seems like the rich use their power and wealth to get richer, which includes managing the media, so that they can get even more power and more media puppetry.
While the middle just work on making things better for the middle, which doesn't give them extra power to spread the word.
This is one of the roles that unions would play if they weren't presently under siege.
Watching the rerun of tonights Maddow, she has a good segment on the Bush tax cuts. And how the Dems, if they were smart, could really fuck over the Republicans.
But shit, they PASSED a huge tax cut for the middle class and NO ONE KNOWS ABOUT IT.
So much hate for how much the Dems let the Republicans run all over them in the media.
To be fair, the strategy was to make it so no one would notice so that they would spend it.
yeah, while the 2001 tax cuts were noticable since most of us received a nice fat check for $300 big ones courtesy of our beloved president, G.W. Bush.
Back in March 2009, when Nancy Pelosi ruled the House of Representatives with an iron fist, one could chuckle at Republicans who came to committee hearings quoting scripture as the rationale for their positions on energy policy.
But now, when one of those very same Republicans is in the running for the chairmanship of the House Energy and Commerce committee, it just doesn't seem so funny.
Juan Cole does us the unpleasant service of bringing back to life the comments of John Shimkus, R-Ill., a year and a half ago.
Shimkus starts by quoting Genesis 8, Verses 21 and 22, in which God makes Noah a promise.
Never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though all inclinations of his heart are evil from childhood and never again will I destroy all living creatures as I have done.
As long as the earth endures, seed time and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, will never cease.
Shimkus continues: "I believe that is the infallible word of god, and that's the way it is going to be for his creation... The earth will end only when God declares its time to be over. Man will not destroy this earth. This earth will not be destroyed by a flood."
I'm glad that John Shimkus can sleep at night, faithful that that God's word is "infallible, unchanging, perfect." But for those of us who are less confident in humanity's ability to keep from massively screwing up, the thought that the Bible will be determining government energy policy is massively ulcer-inducing.
Shimkus starts by quoting Genesis 8, Verses 21 and 22, in which God makes Noah a promise.
Never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though all inclinations of his heart are evil from childhood and never again will I destroy all living creatures as I have done.
As long as the earth endures, seed time and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, will never cease.
Shimkus continues: "I believe that is the infallible word of god, and that's the way it is going to be for his creation... The earth will end only when God declares its time to be over. Man will not destroy this earth. This earth will not be destroyed by a flood."
That doesn't make sense. Global warming won't do any of that. It will just really fuck everything up and make the lives of people in many countries much more miserable. Even accepting the Bible as the inherent word of God, it tells us jack shit about global warming.
On March 25, 2009, in introductory remarks made to Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley during a United States House Energy Subcommittee on Energy and Environment hearing, Shimkus had this to say on the role of carbon dioxide in global warming:
"It's plant food ... So if we decrease the use of carbon dioxide, are we not taking away plant food from the atmosphere? ... So all our good intentions could be for naught. In fact, we could be doing just the opposite of what the people who want to save the world are saying."
you remember a few years ago, when the oil companies ran the pro-greenhouse gas ads? "They call it a greenhouse gas, we call it life" was the slogan, referring to good ol' CO2. Somebody seems to have bought it hook, line and sinker.
Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley
who is this guy, and why is he addressing a subcommittee? Shouldn't he be out hunting foxes or running down peasants?
you remember a few years ago, when the oil companies ran the pro-greenhouse gas ads? "They call it a greenhouse gas, we call it life" was the slogan, referring to good ol' CO2. Somebody seems to have bought it hook, line and sinker.
Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley
who is this guy, and why is he addressing a subcommittee? Shouldn't he be out hunting foxes or running down peasants?
I remember seeing a really funny youtube video mocking him with a fake debate between him and al gore, but i can't find it.
Hey, remember Rand Paul the "fiscal conservative"?
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss:
In a bigger shift from his campaign pledge to end earmarks, he tells me that they are a bad "symbol" of easy spending but that he will fight for Kentucky's share of earmarks and federal pork, as long as it's doled out transparently at the committee level and not parachuted in in the dead of night. "I will advocate for Kentucky's interests," he says.
I think you could make a strong argument right now that that we have 4 classes in america right now: the rich at the very top, the (shrinking) middle class with a lot, the lower class with a little, and the poor with nothing.
Your statement confuses correlation with causation.
What you should say is 'beyond a certain point, a widening wealth gap always causes recessions' and we are WELL beyond that point. In every recession in a capitolist economy throughout history which hasn't been caused by some massive crop failure it's always been caused by wealth being concentrated amongst the rich. Their wealth increases as the economy fails, since their real money becomes more and more valuable and they never spent much in the first place. Hell, the damn roman empire fell for much the same reason!
Posts
Boom, completely solvent.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
It's not strictly an actuarial argument. I do not foresee happy things when the boomers hit "retired old grumpy voting like hell" stage of their development.
Tea Party rallies filled with medicare paid for scooter riders bitching about government taking all their money is just the beginning.
true dat.
It's based in large part on the expected ratio of young to old people in America. That's part of what puts the burden on the system now: fewer young people supporting more old people.
Can you do a quick run through of this? Or like, link to one?
Cause I'm curious and would, frankly, love to understand it better so I can throw it in the face of Republicans I know.
And then healthcare and medicare/medicaid is a mess, with some things being covered and others not, and insurance companies making some things overpriced, etc etc.
US Age Demographic from 2000 (so bump the graph up 10 years):
It's a problem, but not a crisis and there are a couple simple options to fix it. Neither of which Republicans will agree to because one is an effective tax hike on people making six figures and the other doesn't fuck Mexicans.
I know, right? The Greatest Generation survives the Great Depression, goes over to Europe and beat the Nazis, swing by the Pacific to defeat Imperial Japan, brought a bunch of German scientists home with them so we could walk on the moon and have satellites and stuff and then they went and ruined everything by going on a six month long bender that eventually yielded us a generation of baby boomers who may have done relatively nothing with their professional lives relative to their parents but that's apparently only so they could save all of their energy for retirement, and they're bound and determined to live forever once they all start hitting 65 in a couple of years and get to enroll on a socialized health plan with medicare -- just so long as none of the rest of us get it because it stops seeming special when the rest of us who didn't go to segregated high schools can use it, too.
A boomer slipping out of his lane of traffic and into senility nearly ran me off the Clara Barton and into the canal this evening, so I'm particularly frustrated with my parents' generation this particular evening.
Their retirement funds prolly got fucked up by the past 5-10 years, with all the speculation going on and then crashing. So we can probably blame a bunch of people between 30-50 for causing the problems; AKA the baby boomer's children.
Old people pandering is like cheat codes for elections
(I'm being silly here)
So its going to be this weird sort of game of chicken.
Its like how the GOPs plan to fix health care was repeal the reform then do the same thing. They just wanted the credit.
Or find a way to make voting a lot easier, because I'm not convinced that with such low voter turnout we're getting an accurate representation of the will of the people.
Umm if you have two terrible ideas how is compromising and mixing them going to get you a better one?
If it fails halfway in two aspects, it can be salvaged with small reforms later. Or it can get fixed by systems outside of Congress.
If employers had to add the "Employer portion" of people's payroll taxes onto the gross income of paystubs, I believe there would be some serious populous rage going on.
FICA is some seriously regressive shit.
But shit, they PASSED a huge tax cut for the middle class and NO ONE KNOWS ABOUT IT.
So much hate for how much the Dems let the Republicans run all over them in the media.
To be fair, the strategy was to make it so no one would notice so that they would spend it.
yeah, while the 2001 tax cuts were noticable since most of us received a nice fat check for $300 big ones courtesy of our beloved president, G.W. Bush.
While the middle just work on making things better for the middle, which doesn't give them extra power to spread the word.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
Here's the YouTube clip of Representative Fundie arguing the theological position on global warming:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5yNZ1U37sE
And people wonder why liberals/progressives are becoming increasingly disparaging of religion mixing with secular government.
Even ignoring the religious nonsense that man appears to have a learning disorder. I'm not making a joke or being hyperbolic or mean. :?
who is this guy, and why is he addressing a subcommittee? Shouldn't he be out hunting foxes or running down peasants?
I remember seeing a really funny youtube video mocking him with a fake debate between him and al gore, but i can't find it.
Good lord they're up to 24%?
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/09/rand-paul-earmarks-ban_n_780832.html
It always gets worse during recessions.
according to http://www.businessinsider.com/15-charts-about-wealth-and-inequality-in-america-2010-4#half-of-america-has-25-of-the-wealth-2
The top 1% have 33.8 % of wealth (not income), while the bottom 50% have just 2.5%.
I think you could make a strong argument right now that that we have 4 classes in america right now: the rich at the very top, the (shrinking) middle class with a lot, the lower class with a little, and the poor with nothing.
Your statement confuses correlation with causation.
What you should say is 'beyond a certain point, a widening wealth gap always causes recessions' and we are WELL beyond that point. In every recession in a capitolist economy throughout history which hasn't been caused by some massive crop failure it's always been caused by wealth being concentrated amongst the rich. Their wealth increases as the economy fails, since their real money becomes more and more valuable and they never spent much in the first place. Hell, the damn roman empire fell for much the same reason!