Heading North?

Cobra Commander · 2005-01-17 14:57:34

Far more than 12% of my paycheck is being taken in taxes and the money used to employ prison guards to incarcerate people who are imprisoned for certain drug crimes in contexts where I believe prison is not appropriate.

For the record, one point of agreement.

Buying a flawed missile defense shield is a "waste" of my paycheck.
Why is your angst at giving Granny her monthly Social Security worthy of greater consideration?

I don't mind giving Granny some money, but I don't particularly care for giving money to everyone's granny, whether they need it or not, while some elected buffoons stand there and tell me that some poor shmuck will do the same for me when the time comes. I'd much rather take the money I earn and worry about covering my own ass in retirement and maybe have enough left to look out for my own relatives should the need arise.

But I can't build my own missile shield.

Not legally, anyway.

But, you still have not explained why giving these Wall Street bandit 28% of everything in the Social Security fund right up front for commission then on top of that adding other fee's of buying and selling on Wall Street and then borrowing a like amount of another two trillion dollars at an interest rate and having to 5% to 10% interest on money borrowed?

A) I question your numbers.

B) There is no "Social Security Fund" to start with, it's pay as you go. I support letting each person whose being taxed for it elect to invest a portion. The rest goes to pay current benefits augmented by revenue from other sources, whether it be cutting spending in other areas, reorganizing government operations to turn a profit (the forestry service alone could generate huge amounts of revenue without dropping a single tree a year more than they currently do) or allowing people to opt out of benefits entirely in exchange for a greatly reduced pay-in rate for a set, shorter amount of time. Some people will choose to cut their losses this way.

C) Nothing needs to be borrowed if a proper plan is implemented. I doubt that Bush will go this far, but benefits for upcoming recipients could be covered through means briefly touched on above, the next generation will have greatly reduced obligations which can worst case scenario be paid through borrowing at a greatly reduced rate that would be necessary otherwise, and after that the program is gone except for the invested per-participant element. Rather than patch it up we can kick the habit in two generations with minimal hardship. One if my peers are willing to take the hit.

Hint, hint George. Buy us off with something cool. There's this planet, not too far . . .

Our Social Security account would have to make over one trillion dollars in the first year to not lose on the Stock Market.

It sounds like your thinking they'll take this big box of money and dump it all into the market then hope it makes enough to pay everything. This is flat out totally wrong. I and others have gone over this repeatedly.

If they were really interested in the us individuals, they could raise the amount that we could put in our IRA's accounts, but they could not control that and it not in the amounts that they intend to steal either.

Overall I agree. But it assumes that the American people can always make sound investments, which then logically implies that we should let everyone invest all their SocSec money. But since sometimes investments don't pan out and sometimes people just do stupid things, they want conservative investment coupled with the usual government "fund" to make certain people have some retirement income, just this way it'll be significantly more.

Most of these private funds that are invested in Wall Street are also going bankrupt. Now our Social Security Money is going to be invested in those same stocks and bonds that those private retirement fund's have been invested in.

Most private funds are going bankrupt you say?

In not in my best interest to lose this Social Security Money in a scam like this.

Unless you're going to retire in the next few years, you are going to lose your SocSec money in the scam we currently have going. That's why something needs to be done, SocSec is not all fine and good.

Euler · 2005-01-17 17:03:40

I don't mind giving Granny some money, but I don't particularly care for giving money to everyone's granny, whether they need it or not, while some elected buffoons stand there and tell me that some poor shmuck will do the same for me when the time comes. I'd much rather take the money I earn and worry about covering my own ass in retirement and maybe have enough left to look out for my own relatives should the need arise.

The problem with that is that you do not know how long you are going to live after retirement, so you don't know how much money you need to have saved up. Social security is supposed to be like an insurance policy. If you happen to live longer than you expect to, there will still be enough money to keep you going. If you don't live that long, the money will go to someone else who needs it instead.

I doubt that Bush will go this far, but benefits for upcoming recipients could be covered through means briefly touched on above, the next generation will have greatly reduced obligations which can worst case scenario be paid through borrowing at a greatly reduced rate that would be necessary otherwise, and after that the program is gone except for the invested per-participant element. Rather than patch it up we can kick the habit in two generations with minimal hardship. One if my peers are willing to take the hit.

In order to "kick the habit", the federal government will have to borrow more than it otherwise would. If the government were running surpluses, that would not be too much of a problem. However, the federal government is already borrowing at unsustainable levels. If you deprive the government of a major source of funds at a time like this, it could result in fiscal disaster.

Cobra Commander · 2005-01-17 17:59:47

Jeez-Louise, Cobra, you've been reading Marx?
Good on you! (Such people should be paying for the Marine Corp and missile defense as well, right?)

Everyone still pays to some degree. What I'm saying is that no one should be compelled to pay direct taxes on "income" unless that income is derived from from a non-labor source made possible by the social structure. You sell a piece of land at a profit, you pay a percentage. You work some overtime at the factory, nothing is deducted.

Even then the individual still pays excise taxes (such as on gasoline) and indirectly pays in other ways, though voluntarily. Fees for various government services, coupled with cuts in unecessary spending, outright waste and utilizing government assets could make up for any shortfall. For example, the Fed owns a whole lotta land it isn't doing anything with, and I'm not talking about parks and military bases.

If you deprive the government of a major source of funds at a time like this, it could result in fiscal disaster.

Yes, it could. That is why any workable plan requires some combination of:
A) Cuts in spending to cover the shortfall
B) Tax increases
C) Non-direct revenue sources, whether from selling off government property or taxes not aimed directly on the citizens, such as tarriffs or "voluntary" taxes, meaning taxes on goods or services that people can choose not to buy, thus avoiding the tax.

Pick any two.

Euler · 2005-01-17 19:30:40

Yes, it could. That is why any workable plan requires some combination of:
A) Cuts in spending to cover the shortfall

Would you still support this if it means military cuts and abandoning a "strong Roman" plan for the Middle East?

B) Tax increases

I am surprised to see a conservative sugest tax increases. Normally tax increases are unpopular even when they are desperately needed.

C) Non-direct revenue sources, whether from selling off government property or taxes not aimed directly on the citizens, such as tarriffs or "voluntary" taxes, meaning taxes on goods or services that people can choose not to buy, thus avoiding the tax.

Our trade agreements limit the amount of tarriffs we can impose, and even "voluntary" taxes are usually unpopular.

How much land does the federal government acutally have and why isn't it being used for anything constructive?

Trebuchet · 2005-01-17 23:38:48

Generally speaking, forcing option A is a not so secret goal of the Republican party; a larger and larger portion of the federal government is earmarked for various social programs, and since raising taxes IS unpopular as hell... It's Machiavellian and a completely unfair, manipulative stance, but hey, fair fights are for suckers, so I approve. I pay my own health insurance and save my own retirement money, mostly because I don't trust government to provide either and have zero intention of trusting them with such things.

We could implement B afterwards or at the same time if neccessary to fix whatever budgetary mess results. Since the US doesn't have a GNP-to-debt ratio as whacked as most industrialized countries, I feel we wouldn't need much taxation - if any - to fix things after such an enforced diet.

C actually is already used a lot; there are many things which the government owns - either physically, like land, or intellecutally, like radio airwaves. I suppose that soaking companies for logging rights on federal land, radio frequency use, and oil drilling rights would be more politically acceptable, as the notion of charging such companies more will play well on the left and corporations will simply hand the extra cost to the consumer. Nobody loses, at least, nobody politically active, which is functionally the same thing from Congress's standpoint.

::feeling cynical tonight::

Euler · 2005-01-18 00:34:22

Generally speaking, forcing option A is a not so secret goal of the Republican party; a larger and larger portion of the federal government is earmarked for various social programs, and since raising taxes IS unpopular as hell... It's Machiavellian and a completely unfair, manipulative stance, but hey, fair fights are for suckers, so I approve.

The Republicans say they want to reduce spending, but it seems like modern Republicans end up spending at least as much as the Dems. The big social programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Welfare are all non-discretionary transfer payments. This makes it difficult to change the funding for these programs, and in addition it is hard to take away the benefits that people believe they are entitled to. Most of the discretionary funding is military.

We could implement B afterwards or at the same time if neccessary to fix whatever budgetary mess results. Since the US doesn't have a GNP-to-debt ratio as whacked as most industrialized countries, I feel we wouldn't need much taxation - if any - to fix things after such an enforced diet.

The US GDP/debt ratio is not as high as it is in some other countries, but you also have to look at who the US owes money to. Japan and China are now buying up increasingly large amounts of US treasury bonds, meaning that the interest on the debt is flowing out of the country rather than staying inside it. This also means that the governments of Japan and China can cause serious disruptions in the US economy and ruin the US government's credit rating whenever they want to.

Cobra Commander · 2005-01-18 06:43:31

Quote
Yes, it could. That is why any workable plan requires some combination of:
A) Cuts in spending to cover the shortfall

Would you still support this if it means military cuts and abandoning a "strong Roman" plan for the Middle East?

If part of an overall workable plan, yes. "Strong Roman" in the MidEast only applies if we choose the approach of trying to stabilize it. Killing the "bad guys" from afar and letting the resulting chaos play out is also viable, cheaper, but a bit more distasteful from a moral standpoint.

"Strong Roman" is the best way of stablilising and westernizing those countries, but is totally unnecessary if we collectively decide that the people there don't matter. Not my preferred position, but an easier one to sell to the Left if stated less bluntly. Put on a show of being of oh-so-concerned about them while doing nothing but killing the dictator-of-the-month and letting civil war keep them distracted until next time.

I am surprised to see a conservative sugest tax increases. Normally tax increases are unpopular even when they are desperately needed.

I'm not suggesting tax increases, merely laying it out as one of the possible means of paying for it. I oppose those increases, partly on general principle and partly because I'm not entirely convinced it would be necessary even in the absence of the more palatable solutions. All the SocSec numbers I've seen project a huge transition cost from changing the system while ignoring the fact that the same costs are already in there, just classified differently. If government borrows money to "fix" SocSec it's debt, yet that borrowing would be to cover financial obligations the government already has. The manner of accounting inflates the problem.

They already owe the money, the only question is how to pay it. The current SocSec structure isn't going to do it much longer, so we need alternatives. Now say current workers begin investing 10% of their SocSec taxes in private accounts. The rest of the money still goes to pay current retirees while the obligation to those younger workers is reduced. Current debts are met as they would have been anyway while future debt is reduced in direct proportion to current income, any shortfall would be far less than the catastrophic numbers certain quarters bandy about indiscriminately. Essentially no gain, no loss. Keep doing it for a generation or two and you reduce the overall burden of the program, further if other methods are employed.

The big social programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Welfare are all non-discretionary transfer payments. This makes it difficult to change the funding for these programs, and in addition it is hard to take away the benefits that people believe they are entitled to. Most of the discretionary funding is military.

Which is somewhat odd being that defense is one of the central duties of any government while social programs are gravy.

The principle is simple, if the government can't secure the borders and maintain order it loses all rational for its existence.

Martian Republic · 2005-01-18 09:20:04

Generally speaking, forcing option A is a not so secret goal of the Republican party; a larger and larger portion of the federal government is earmarked for various social programs, and since raising taxes IS unpopular as hell... It's Machiavellian and a completely unfair, manipulative stance, but hey, fair fights are for suckers, so I approve.
The Republicans say they want to reduce spending, but it seems like modern Republicans end up spending at least as much as the Dems. The big social programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Welfare are all non-discretionary transfer payments. This makes it difficult to change the funding for these programs, and in addition it is hard to take away the benefits that people believe they are entitled to. Most of the discretionary funding is military.
We could implement B afterwards or at the same time if neccessary to fix whatever budgetary mess results. Since the US doesn't have a GNP-to-debt ratio as whacked as most industrialized countries, I feel we wouldn't need much taxation - if any - to fix things after such an enforced diet.
The US GDP/debt ratio is not as high as it is in some other countries, but you also have to look at who the US owes money to. Japan and China are now buying up increasingly large amounts of US treasury bonds, meaning that the interest on the debt is flowing out of the country rather than staying inside it. This also means that the governments of Japan and China can cause serious disruptions in the US economy and ruin the US government's credit rating whenever they want to.

The fact that both the China and Japan were buying government bonds, but they have started to no buy government bonds now along with most of the rest of the world too. Sale government bonds or U.S. government debt to other countries was how the government was getting U.S. Dollars back into the United States so that we could use that money again. We also have other countries investing in Wall Street which also brought money back into the United States too. Now with the almost half a trillion dollars deficit which would be well over six hundred billion if they had not raided Social Security for almost half a trillion dollars.

The problem is, these countries don't want to buy any more U.S. Government debt or invest in Wall Street anymore, because the U.S. Economy is on the verge of collapse. We also have a housing bubble too of houses that are over valued homes, which is getting ready to implode on us too.

There two ways that we can choose to deal with this problem.

Raid Social Security of trillions of dollars and cause maybe one last Stock Market rally, before it collapses under all that debt of trillions of borrowed money for Social Security, trillions of dollars in the National debt, ten of trillion in both the major bankers and Wall Street. Nothing can stop this collapse and investing our Social Security funds in that Wall Street crooked crap table game will only eliminate the money in that Social Security fund and will not even delay this collapse for very long either.

Our other choice is to put the U.S. Economic System through a bankruptcy reorganization with use Social Security and Medicaid, Medicare as the minimum standard to fall back on as we rebuild the American Economic System. But, if we destroy this system, then we have nothing work with to rebuild the country with. Also we could save the bank accounts of private individuals, then with government projects super trains, subways, power plants and even a revamped NASA space mission use this to power a New American Economic System. Because off of this will come those Private Enterprise efforts that build those subways cars, trains, planes, space craft, etc for the Public Sector.

Larry,

SpaceNut · 2016-02-02 23:16:24

Fixed artifacts and shifting

very old topic

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-02-03 12:40:00

Quite true, China is not the dynamo it used to be, its leaders are grasping for control of the economy, and that is slowing down China's economic growth. Ideally a capitalist system, should reward the most talented, because they are most capable of running China's industries the best, but so long as the Communist party officials try to do it, China's economy is going to suffer, and that is what is happening now.

clark · 2016-02-17 22:55:20

Ayn Rand your mother?

Capitalism has nothing to do with meritocracy. Your senseless post only glorifies lazy trite reductions of social and economic theories and demonstrates why even basic literacy can be a dangerous thing. I especially enjoy your analytical assessment of China. Well done. It's like you scraped every yahoo news feed in the last four minutes, synthesized an opinion of news heads, and vomited it out as your own. A f*cking Chinese Room does not intelligence prove.

I hate you.

Terraformer · 2016-02-18 07:06:49

Oh dear, look who's back.

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-03-02 08:01:03

clark wrote:

Ayn Rand your mother?
Capitalism has nothing to do with meritocracy. Your senseless post only glorifies lazy trite reductions of social and economic theories and demonstrates why even basic literacy can be a dangerous thing. I especially enjoy your analytical assessment of China. Well done. It's like you scraped every yahoo news feed in the last four minutes, synthesized an opinion of news heads, and vomited it out as your own. A f*cking Chinese Room does not intelligence prove.
I hate you.

Because I'm right! Looks like Clark's come out of the dark! My only question is why do you support dictatorship. Why is putting one man in charge so efficient? You know Communism is only a gimmick to put one man in charge so he can control you, that is all it is! And just because he is in charge, doesn't mean he is doing a good job. Communism simply deprives the people of the means to get rid of their government when they feel it isn't doing a good job. The incompetent stay on top, that is why China is doing so badly!

clark · 2016-03-10 23:28:51

I look at myself, a product of public education, and I wonder, what the f*ck books did I get that you didn't?

So let's see Tomas. You're obviously post-secondary. Missed the boat on anything involving university, unless of course you count that year your dabbled in community college and dropped out. Grammar and syntax places you as third, perhaps fourth generation in the low socio-economic strata. The wild and varied posts across the forum, many with loud accusations and bizarre interpretations indicate an inability to form real relationships. You want attention? Perhaps a hug? Don't worry Tomas, I love you.

And before the peanut gallery decides to descend with their penny opinions, let me bring this silly pointless thread back to Mars.

Any endeavor involving Mars will ultimately be far more socialist in nature than currently experienced in the western world. The commons does not exist without society. The fantasy of independence does not survive a vacuum. A society cannot survive an environment where one disenfranchised individual can open an airlock and space the group. The fact that we argue this point with the dimwitted only serves to demonstrate we are not ready.

kbd512 · 2016-03-11 04:47:51

clark wrote:

I look at myself, a product of public education, and I wonder, what the f*ck books did I get that you didn't?
So let's see Tomas. You're obviously post-secondary. Missed the boat on anything involving university, unless of course you count that year your dabbled in community college and dropped out. Grammar and syntax places you as third, perhaps fourth generation in the low socio-economic strata. The wild and varied posts across the forum, many with loud accusations and bizarre interpretations indicate an inability to form real relationships. You want attention? Perhaps a hug? Don't worry Tomas, I love you.
And before the peanut gallery decides to descend with their penny opinions, let me bring this silly pointless thread back to Mars.
Any endeavor involving Mars will ultimately be far more socialist in nature than currently experienced in the western world. The commons does not exist without society. The fantasy of independence does not survive a vacuum. A society cannot survive an environment where one disenfranchised individual can open an airlock and space the group. The fact that we argue this point with the dimwitted only serves to demonstrate we are not ready.

Come on back to the main forums and help us figure out what we did wrong or could do better, with respect to our mission plans and spacecraft design. Help us become ready to go to Mars.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2005-01-17 14:57:34

Re: Heading North?

#27 2005-01-17 17:03:40

Re: Heading North?

#28 2005-01-17 17:59:47

Re: Heading North?

#29 2005-01-17 19:30:40

Re: Heading North?

#30 2005-01-17 23:38:48

Re: Heading North?

#31 2005-01-18 00:34:22

Re: Heading North?

#32 2005-01-18 06:43:31

Re: Heading North?

#33 2005-01-18 09:20:04

Re: Heading North?

#34 2016-02-02 23:16:24

Re: Heading North?

#35 2016-02-03 12:40:00

Re: Heading North?

#36 2016-02-17 22:55:20

Re: Heading North?

#37 2016-02-18 07:06:49

Re: Heading North?

#38 2016-03-02 08:01:03

Re: Heading North?

#39 2016-03-10 23:28:51

Re: Heading North?

#40 2016-03-11 04:47:51

Re: Heading North?

Board footer