Social Security Discussion

[Politico]

Huh? It's dishonest to give people their money back if that's what they want? But it's honest to steal from peter to pay for paul's insurance?

Give their money back lol. People who are owed it aren't even able to get it.

 

[oldfart]

Huh? It's dishonest to give people their money back if that's what they want? But it's honest to steal from peter to pay for paul's insurance?

No. it's dishonest for a pseudo-free market shill (refering to advocates of the plan, not you as an individual) to advocate negating contracts to which the government is a a party simply because it is in the interest of a few to do so. If you advocate a voluntary program of privatization, of renegotiating the contract, I would oppose it as a bad idea, but would consider it to be honest. But the cost of replacing Social Security with actuarially sound private insurance is about 180% of the cost of retaining Social Security, reflecting the fact that as constituted private monopolies are not able to compete with public insurance, which is why it only happens if the public can be persuaded to vote against their own economic interests to support the interests of paid political hacks beholden to economic leaches who cannot exist without being bailed out every few years at the public trough. This endeavor of extracting resources from almost everyone in society for the benefit of the wealthy and powerful is only possible when assisted by intellectually dishonest parrots of the corporate line who hopefully well paid for their services as a judas goat.

Suppose we conduct a thought experiment. Eliminate the government and start over. Disband all public services including police and military and abolish the legal system. Do you reasonably believe that third and fourth generation wealth will rise to the top of the new society? Where are you Social Darwinians? The wealthy will take their liquid assets and flee, joining the Russian emigres and the French Old Regime. Is the new upper class based on ability to mobilize support for forceful expropriation any less moral than those they displace? Of course not. Our present political structure is losing legitimacy, and when it reaches the point of governing only by the threat of force, it has no basis to complain when force turns out to be in the hands of others. Many on the left and right historically, and today many on the right, play the revolutionary rhetoric game. If you win, you get to make the rules and rewrite history. If you lose, the victors decide your fate. Who wants to play that game? It is a fool's game. And I am and have been ever disgusted by those of any political stripe who wish to play it.

Contract? What contract? Did you sign a contract? Where's my contract? I never signed any contract for SS, never saw one either.

My point, in part, was that there has been no agreement the money is simply taken by force.

As to your fools game, how far are you willing to take this? 100% of our children's salaries? 100% of all of assets upon our death? Prima Nocta of our wives by our governors? Where do you draw the line before you will protect family members from this attack by our elected leaders on our liberty to live life as we see fit? You deride others for drawing the line at 50% or so total tax, fine then where do you draw the line? You may be a willing slave to your employees, you may be willing to pass this legacy of slavery to future generations, I am not.

As to your accusation that I'm better off with SS than private... That's a load of bull honky. I put the same amount in my 401k as I'm forced to put into SS. I'll be receiving 5times more from my 401k in retirement than from SS and it's MINE to do with as I see fit. I can leave it to my children if I want for example. Where with SS it's flushed down the toilet. I would have to live to be 211 years old just to break even on the money that has been stolen from me for SS.

I'd answer if there was a chance you were not delusional. Keep your guns handy, you folks will need them in the fantasy world you are going into.

 

[RKMBrown]

No. it's dishonest for a pseudo-free market shill (refering to advocates of the plan, not you as an individual) to advocate negating contracts to which the government is a a party simply because it is in the interest of a few to do so. If you advocate a voluntary program of privatization, of renegotiating the contract, I would oppose it as a bad idea, but would consider it to be honest. But the cost of replacing Social Security with actuarially sound private insurance is about 180% of the cost of retaining Social Security, reflecting the fact that as constituted private monopolies are not able to compete with public insurance, which is why it only happens if the public can be persuaded to vote against their own economic interests to support the interests of paid political hacks beholden to economic leaches who cannot exist without being bailed out every few years at the public trough. This endeavor of extracting resources from almost everyone in society for the benefit of the wealthy and powerful is only possible when assisted by intellectually dishonest parrots of the corporate line who hopefully well paid for their services as a judas goat.

Suppose we conduct a thought experiment. Eliminate the government and start over. Disband all public services including police and military and abolish the legal system. Do you reasonably believe that third and fourth generation wealth will rise to the top of the new society? Where are you Social Darwinians? The wealthy will take their liquid assets and flee, joining the Russian emigres and the French Old Regime. Is the new upper class based on ability to mobilize support for forceful expropriation any less moral than those they displace? Of course not. Our present political structure is losing legitimacy, and when it reaches the point of governing only by the threat of force, it has no basis to complain when force turns out to be in the hands of others. Many on the left and right historically, and today many on the right, play the revolutionary rhetoric game. If you win, you get to make the rules and rewrite history. If you lose, the victors decide your fate. Who wants to play that game? It is a fool's game. And I am and have been ever disgusted by those of any political stripe who wish to play it.

Contract? What contract? Did you sign a contract? Where's my contract? I never signed any contract for SS, never saw one either.

My point, in part, was that there has been no agreement the money is simply taken by force.

As to your fools game, how far are you willing to take this? 100% of our children's salaries? 100% of all of assets upon our death? Prima Nocta of our wives by our governors? Where do you draw the line before you will protect family members from this attack by our elected leaders on our liberty to live life as we see fit? You deride others for drawing the line at 50% or so total tax, fine then where do you draw the line? You may be a willing slave to your employees, you may be willing to pass this legacy of slavery to future generations, I am not.

As to your accusation that I'm better off with SS than private... That's a load of bull honky. I put the same amount in my 401k as I'm forced to put into SS. I'll be receiving 5times more from my 401k in retirement than from SS and it's MINE to do with as I see fit. I can leave it to my children if I want for example. Where with SS it's flushed down the toilet. I would have to live to be 211 years old just to break even on the money that has been stolen from me for SS.

I'd answer if there was a chance you were not delusional. Keep your guns handy, you folks will need them in the fantasy world you are going into.

Sure you do. Run away now.

 

[Rshermr]

Contract? What contract? Did you sign a contract? Where's my contract? I never signed any contract for SS, never saw one either.

My point, in part, was that there has been no agreement the money is simply taken by force.

As to your fools game, how far are you willing to take this? 100% of our children's salaries? 100% of all of assets upon our death? Prima Nocta of our wives by our governors? Where do you draw the line before you will protect family members from this attack by our elected leaders on our liberty to live life as we see fit? You deride others for drawing the line at 50% or so total tax, fine then where do you draw the line? You may be a willing slave to your employees, you may be willing to pass this legacy of slavery to future generations, I am not.

As to your accusation that I'm better off with SS than private... That's a load of bull honky. I put the same amount in my 401k as I'm forced to put into SS. I'll be receiving 5times more from my 401k in retirement than from SS and it's MINE to do with as I see fit. I can leave it to my children if I want for example. Where with SS it's flushed down the toilet. I would have to live to be 211 years old just to break even on the money that has been stolen from me for SS.

I'd answer if there was a chance you were not delusional. Keep your guns handy, you folks will need them in the fantasy world you are going into.

Sure you do. Run away now.

RK, no one is running from you. You are simply a waste of time to discuss anything with. You are, me boy, a far right wing nut case. Libertarian in nature, I would say. And definitely delusional.

Here is the thing, me poor ignorant con. We live in a democratic republic. Which is to say, the people vote for their representatives. Even you know that. And your stance, me boy, that we should privatize SS, is about as popular as a turd in a punch bowl.

Could it be improved??? Sure. But privatization or elimination is out of the question, based on the political power of the majority. You are in the far, far, far right wing extremities politically. I figure you would be lucky to see 5% of the voters go along with your form of "logic". And the reasons why, as was obvious from your exchange with oldfart, is that you are incapable of considering the irrationality of your stance. And that, me boy, you are simply a follower. As most far right conservatives have been proven to be, in study after study.

 

[RKMBrown]

I'd answer if there was a chance you were not delusional. Keep your guns handy, you folks will need them in the fantasy world you are going into.

Sure you do. Run away now.

RK, no one is running from you. You are simply a waste of time to discuss anything with. You are, me boy, a far right wing nut case. Libertarian in nature, I would say. And definitely delusional.

Here is the thing, me poor ignorant con. We live in a democratic republic. Which is to say, the people vote for their representatives. Even you know that. And your stance, me boy, that we should privatize SS, is about as popular as a turd in a punch bowl.

Could it be improved??? Sure. But privatization or elimination is out of the question, based on the political power of the majority. You are in the far, far, far right wing extremities politically. I figure you would be lucky to see 5% of the voters go along with your form of "logic". And the reasons why, as was obvious from your exchange with oldfart, is that you are incapable of considering the irrationality of your stance. And that, me boy, you are simply a follower. As most far right conservatives have been proven to be, in study after study.

ROFL you think I'm a follower because I refuse to follow the lead of the majority. What a dumb ass. You think my opinion that our retirement savings should be in our hands is stupid because people like you are to stupid to manage their own money. ROFL

 

[Kimura]

15 years ago, the Liberal government in Canada reformed the Canada Pension Plan - Canada's version of SS - and changed it to a standard defined contribution plan. It's done better than SS IIRC and I expect it to do better in the future, given that SS mimics a government bond fund earning very low returns. I think SS should be reformed similarly.

I just read up on the Canadian plan last night.

Obviously, I'm all for the budgeting process. However, why not deep six the SS fund and just make payments out of the general revenue? We can still legislate a funding guarantee which is needed, but this whole obsession whether the SS Trust Fund's record keeping is in surplus or deficit is rather absurd.

 

[Toro]

15 years ago, the Liberal government in Canada reformed the Canada Pension Plan - Canada's version of SS - and changed it to a standard defined contribution plan. It's done better than SS IIRC and I expect it to do better in the future, given that SS mimics a government bond fund earning very low returns. I think SS should be reformed similarly.

I just read up on the Canadian plan last night.

Obviously, I'm all for the budgeting process. However, why not deep six the SS fund and just make payments out of the general revenue? We can still legislate a funding guarantee which is needed, but this whole obsession whether the SS Trust Fund's record keeping is in surplus or deficit is rather absurd.

Because SS was and still is sold as a savings vehicle, not a wealth transfer mechanism.

 

[Kimura]

15 years ago, the Liberal government in Canada reformed the Canada Pension Plan - Canada's version of SS - and changed it to a standard defined contribution plan. It's done better than SS IIRC and I expect it to do better in the future, given that SS mimics a government bond fund earning very low returns. I think SS should be reformed similarly.

I just read up on the Canadian plan last night.

Obviously, I'm all for the budgeting process. However, why not deep six the SS fund and just make payments out of the general revenue? We can still legislate a funding guarantee which is needed, but this whole obsession whether the SS Trust Fund's record keeping is in surplus or deficit is rather absurd.

Because SS was and still is sold as a savings vehicle, not a wealth transfer mechanism.

I'm not talking about a "wealth transfer". If we go this route, we can eliminate the SS tax. A permanent payroll tax holiday so to speak.

Either way, privatization is the worst idea in a long line of horrible ideas.

It boils down to public policy at the end of the day and the type of government we want as a country. I wish Congress would just stop bullshitting Americans.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Huh? It's dishonest to give people their money back if that's what they want? But it's honest to steal from peter to pay for paul's insurance?

No. it's dishonest for a pseudo-free market shill (refering to advocates of the plan, not you as an individual) to advocate negating contracts to which the government is a a party simply because it is in the interest of a few to do so. If you advocate a voluntary program of privatization, of renegotiating the contract, I would oppose it as a bad idea, but would consider it to be honest. But the cost of replacing Social Security with actuarially sound private insurance is about 180% of the cost of retaining Social Security, reflecting the fact that as constituted private monopolies are not able to compete with public insurance, which is why it only happens if the public can be persuaded to vote against their own economic interests to support the interests of paid political hacks beholden to economic leaches who cannot exist without being bailed out every few years at the public trough. This endeavor of extracting resources from almost everyone in society for the benefit of the wealthy and powerful is only possible when assisted by intellectually dishonest parrots of the corporate line who hopefully well paid for their services as a judas goat.

Suppose we conduct a thought experiment. Eliminate the government and start over. Disband all public services including police and military and abolish the legal system. Do you reasonably believe that third and fourth generation wealth will rise to the top of the new society? Where are you Social Darwinians? The wealthy will take their liquid assets and flee, joining the Russian emigres and the French Old Regime. Is the new upper class based on ability to mobilize support for forceful expropriation any less moral than those they displace? Of course not. Our present political structure is losing legitimacy, and when it reaches the point of governing only by the threat of force, it has no basis to complain when force turns out to be in the hands of others. Many on the left and right historically, and today many on the right, play the revolutionary rhetoric game. If you win, you get to make the rules and rewrite history. If you lose, the victors decide your fate. Who wants to play that game? It is a fool's game. And I am and have been ever disgusted by those of any political stripe who wish to play it.

But the cost of replacing Social Security with actuarially sound private insurance is about 180% of the cost of retaining Social Security,

How much would it cost to replace Social Security with actuarially sound Social Security? LOL!

 

[Rshermr]

Sure you do. Run away now.

RK, no one is running from you. You are simply a waste of time to discuss anything with. You are, me boy, a far right wing nut case. Libertarian in nature, I would say. And definitely delusional.

Here is the thing, me poor ignorant con. We live in a democratic republic. Which is to say, the people vote for their representatives. Even you know that. And your stance, me boy, that we should privatize SS, is about as popular as a turd in a punch bowl.

Could it be improved??? Sure. But privatization or elimination is out of the question, based on the political power of the majority. You are in the far, far, far right wing extremities politically. I figure you would be lucky to see 5% of the voters go along with your form of "logic". And the reasons why, as was obvious from your exchange with oldfart, is that you are incapable of considering the irrationality of your stance. And that, me boy, you are simply a follower. As most far right conservatives have been proven to be, in study after study.

ROFL you think I'm a follower because I refuse to follow the lead of the majority. What a dumb ass. You think my opinion that our retirement savings should be in our hands is stupid because people like you are to stupid to manage their own money. ROFL

You are a follower because you are part of the libertarian clown show, me boy. You are completely predictable. Apparently you are of the mistaken opinion that you can only be a follower if you are in the majority. Which is, of course, a mistaken idea. And proves you to be stupid as a post.

What your malfunction is, me poor ignorant person, is that you are in need of some authority figure to tell you what is true. You are totally incapable of conversation. You completely pass the Koch test. If it would be good for and supported by the koch brothers, you are in support of it.

Your ailment has been studied over and over. Actual clinical studies, me boy. What you are is clinically mentally ill. If you need a few of the studies, let me know, and I will provide the links. Or you can simply google "stupid conservatives". The main thing, of course, is that it is not your fault. It is truly just plain bad luck.

 

[oldfart]

15 years ago, the Liberal government in Canada reformed the Canada Pension Plan - Canada's version of SS - and changed it to a standard defined contribution plan. It's done better than SS IIRC and I expect it to do better in the future, given that SS mimics a government bond fund earning very low returns. I think SS should be reformed similarly.

I just read up on the Canadian plan last night.

Obviously, I'm all for the budgeting process. However, why not deep six the SS fund and just make payments out of the general revenue? We can still legislate a funding guarantee which is needed, but this whole obsession whether the SS Trust Fund's record keeping is in surplus or deficit is rather absurd.

My fear would be that if the trust funds are folded into the general budget, payroll taxes become just another revenue source to tap to pay for the next $5 trillion war and retirement, disability, and survivor benefits become just another welfare program that should be means tested and compete with all other spending programs. I don't have warm fuzzies that Congress would choose say funding Medicare when they could use the money for stuff like corporate tax loopholes.

I don't think I'm being unrealistic. The last campaign revealed how the wealthy and large corporations regard the rest of the population. When they get close to 100% of all real economic growth, that is their entitlement because they "earned" it. When their efforts to earn wealth fail, the rest of society must spend trillions bailing them out because they are so necessary to the economy. Wall Street gets paid and Main Street gets the bill.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

15 years ago, the Liberal government in Canada reformed the Canada Pension Plan - Canada's version of SS - and changed it to a standard defined contribution plan. It's done better than SS IIRC and I expect it to do better in the future, given that SS mimics a government bond fund earning very low returns. I think SS should be reformed similarly.

I just read up on the Canadian plan last night.

Obviously, I'm all for the budgeting process. However, why not deep six the SS fund and just make payments out of the general revenue? We can still legislate a funding guarantee which is needed, but this whole obsession whether the SS Trust Fund's record keeping is in surplus or deficit is rather absurd.

My fear would be that if the trust funds are folded into the general budget, payroll taxes become just another revenue source to tap to pay for the next $5 trillion war and retirement, disability, and survivor benefits become just another welfare program that should be means tested and compete with all other spending programs. I don't have warm fuzzies that Congress would choose say funding Medicare when they could use the money for stuff like corporate tax loopholes.

I don't think I'm being unrealistic. The last campaign revealed how the wealthy and large corporations regard the rest of the population. When they get close to 100% of all real economic growth, that is their entitlement because they "earned" it. When their efforts to earn wealth fail, the rest of society must spend trillions bailing them out because they are so necessary to the economy. Wall Street gets paid and Main Street gets the bill.

When their efforts to earn wealth fail, the rest of society must spend trillions bailing them out because they are so necessary to the economy.

Yes, bailing out the auto companies and Fannie and Freddie cost more than a hundred billion. Awful.

 

[william the wie]

Obviously, the social security trust fund is....ridiculous.

You should have stopped there.

It needs to ended. I would recommend a cash buy out of the future liabilities via check to the 401k of each asset holder for the assets collected that have not yet been paid out to the asset holder.

With bail ins and pension raids outside of the US, this will not fly. With the Frank-Dodd prohibitions on dynamic hedging in tax favored accounts and other risk enhancing laws in regards to retirement accounts a huge amount of heavy lifting would be needed. Your faith in the honesty and integrity of our state, local and federal governments strikes me as excessively over-optimistic.

 

[william the wie]

15 years ago, the Liberal government in Canada reformed the Canada Pension Plan - Canada's version of SS - and changed it to a standard defined contribution plan. It's done better than SS IIRC and I expect it to do better in the future, given that SS mimics a government bond fund earning very low returns. I think SS should be reformed similarly.

True. But an honest set of investment recommendations under such circumstances would promote Browne's lazy man portfolio among others such as Graham's from "The Intelligent Investor".

1) The majors will promote even a deceased LP presidential candidate such as Browne when Hell defrosts from freezing over.

2) The Democrats, if anything, have even less love for liquidation specialist such as Graham than they do for Browne.

 

[RKMBrown]

RK, no one is running from you. You are simply a waste of time to discuss anything with. You are, me boy, a far right wing nut case. Libertarian in nature, I would say. And definitely delusional.

Here is the thing, me poor ignorant con. We live in a democratic republic. Which is to say, the people vote for their representatives. Even you know that. And your stance, me boy, that we should privatize SS, is about as popular as a turd in a punch bowl.

Could it be improved??? Sure. But privatization or elimination is out of the question, based on the political power of the majority. You are in the far, far, far right wing extremities politically. I figure you would be lucky to see 5% of the voters go along with your form of "logic". And the reasons why, as was obvious from your exchange with oldfart, is that you are incapable of considering the irrationality of your stance. And that, me boy, you are simply a follower. As most far right conservatives have been proven to be, in study after study.

ROFL you think I'm a follower because I refuse to follow the lead of the majority. What a dumb ass. You think my opinion that our retirement savings should be in our hands is stupid because people like you are to stupid to manage their own money. ROFL

You are a follower because you are part of the libertarian clown show, me boy. You are completely predictable. Apparently you are of the mistaken opinion that you can only be a follower if you are in the majority. Which is, of course, a mistaken idea. And proves you to be stupid as a post.

What your malfunction is, me poor ignorant person, is that you are in need of some authority figure to tell you what is true. You are totally incapable of conversation. You completely pass the Koch test. If it would be good for and supported by the koch brothers, you are in support of it.

Your ailment has been studied over and over. Actual clinical studies, me boy. What you are is clinically mentally ill. If you need a few of the studies, let me know, and I will provide the links. Or you can simply google "stupid conservatives". The main thing, of course, is that it is not your fault. It is truly just plain bad luck.

You are nothing. You are a piss-ant. A waste of Oxygen. It's no wonder you've gone no where in your life. Big "Looser."

 

[Rshermr]

ROFL you think I'm a follower because I refuse to follow the lead of the majority. What a dumb ass. You think my opinion that our retirement savings should be in our hands is stupid because people like you are to stupid to manage their own money. ROFL

You are a follower because you are part of the libertarian clown show, me boy. You are completely predictable. Apparently you are of the mistaken opinion that you can only be a follower if you are in the majority. Which is, of course, a mistaken idea. And proves you to be stupid as a post.

What your malfunction is, me poor ignorant person, is that you are in need of some authority figure to tell you what is true. You are totally incapable of conversation. You completely pass the Koch test. If it would be good for and supported by the koch brothers, you are in support of it.

Your ailment has been studied over and over. Actual clinical studies, me boy. What you are is clinically mentally ill. If you need a few of the studies, let me know, and I will provide the links. Or you can simply google "stupid conservatives". The main thing, of course, is that it is not your fault. It is truly just plain bad luck.

You are nothing. You are a piss-ant. A waste of Oxygen. It's no wonder you've gone no where in your life. Big "Looser."

And, another profound post by rkm. Don't worry about it rkm. Really. You can not help yourself. It is true mental illness. Not your fault at all. Just plain bad luck.

 

[RKMBrown]

You are a follower because you are part of the libertarian clown show, me boy. You are completely predictable. Apparently you are of the mistaken opinion that you can only be a follower if you are in the majority. Which is, of course, a mistaken idea. And proves you to be stupid as a post.

What your malfunction is, me poor ignorant person, is that you are in need of some authority figure to tell you what is true. You are totally incapable of conversation. You completely pass the Koch test. If it would be good for and supported by the koch brothers, you are in support of it.

Your ailment has been studied over and over. Actual clinical studies, me boy. What you are is clinically mentally ill. If you need a few of the studies, let me know, and I will provide the links. Or you can simply google "stupid conservatives". The main thing, of course, is that it is not your fault. It is truly just plain bad luck.

You are nothing. You are a piss-ant. A waste of Oxygen. It's no wonder you've gone no where in your life. Big "Looser."

And, another profound post by rkm. Don't worry about it rkm. Really. You can not help yourself. It is true mental illness. Not your fault at all. Just plain bad luck.

http://www.imagesbuddy.com/images/86/2013/08/you-loser-if-you-are-not-number-1-graphic.png

 

[Kimura]

15 years ago, the Liberal government in Canada reformed the Canada Pension Plan - Canada's version of SS - and changed it to a standard defined contribution plan. It's done better than SS IIRC and I expect it to do better in the future, given that SS mimics a government bond fund earning very low returns. I think SS should be reformed similarly.

I just read up on the Canadian plan last night.

Obviously, I'm all for the budgeting process. However, why not deep six the SS fund and just make payments out of the general revenue? We can still legislate a funding guarantee which is needed, but this whole obsession whether the SS Trust Fund's record keeping is in surplus or deficit is rather absurd.

My fear would be that if the trust funds are folded into the general budget, payroll taxes become just another revenue source to tap to pay for the next $5 trillion war and retirement, disability, and survivor benefits become just another welfare program that should be means tested and compete with all other spending programs. I don't have warm fuzzies that Congress would choose say funding Medicare when they could use the money for stuff like corporate tax loopholes.

I don't think I'm being unrealistic. The last campaign revealed how the wealthy and large corporations regard the rest of the population. When they get close to 100% of all real economic growth, that is their entitlement because they "earned" it. When their efforts to earn wealth fail, the rest of society must spend trillions bailing them out because they are so necessary to the economy. Wall Street gets paid and Main Street gets the bill.

Yeah, but then these programs are left to the whims of reactionary economic illiterates who froth-at-the-mouth over record keeping for God's sake. I think the whole Koch Brothers/Monetarist axis is a ruse to dupe Americans into giving up their economic rights.

It's like Whac-A-Mole.

 

[Rshermr]

I just read up on the Canadian plan last night.

Obviously, I'm all for the budgeting process. However, why not deep six the SS fund and just make payments out of the general revenue? We can still legislate a funding guarantee which is needed, but this whole obsession whether the SS Trust Fund's record keeping is in surplus or deficit is rather absurd.

My fear would be that if the trust funds are folded into the general budget, payroll taxes become just another revenue source to tap to pay for the next $5 trillion war and retirement, disability, and survivor benefits become just another welfare program that should be means tested and compete with all other spending programs. I don't have warm fuzzies that Congress would choose say funding Medicare when they could use the money for stuff like corporate tax loopholes.

I don't think I'm being unrealistic. The last campaign revealed how the wealthy and large corporations regard the rest of the population. When they get close to 100% of all real economic growth, that is their entitlement because they "earned" it. When their efforts to earn wealth fail, the rest of society must spend trillions bailing them out because they are so necessary to the economy. Wall Street gets paid and Main Street gets the bill.

Yeah, but then these programs are left to the whims of reactionary economic illiterates who froth-at-the-mouth over record keeping for God's sake. I think the whole Koch Brothers/Monetarist axis is a ruse to dupe Americans into giving up their economic rights.

It's like Whac-A-Mole.

The problem is that there has been such a large and sophisticated effort by the well to do to "educate" people to believe that they should vote against their own self interest. It looks to me as though we got to a point where the populace was getting pissed, but then the Occupy movement managed to shoot itself in the foot. Along with a massive effort by the aforementioned to make the movement look evil.
Unless people wise up, all but the wealthy are doomed. And yes, indeed, the wealthy have proven their complete disinterest in what happens to anyone except themselves. Hell, if the us tubes, they can simply move to their home in Singapore.

 

[RKMBrown]

My fear would be that if the trust funds are folded into the general budget, payroll taxes become just another revenue source to tap to pay for the next $5 trillion war and retirement, disability, and survivor benefits become just another welfare program that should be means tested and compete with all other spending programs. I don't have warm fuzzies that Congress would choose say funding Medicare when they could use the money for stuff like corporate tax loopholes.

I don't think I'm being unrealistic. The last campaign revealed how the wealthy and large corporations regard the rest of the population. When they get close to 100% of all real economic growth, that is their entitlement because they "earned" it. When their efforts to earn wealth fail, the rest of society must spend trillions bailing them out because they are so necessary to the economy. Wall Street gets paid and Main Street gets the bill.

Yeah, but then these programs are left to the whims of reactionary economic illiterates who froth-at-the-mouth over record keeping for God's sake. I think the whole Koch Brothers/Monetarist axis is a ruse to dupe Americans into giving up their economic rights.

It's like Whac-A-Mole.

The problem is that there has been such a large and sophisticated effort by the well to do to "educate" people to believe that they should vote against their own self interest. It looks to me as though we got to a point where the populace was getting pissed, but then the Occupy movement managed to shoot itself in the foot. Along with a massive effort by the aforementioned to make the movement look evil.
Unless people wise up, all but the wealthy are doomed. And yes, indeed, the wealthy have proven their complete disinterest in what happens to anyone except themselves. Hell, if the us tubes, they can simply move to their home in Singapore.

Why should I be interested in giving a worthless pos like you the time of day.