Point taken. It's not a trillion, but it's certainly a lot of money. The maddening part to me is that Obama wants to make that permanent spending when the war ends. A sane president would end the war at the right time, and then return spending to previous non-war levels. An insane president would end the war no matter the timing (and results), and then continue spending the same amount as if we are still at war.
It's not in any sense a Ponzi scheme. But keep spewing your rhetorical nonsense if you like feeling angry or scared. If the angry white man in the suit says its true, then it must be. He would never lie to you. Not for a moment.
Same holds for your predicted shortfall. Anyone who claims to know what Social Security will look like in 30, 40, or 50 years from now is full of shit.
The HELL is isnt a Ponzi sceme. Your denial of that fact proves you either dont understand SS or you dont know what a Ponzi sceme is...or both.
We have acturarial tables to foresee what will happen to SS. The same actuarial tables that every insurance company and insurance company regulators uses to judge their solvency.
Your obvious lack of knowledge of this topic is quite frankly stunning.
Clone I am not afraid of the libs. What are they going to do welfare me to death. I am afraid of the facts, while I am not an economics major I know that if you raise tax rates it stifles the economy. I don't care what tax rate you raise it stifles the economy because you are taking discretionary income from businesses and individuals. When you do that there is a slump in spending, hiring and benefit packages for employees. Most companies will lay off labor that is not essential to there production so they can recover what the government is taking or they raise the cost of the product passing the expense on to the consumer. Either way you look at it it is bad business and when the price of goods goes up coupled with people bringing less money home, I say put two and two together.
As far as the teachers union and railroad unions are concerned the teachers are represented by the teachers union probably the largest and best run unions in the nation and I believe the railroad workers all run under the same local. I did make a connection but I was wrong in my initial understanding so now my point makes no sense.
By your simple logic on taxes, if we were to lower or even eliminate them, we would all flourish.
As to the teacher and railroad workers, I do remember now that when Soc Sec was started, there was an assumption that private pensions would be the primary source of retirement and so maybe certain (I'm speculating here) groups were exempt.
You see -- that's the difference between me and you. You're sounding like a financial idiot, and now you're bringing race into the argument like a damn fool. What does the angry white man have to do with it Matclone? Everything boils down to race for you which makes talking to you a complete waste of time.
Oh, and by the way, yes we can figure out where things are going to be 30-years out. It's my job, it's a science, and we do it quite well. 52-trillion is the low end of the estimate and you can book it, Dano.
The angry white man in the suit is that guy on radio on TV selling you bullshit. He is white, and race is quite often part of his pitch. That doesn't mean I'm introducing race into this particular argument, and I haven't.
If it's in fact your job to predict, and to use science, you'll know that your predictions are only as good as your presumptions and that we don't know what the future will hold (the economy, changes in population, or changes in the law such as those suggested at the outset of this thread). So when you tell me Social Security will be broke, and Ugly won't see a red dime, without even acknowledging the possibility of different futures, then I just have to figure you're full of shit.
There's that white color reference again. Stop it with the race and skin color talk; it makes you sound desperate and unwise. In addition, you're the one that sounds angry, because as I've reviewed your posts over the last 3-months, you apparently do not enjoy white people, and you despise rich white people even more. Now I know why you love JWright.com so much.
We perform scenario testing, simulations (sometimes, Monte Carlo), best case, worst case, and everything in between. And yes, we have to make *assumptions* (not presumptions lol) about demographic trends (birth and death rates), economic growth, future benefits that have been promised, and future tax receipts. I'm sorry to report to you Matclone, that your little social and economic utopia that you dream about (where rich white people are in re-education camps) will be coming to an end. Perhaps in your lifetime, and most certainly my kids' lifetime.
And I can't wait for these programs to get gutted and re-gutted. Oh, no no no, don't worry Matclone, I won't be testifying to the icky little legislators (with beady eyes) to get rid of the programs, but I could be testifying how much benefits will have to be cut assuming that taxes would have to remain roughly the same. I relish the day when I will witness a legislator puke down the front of his shirt while saying, "I don't know what went wrong!!"
In all, you're the one who is full of shit. You don't know what you're talking about, so I suggest you stay in your area of expertise; the invocation of race into every issue. I hope it pays well.
Originally Posted by matclone
The angry white man in the suit is that guy on radio on TV selling you bullshit. He is white, and race is quite often part of his pitch. That doesn't mean I'm introducing race into this particular argument, and I haven't.
If it's in fact your job to predict, and to use science, you'll know that your predictions are only as good as your presumptions and that we don't know what the future will hold (the economy, changes in population, or changes in the law such as those suggested at the outset of this thread). So when you tell me Social Security will be broke, and Ugly won't see a red dime, without even acknowledging the possibility of different futures, then I just have to figure you're full of shit.
Last edited by Cyclone85; 06-15-2008 at 12:14 AM..
There's that white color reference again. Stop it with the race and skin color talk; it makes you sound desperate and unwise. In addition, you're the one that sounds angry, because as I've reviewed your posts over the last 3-months, you apparently do not enjoy white people, and you despise rich white people even more. Now I know why you love JWright.com so much.
We perform scenario testing, simulations (sometimes, Monte Carlo), best case, worst case, and everything in between. And yes, we have to make *assumptions* (not presumptions lol) about demographic trends (birth and death rates), economic growth, future benefits that have been promised, and future tax receipts. I'm sorry to report to you Matclone, that your little social and economic utopia that you dream about (where rich white people are in re-education camps) will be coming to an end. Perhaps in your lifetime, and most certainly my kids' lifetime.
And I can't wait for these programs to get gutted and re-gutted. Oh, no no no, don't worry Matclone, I won't be testifying to the icky little legislators (with beady eyes) to get rid of the programs, but I could be testifying how much benefits will have to be cut assuming that taxes would have to remain roughly the same. I relish the day when I will witness a legislator puke down the front of his shirt while saying, "I don't know what went wrong!!"
In all, you're the one who is full of shit. You don't know what you're talking about, so I suggest you stay in your area of expertise; the invocation of race into every issue. I hope it pays well.
I think Ugly is on the right track, here, at least in how I view the income cap, which may or may not be correct. OASDI has always had a contribution and benefit base limit on it ( http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/cbb.html#Series ), which is adjusted yearly with the national average wage index. Some people say this cap was initiated because OASDI was never considered to be stand-alone income -- it was considered to be a supplement and the benefits a participant recieved were in adjuested with his contribution such that the more you paid in, the more you got back in benefits.
Social Security was created as a pay-related retirement system, not as a welfare program that redistributes money from workers to those in need regardless of whether or not its recipients had paid into the system. The benefits that retirees received were linked to the taxes that they had paid when in the workforce. Social Security was intended to supplement rather than replace private sources of retirement income by providing only a basic, government-guaranteed source of income.
Maximum Level of Benefits and Maximum Taxable Wages. Within this context, Congress determined that it was appropriate to set an upper limit on the amount of income that Americans could receive from the Social Security program. A limit on benefits, combined with the principle that workers' benefits should relate to the amount of money that they paid into the system, made an upper limit on the taxes that workers would pay appropriate.
But, it may also be tax structure and tax stability in hard times that puts the OASDI cap where it is. I think it all goes back to the Great Depression era when much of the revenue of the federal government relied on liquor taxes and income taxes. Upper level income were unstable in the Depression, but lower level incomes were much more stable ( http://politicalcalculations.blogspo...ng-social.html ). Limiting the amount that could be taxed also limited the amount that could be paid out. If economic volatility occurred, the governmetn still had dependable lower incomes to tax and didn't have to pay out large beneifts to high-income tax payers, since their participation was capped.
To use an example, we can look at the period 2000 and 2002, in which total adjusted gross income in the US dropped 8.9% ( http://politicalcalculations.blogspo...ng-social.html ). OASDI benefits did not decrease at all during that period, even though total AGI decreased. This is because higher incomes decreased during this time (think dot coms and 9/11), not thel ower incomes that are taxed to fund OASDI.
Essentially, OASDI taxes are capped because it keeps the government from having to pay out large benefits to high-income participants and it ensures that taxes are drawn from less volatile incomes in times of hardship, helpingto keep OASDI solvent even during hard times. Openeing OASDI to the volatility of those high-incomes could strand thousands without their safety net if we should fall on ahrd times.
The angry white man in the suit is a caricature of my own creation. That concept is apparently too difficult for some here to comprehend (presumably in part because no one on TV or radio has validated it) but I think Throwby is on to it (I think).
Re: Obama proposes change in Social Security tax 
Linear Mode
