Our old people are consuming our seed corn.
(David P.)
The New Old Age - Caring and Coping
July 2, 2009
The $500,000 Question, By Jane Gross
When my mother was making the reverse migration
from Florida back to New York to be with her adult
children as her health failed, I investigated all
sorts of living quarters for her.
She’d been in an independent living apartment in
Florida, & she wanted something roughly equivalent
in New York, nudging toward assisted living. But
“independent living” and “assisted living’’ are
murky concepts, I found. Both meant something
different in the 1990s, when she had moved to the
Horizon Club in Deerfield Beach, Fla., than they
did in 2000, the year of her return. They mean
something else now, and something different from
state to state. This was all very confusing.
Or it was for me.
At the time of her move north, a pair of continuing
care retirement communities were on the drawing board
near where I lived — C.C.R.C.’s, in the jargon of
long-term care. I didn’t have a clue then what that
meant. Nor did I have a clue that getting permission
to build a C.C.R.C. meant years of land-use wrangling
at the village level, especially in the NIMBY kind of
place where I live.
The argument at village hall and in the letters to the
local weekly was that old people increase traffic.
If that were true, I wondered, why would the only guy
with car keys always be the most popular boy on the
senior citizens’ campus, just like in high school?
Or maybe the critics really were worried about the
trucks bringing canned goods to the old people.
The other NIMBY argument was that old people vote down
school budgets because their kids are grown. I doubted
that argument, too, because the old people we’re talking
about were the civic-minded Greatest Generation. So I
was the only one for miles around rooting for these
places to get built. One didn’t. One did, but not until
10 years after I needed it.
That C.C.R.C. is Kendall on Hudson, in Tarrytown, NY,
overlooking the river, the arc of the Tappan Zee Bridge
right outside the windows. I took a tour the other day
and was sent home with a price list.
Back when I was in the marketplace for an apartment
for my mother, I knew nothing about the complex
mathematical models that make C.C.R.C.’s possible.
But I’d heard you had to pay gazillion dollars up front.
We couldn’t afford it. Believing that without ever
checking it out was the extent of my due diligence.
We were not a family with tons of money. My mother was
widowed at 58. She lived like a church mouse in our
childhood home. When the upholstery wore out on the
ottoman, she put a towel over the tatty spot. A garage
door opener was a silly luxury, she felt, even with
arthritis in her shoulders. She would leave the car
out in the snow.
She told me she was living on $10,000 a year in a house
with a paid-off mortgage. Given just the incidental
expenses of food, heating oil, repairs & car expenses,
I had to hand it to her for her frugality. We made bad
cat food jokes. But we never did any future calculations.
What would this cost, down the road? What would that
cost? Are you going to die at 79, or are you going to
die at 88? Those nine years are likely to be expensive
if you’re not able to take care of yourself without any
help.
These aren’t the kind of conversations you have on
Thanksgiving, and so my research into living arrange-
ments for her, such as it was, rested on assumptions
and misconceptions. It wasn’t until years later that I
began to wonder if it would have made more sense
financially to have paid the gazillion dollars up front
for a C.C.R.C. My visit to Kendall on Hudson, almost
six years after my mother’s death, provided an oppor-
tunity to do a back-of-the-envelope calculation I’ve
long wanted to do.
My mother lived to be 88. She spent the last nine years
in two high-end independent/assisted living places and
ultimately in a very expensive nursing home. She had a
long-term insurance policy, taken out in 1993, with a
yearly premium of $6,422.52. Eventually she paid more
than $50,000 for the insurance alone.
My mother’s rent in Florida, from 1994 through the end
of 2000, was $2,200 a month. That’s a total of about
$184,000. (Long-term care insurance doesn’t pay rent.)
After her move north, nine months in assisted living
in Westchester County, N.Y., at $3,000 a month, cost
$27,000 more, also not covered by insurance.
Then she spent just shy of two years in a nursing home.
There, her private room cost $14,000 a month, minus a
$150 a day benefit from the policy that went to the
home. (Yes, $14,000. It’s high, but not wildly so for
a private room in New York City.) At some point toward
the end, she ran out of money and went on Medicaid,
which pays for the poor in nursing homes. (Then the
insurance benefit went to the government.) I’m still
researching the date she went “on the dole,’’ which
is how she perceived it. But give or take a couple of
months, the final nursing home interlude cost $225,000.
Add to that travel costs for me and my brother — oh,
say, five trips a year between us to Florida — and the
cost of moving three times. All in all, I figure the
years from 1994 to 2003, when my mother died, cost our
family $500,000, easy, even without accounting for her
lesser expenses or, more important, the emotional and
physical wear and tear of so many moves on an old lady.
“Relocation trauma,” the experts call it.
How might a C.C.R.C. have compared? Had my mother moved
to a place like Kendall on Hudson when she sold her
house & moved to Florida — had C.C.R.C.’s even existed
in NY back then — she would have paid a “residential
component’’ right up front. Currently that cost is
$121,000. This would have meant she could move from an
independent living apar to an assisted living apar, then
to a nursing home or the Alzheimer’s unit, all within
the community and without any change in monthly cost.
For a couple, by the way, this is a 2-’fer. One person
can be living in a regular apartment with no extra
support services, & the other can be so incapacitated
as to require relocation to an adjacent skilled nursing
facility. That nursing home accommodation, which costs
on average $80,000 in New York State, is included in the
price of the original apartment, and the couple wouldn't
be separated farther than two wings of the same building.
For people with the front money, this seems a no-brainer.
Kendall on Hudson also charges for something called a
“life care’’ component. It’s a one-shot fee of $70,000.
I don’t understand what it’s for, probably to bring the
entrance total to almost $200,000 without it seeming
that high, like selling a house for $979,000 rather
than $1 million. But without the “life care’’ component,
the marketing manager told me, I’d need to keep my
long-term care insurance. So let’s count it for this
calculation.
The cheapest apartment at the C.C.R.C., way smaller
than the one-bedroom my mother had in Florida (but she
was always a minimalist), costs $2,927 a month. That
would be a 535-foot studio with a garden, rather than
a river, view. Let’s multiply the rent by 12 months and
the total by 9 years: $316,000. Add to it the $191,000
we’d have paid at the front end. The rough total for
C.C.R.C. care: about $500,000.
Tricky gamble, that one. No cost calculator in the world —
even one adjusted for inflation — can tell you how long
a parent is going to live and how many levels of care
they will need. All of us hope the time in a supported
setting will be brief and that mom or dad will never
need skilled nursing care. Even if you knew how long a
parent would linger and that they would eventually need
nursing home care, C.C.R.C.’s require inordinately
complex contracts. No amount of due diligence would be
too much.
Someone asked me today if C.C.R.C.’s could go bankrupt.
He was worried you’d buy in and lose your shirt. Turns
out, laws governing C.C.R.C.’s vary from state to state,
and New York’s are stricter with regard to finances than
most, which is why the state has only eight C.C.R.C.’s
compared to hundreds in Pennsylvania. These kind of
fine points cry out for the guidance of a lawyer or
financial planner.
I never got past the we-couldn’t-afford-it part to worry
about they-might-go-bankrupt part. But according to the
back of my envelope, choosing a C.C.R.C. would not have
been more expensive in my mother’s case. It looks like
it would have been a wash, maybe even a bargain with
adjustments for inflation. And way easier. Unbelievably
easier.
And yes, I realize this is a dilemma only faced by
people with resources, a dilemma many can only wish for.
But a dilemma nonetheless.
=================
=====================
Comments
1. July 2, 9:51am
My 84-year-old mother has a multitude of health issues
and mild dementia. I find that the decisions concerning
her care are complicated by our own wishful thinking.
We keep hoping that her steady decline will stabilize,
and that we won’t need the next level of care. Obviously
unrealistic, but definitely a factor in our decision-
making. I think that a CCRC would make these decisions
much easier. I assume that the organization would have
some criteria for determining when another care level is
needed, giving the family some professional guidance and
support. We could use some of that at the moment.
— Maureen
==============
2. July 2, 10:26am
How can you check out a CCRC? CARF (Commission on
Accreditation of Rehabilitation Facilities) is the
accrediting agency for continuing care retirement
communities. You can search online by state(s); go to
http://www.carf.org/Consumer.aspx?Content=CCACSearch
and access the names, addresses, phone numbers, and
websites of accredited CCRCs. Or, you may call CARF
at 866-888-1122. The general CARF website (www.carf.org)
provides helpful information on choosing a CCRC,
questions to ask, and free publications.
— Jan Cullinane, co-author The New Retirement: The
Ultimate Guide to the Rest of Your LIfe (Rodale 2007)
=============
3. July 2, 11:29am
Is it possible to calculate the costs for un-managed,
un-assisted elder living? Elders with assets have a
different experience than elders without assets and
I’m curious if those costs can be measured–or if
they’re off the radar and therefore invisible. My guess
is that elders without assets die more quickly, which
bean counters would note as a cost reduction. But do
un-assisted elders really live out their years less
expensively for themselves or others? And, of course,
how do these costs/quality of life issues compare with
other nations who support their people more compre-
hensively through the lifespan?
— MB
=============
4. July 2, 12:08pm
I used to live across the street from a CCRC in the
very upscale town of Palo Alto CA and became friends
with some of the people there, late 1980s. After some
years they had the experience of getting pressured by
management to move to a different level of care even
if they weren’t in need of it so that the CCRC could
get more new people in and collect more entrance fees;
the entrance fee at that time was around $300k. Just
another element of due diligence families might want
to look into.
— parent care is hard, costly
=============
5. July 2, 12:24pm
I am caring for my 93 year old mother in our home.
At the time I made the decision to do this it seemed
logical, and financially feasible. All her sisters
lived into their late 90s and seemed, from our remote
view, to be in reasonably good shape at the young age
of 93. I reasoned that she could live in relative
comfort in her own room in a lovely location with easy
access to the outdoors and live within her very slim
means (social security & a tiny pension) & experience
a kind of abundance, and home cooked meals, provided
by us.
I thought we had a few years to face the kinds of
choices that you are talking about. She certainly did
not have $500,000 to provide for care in her very old
age. But I didn’t count on the significant deterioration,
the slide from mild to moderate to severe dementia
that can occur within a year’s time. Nor did I factor
in a visit to the doctor every month, or multiple trips
to the hospital, or the drug doughnut hole.
Now, as she loses language, refuses to take her pills,
hides things from herself (puts them in safe places and
forgets their location), wanders around in the middle
of the night and conceals knives in her handbag, we are
frantically looking for a nursing home placement and
are aghast at the price. Once more, American businessmen
have made a profit center out of what should be a humane
service, just as they have for health care.
The irony is that there are approximately 76 million
baby boomers in this country who have all just lost at
least half the value of their 401Ks. Our ability to
cough up $500k for our own old age habitation has
therefore been severely limited. At the same time,
there are thousands of houses and apartment buildings
that are being foreclosed and boarded up. If the gov't
wanted to do some long range planning, they should be
buying those buildings, rehabing them to accomodate
wheel chairs and lifts and nurses stations (think
construction jobs), and start gathering names now from
folks who will need to live in them 20 or 30 years from
now at rates that do not exceed what one would pay for
a studio apartment in section 8 housing.
We could make an opportunity out of a crisis if someone
didn’t have to make a profit on it.
— Granny Fite
===============
6. July 2, 12:27pm
This is a common & “normal” discussion for the children
of aged parents in our US society to be having.
“Normal,” however, does not necessarily mean “healthy,”
as in emotionally healthy.
Many educated, cultured people “of resources” from many
other rich, developed countries will look on this
discussion as “mentally ill,” i.e. that this is not a
mentally healthy way to run a family, that this is
family dysfunction.
They would never think of letting Grandma/Grandpa grow
old and die in an institutionalized setting.
The good news for our US anglo culture might be that
today’s younger generations and their families might not
have the “resources” to suffer this dilemma. They might
be forced to do it the old-fashioned loving way, which
is keeping multiple generations under one roof.
Anglo-American culture - and I mean the culture, not the
skin color because regardless of skin color most US
residents are decidely anglo in culture - letting old
people grow old & die in institutions is *** sick,
sick, sick ***.
— G-AZ
==============
7. July 2, 12:29pm
Please know good long term care policies pay for “care”.
This means if you are in an “assisted living” & have met
the basic guidelines (a loss of two or more activities
of liviing), the cost of the “assisted living” will be
reimbursed by a long term care policy. Most will also
pay for light housekeeping. When in a nursing home, the
long term care insurance reimburses the individual NOT
the government.
This is confusing stuff and I understand it was over
whelming. Good long term care insurance does pay however
and it pays the individual. Because it reimburses the
indivdiual it keeps your options open. You can receive
reimbursement for care at home, in assisted living or
a nursing home.
Planning is the key isn’t it? Whether you buy into CCRC
or want to stay in your own home, planning ahead will
prevent your children from going through this nightmare!
— Ann Swift
===============
8. July 2, 12:41pm
Apparently “Continuing Care Retirement Community” has
various definitions. Two years ago, I moved my father—
in his 80s, diagnosed with Parkinson’s Disease and
moderate dementia—into a highly regarded CCRC in South
Carolina, knowing that as he regressed from independent
living to assisted living and finally to skilled nursing,
our monthly cost WOULD increase. When independent living
was no longer adequate, I put him on the waiting list for
the assisted-living unit and arranged for home healthcare
in the interim. After 3-4 months, this interim solution
no longer met Dad’s needs and I was advised to move him
into the skilled nursing unit on a temporary basis—taking
advantage of his 15 free “lifecare days” while we awaited
an opening in assisted living. You can imagine my surprise
when the facility then informed me that upon evaluating
Dad, they’d concluded he did not qualify for their
assisted-living unit: he now needs more assistance than
they provide. Meanwhile, he remains in the skilled
nursing facility (at $178 per day, and they do NOT
accept Medicaid), while I scramble to make other
arrangements, in an AL facility that provides a higher
level of care. I realize that compared to the NYC numbers
cited in the article, $178 per day doesn’t sound like
much–but for a middle-income retiree in this part of the
world, it’s a lot of money. I would advise others to ask
whether a CCRC resident can “fall between the cracks” as
Dad has. Caveat emptor.
— Linda
================
9. July 2, 12:49pm
Kendal has only one ‘l.’
— Peter
================
10. July 2, 12:50pm
As you can see, as a society we cannot afford to give
everyone this kind of care. Our old people are consuming
our seed corn. It had always been considered a fiduciary
duty to pass on family capital throughout the generations.
Now not only are the elderly spending nearly every penny
they have, they are also demanding taxpayer support.
I can’t see why you call this “greatest” generation
unselfish When you look at everything that is being
spent on elderly, (healthcare without limit, free nursing
home care if you don’t have the money for it) your realize
there is a problem of basic social justice. The highest
poverty rates and lack of access to healthcare are among
young families, not the elderly. We are wasting our money
where there is no benefit to society at large. We need to
redirect most of this money to younger people who will be
the producers and taxpayers of the future. While I don’t
suggest we abandon the elderly to icebergs, we’ve got to
realize we and they are sending our country to ruin and
there has to be a limit to what the elderly consume of
our gross domestic product.
— billy bob
.
.
--
Robert of St Louis
claim the number: 65 years old that they came up with for Social
Security at that time [1930s], because they really did not think you
had that many more years left, based on the data they had then. I
always email my former co-workers at my old job place to encourage
them to keep on working in order to pay for my Social Security, even
though they may not get any themselves. Is that too harsh?
Rod Speed
Yes, we'd have you publicly flogged in you hadnt enjoyed that so much the last time.
zzbu...@netscape.net
Well, that's the geatest problem with the greatest generation.
Since it's more difficult to teach to stop building schools
with 1900 building codes, that attract nothing but drugs and
youth gangs than it is to stop building schools.
So that's why the people who are working on post 1900 building
codes
work on the SGML, XML, fiber optics, holograms, compact
flourescent lighting,
atomic clock wristwatches, microcomputers and optical computers,
electronic books,
laser disk libraries, distributed processing software, thermo-
electric cooling, microwave cooling,
HDTV, USB, Pv Cells, GPS, Digital Terrain Mapping, Biodiesel, and
Self-Replicating Machines.
> communities. You can search online by state(s); go tohttp://www.carf.org/Consumer.aspx?Content=CCACSearch
> and access the names, addresses, phone numbers, and
> websites of accredited CCRCs. Or, you may call CARF
> at 866-888-1122. The general CARF website (www.carf.org)
> provides helpful information on choosing a CCRC, ...
>
> read more »
phil scott
> and access the names, addresses, phone numbers, and
> websites of accredited CCRCs. Or, you may call CARF
> at 866-888-1122. The general CARF website (www.carf.org)
>
> read more »
some of us have found ways of working until we more or less drop, then
plan to move to the desert or mexico and live in
a shack for a few months while we die in peace... perhaps with a few
months less on a ventilator drooling on the sheets.
I think I prefer that way.... and spending what i earn now on fast
cars, women, and amunition.
Phil scott (age 68)
Rod Speed
Much simpler to just pull the plug where you are.
> perhaps with a few months less on a ventilator drooling on the sheets.
> I think I prefer that way.... and spending
> what i earn now on fast cars, women,
None are stupid enough to bother with you.
Nickname unavailable
actually its been 28 years plus of tax breaks for wealthy parasites,
corporate welfare, deregulation, market fundamentalism, and free
trade. there are no wealthy countries that practice the useless eaters
theory. the nazis and the central european fascists practiced that in
the 1930's0-1945, and the results were, drum roll please, complete and
total collapse with a demoralized population that saw their loved ones
and friends burned in furnaces, starved and shot.
Jerry Okamura
to keep this thing going, even if it will someday go broke. They must know
they have made promises on a lot of other programs as well, and they have
not done anything to solve those problems, so they must believe they can
play this string out a little longer.
"Robert of St Louis" <free....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2d633c26-4ed4-444c...@y9g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
BuffetHater
> > them to keep on working in order to pay for my Social Security, even
> > though they may not get any themselves. Is that too harsh?
Enjoy that while its there, pension funds are broke and that reality
is
coming at u faster than the speed of money.
phil scott
> Not really. The odds are that our government will somehow figure out a way
> to keep this thing going, even if it will someday go broke. They must know
> they have made promises on a lot of other programs as well, and they have
> not done anything to solve those problems, so they must believe they can
> play this string out a little longer.
>
>
>
>
> > Presume this is humor ! But I was thinking this morning..that they
> > claim the number: 65 years old that they came up with for Social
> > Security at that time [1930s], because they really did not think you
> > had that many more years left, based on the data they had then. I
> > always email my former co-workers at my old job place to encourage
> > them to keep on working in order to pay for my Social Security, even
>
> - Show quoted text -
ohhhh gackk jerry... you just gotts to know better than that...
dont you study
history, such governments go totally corrupt, decimate their own
people, then collapse...screwing everyone in sight the whole time.
civil service bloat and those 100k to 200k retirements for flunkie
level staff has done that for us.... its getting to be headline nooz
in calif now..
not a chance in hell of funding any of that with real money.... the
funny money cycle lasts about two years in its final stage, then utter
collapse ensues.
not a single exception in world history... its a 260 year cycle..we at
250... and exhibiting
the final stage pathology.
Phil scott
Nickname unavailable
phil,
i just posted a article in this last week where people are now
putting off retiring longer, even till they are 70, because the free
market blew out our economy, and stole almost every last dime. so now
s.s. is getting in better shape, and billions, maybe hundreds of
billions of dollars will pour in in the next few years. if that keeps
up, it could be in the trillions.
remember, when fdr instituted s.s., not one single republican cretin
voted for it, and during the depression, they said it would bankrupt
america, of course how many decades ago was that:)
so like any other private insurance company, when things are not
going well, they adjust, so can we. free market conservative fear
mongering and demagoguery will not destroy s.s. because the people
know its a good thing.
phil scott
that is hopeful indeed, also a factor is that many will then not draw
as much, the formula insures that, and we can remain a productive
naton longer...working modestly also increases life span.
however..... our govt... completely oversized now, chews through that
money, there is no money as you know in an actual SS fund...its just
IOU's from the treasury, that is too deep in dept to pay any of it...
viability is an estimate based on the current work force and
projections that the economy will keep floating.... but it isnt as you
know.
we are imo in the deepest of deep trouble.
> remember, when fdr instituted s.s., not one single republican cretin
> voted for it, and during the depression, they said it would bankrupt
> america, of course how many decades ago was that:)
all special interests have their own absolutely nasty set of issues as
you have
pointed out...
> so like any other private insurance company, when things are not
> going well, they adjust, so can we. free market conservative fear
> mongering and demagoguery will not destroy s.s. because the people
> know its a good thing.
on balance thats probably correct.... SS recipients will get
progressively thinner though
as the real inflation rate outstrips the heavily spun cpi index.
Phil scott
Rod Speed
Thats a lie. NOT ONE modern first world empire has
seen utter collapse, EVERY SINGLE ONE has just
faded back into pretty decent living standards instead.
That includes Spain, Portugal, Holland, Britain, Japan and even china.
> its a 260 year cycle..
Pure fantasy. Nothing like that happened with china and india.
> we at 250... and exhibiting the final stage pathology.
Pure fantasy.
Rod Speed
> Not really. The odds are that our government will somehow figure out
> a way to keep this thing going, even if it will someday go broke. They must know they have made promises on a lot of
> other programs as
> well, and they have not done anything to solve those problems, so
> they must believe they can play this string out a little longer.
And WW2, with its MUCH higher debt shows that the west can survive it fine.
Michael Coburn
> Not really. The odds are that our government will somehow figure out a
> way to keep this thing going, even if it will someday go broke. They
> must know they have made promises on a lot of other programs as well,
> and they have not done anything to solve those problems, so they must
> believe they can play this string out a little longer.
There really isn't anything to figure out. We either let the old people
die a premature death or we have a social security system. Most seem to
be having cardiac arrest over the funding and that rightarded gimmick
called a trust fund. People pay FICA tax because government is going to
insure that the future people will pay the tax in order to support the
current payers when they get old. All will eventually receive benefits.
The Republicans hope to destroy government and defraud the current FICA
tax payers. They also work to minimize wages which are the base of the
system. They simply cannot abide any form of rational government.
--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson
Gary Forbis
How would you respond to this subject:
"Our old people are consuming our enheritance"?
Seed corn comes from the prior year's crop.
Upon what basis do this year's farmers lay
claim to the products of those who produced
last year's crops?
Over the span of years it's hard to quantify
which generations were productive and which
were not. We are but human. Sure, it would
be wrong for the elderly to expect to live a better
lifestyle than the current productive members,
however, it would also be wrong for the current
productive members to discount the effort that
when into getting them where they are.
Rod Speed
> I've been thinking about this subject line.
Dangerous business, can end up with tears before bedtime.
> How would you respond to this subject:
> "Our old people are consuming our enheritance"?
I'd point out that its a lie too.
> Seed corn comes from the prior year's crop.
Not anymore, particularly with modern hybrids.
> Upon what basis do this year's farmers lay claim to
> the products of those who produced last year's crops?
No one ever said they did.
> Over the span of years it's hard to quantify which
> generations were productive and which were not.
And even harder to define what is productive and what is not.
> We are but human. Sure, it would be wrong
> for the elderly to expect to live a better
> lifestyle than the current productive members,
Depends entirely on whether they have produced
that better lifestyle themselves or not.
> however, it would also be wrong for the current
> productive members to discount the effort that
> when into getting them where they are.
Irrelevant to what sort of lifestyle the elderly should have.
Rod Speed
> Jerry Okamura wrote
>> Not really. The odds are that our government will somehow figure
>> out a way to keep this thing going, even if it will someday go broke.
>> They must know they have made promises on a lot of other programs
>> as well, and they have not done anything to solve those problems, so
>> they must believe they can play this string out a little longer.
> There really isn't anything to figure out. We either let the old
> people die a premature death or we have a social security system.
MIndlessly silly, as always with your shit.
> Most seem to be having cardiac arrest over the funding and
> that rightarded gimmick called a trust fund. People pay FICA
> tax because government is going to insure that the future
> people will pay the tax in order to support the current payers
> when they get old. All will eventually receive benefits.
Those that die before they qualify dont.
> The Republicans hope to destroy government and defraud the current
> FICA tax payers. They also work to minimize wages which are the base
> of the system. They simply cannot abide any form of rational government.
More of your one eyed lies.
Mason C
wrote:
Not true.
81 Republican in the House and 16 in the Senate voted for it.
284 Democrats in the House and 60 in the Senate voted for it.
http://www.ssa.gov/history/tally.html
phil scott
>
> - Show quoted text -
the dark age level collapse between regenerations when it happens, and
it does.. is 75 to 150 years.
In Chinas' recent history that included hundreds of millions starving
to death, and just a few decades ago
in the USSR great suffering for close to 50 years so far.
50 to 100 years of starvation, loss of empire... is collapse.... utter
collapse. Complete non existence is
another issue, almost irrelevant. but that happens to some degree
also.
Phil scott
phil scott
> On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 06:32:39 -1000, Jerry Okamura wrote:
> > Not really. The odds are that our government will somehow figure out a
> > way to keep this thing going, even if it will someday go broke. They
> > must know they have made promises on a lot of other programs as well,
> > and they have not done anything to solve those problems, so they must
> > believe they can play this string out a little longer.
>
> There really isn't anything to figure out. We either let the old people
> die a premature death or we have a social security system. Most seem to
> be having cardiac arrest over the funding and that rightarded gimmick
> called a trust fund. People pay FICA tax because government is going to
> insure that the future people will pay the tax in order to support the
> current payers when they get old. All will eventually receive benefits.
the ratio of workers to SS recipients in the 60's was something like
14 to 1.
today its about 3 to 1.
shortly as more boomers retire it will be 2 to 1. Its not viable to
tax the two guys
left working to pay the SS load of a retiree...simply doesnt work.
However with some incentives to keep working say 5 years
longer...things would be a
lot better.
Phil scott
phil scott
it seems civil service unions have negotiated retirements for rank and
file often over 100k a year
many over 200k... thats 10x or so what the private sector worker
gets...and its now over 100% of some
city budgets... that is every dime collected goes to pay JUST these
benefits... the rest, current pay, parks and roads
has to be paid with borrowed money.
You may have left that set of issues out of your calculation assuming
that civil service was on par with the private
sector... it used to be.......but is not today.
this is bankrupting cities and states nation wide now, and despite
efforts of these unions to quash the issue, is appearing
on the front page ... as calif is now broke cant borrow, and is
issuing IOU's to its welfare recipients, contractors and some
staff... the rest being furloughed 3 days a month without pay.
still that wont scratch the surface... if every single state employee
were laid off today, the state would still be in the red.
Phil scott
Rod Speed
>>>> Not really. The odds are that our government will somehow figure out a way
>>>> to keep this thing going, even if it will someday go broke. They must know
>>>> they have made promises on a lot of other programs as well, and they have
>>>> not done anything to solve those problems, so they must believe they can
>>>> play this string out a little longer.
>>>> "Robert of St Louis" <free.tun...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>> messagenews:2d633c26-4ed4-444c...@y9g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
>>>>> Presume this is humor ! But I was thinking this morning..that they
>>>>> claim the number: 65 years old that they came up with for Social
>>>>> Security at that time [1930s], because they really did not think
>>>>> you had that many more years left, based on the data they had
>>>>> then. I always email my former co-workers at my old job place to
>>>>> encourage them to keep on working in order to pay for my Social
>>>>> Security, even though they may not get any themselves. Is that
>>>>> too harsh?- Hide quoted text -
>>> ohhhh gackk jerry... you just gotts to know better than that...
>>> dont you study
>>> history, such governments go totally corrupt, decimate their own
>>> people, then collapse...screwing everyone in sight the whole time.
>>> civil service bloat and those 100k to 200k retirements for flunkie
>>> level staff has done that for us.... its getting to be headline nooz
>>> in calif now..
>>> not a chance in hell of funding any of that with real money.... the
>>> funny money cycle lasts about two years in its final stage, then
>>> utter collapse ensues. not a single exception in world history...
>> Thats a lie. NOT ONE modern first world empire has
>> seen utter collapse, EVERY SINGLE ONE has just
>> faded back into pretty decent living standards instead.
>> That includes Spain, Portugal, Holland, Britain, Japan and even china.
>>> its a 260 year cycle..
>> Pure fantasy. Nothing like that happened with china and india.
>>> we at 250... and exhibiting the final stage pathology.
>> Pure fantasy.
> the dark age level collapse between regenerations
> when it happens, and it does.. is 75 to 150 years.
Have fun explaining the empires I listed above.
You cant just ignore stuff like that.
> In Chinas' recent history that included hundreds of
> millions starving to death, and just a few decades ago
Yes, but we saw nothing even remotely resembling anything
like your silly 260 year cycle with china before that.
> in the USSR great suffering for close to 50 years so far.
Thats mindlessly silly. They certainly had a significant problem
with the coming of communism, but they did quite well once
the industrialisation got going until WW2 caused a massive problem.
So no 260 years cycle even with them.
And you cant ignore spain, portugal, holland, britain etc etc etc.
Not one of those saw anything like your UTTER COLLAPSE claim.
> 50 to 100 years of starvation, loss of empire... is collapse.... utter collapse.
Pity none of spain, portugal, holland, britain etc etc got anything like that.
> Complete non existence is another issue, almost
> irrelevant. but that happens to some degree also.
Like hell it does with ANY empire of any significant size with a 260 year cycle.
Even the vikings are still around, they just dont do as much rampaging, raping and pillaging as they once did.
Jerry Okamura
"phil scott" <ph...@philscott.net> wrote in message
news:9cf16729-02f1-49c7...@d7g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
Two years? Okay, I am willing to wait two more years.
Jerry Okamura
"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7b749rF...@mid.individual.net...
> Jerry Okamura wrote:
>> Not really. The odds are that our government will somehow figure out
>> a way to keep this thing going, even if it will someday go broke. They
>> must know they have made promises on a lot of other programs as
>> well, and they have not done anything to solve those problems, so
>> they must believe they can play this string out a little longer.
>
> And WW2, with its MUCH higher debt shows that the west can survive it
> fine.
>
future.
Jerry Okamura
"Michael Coburn" <mik...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:h2lme...@news7.newsguy.com...
> On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 06:32:39 -1000, Jerry Okamura wrote:
>
>> Not really. The odds are that our government will somehow figure out a
>> way to keep this thing going, even if it will someday go broke. They
>> must know they have made promises on a lot of other programs as well,
>> and they have not done anything to solve those problems, so they must
>> believe they can play this string out a little longer.
>
> There really isn't anything to figure out. We either let the old people
> die a premature death or we have a social security system. Most seem to
> be having cardiac arrest over the funding and that rightarded gimmick
> called a trust fund. People pay FICA tax because government is going to
> insure that the future people will pay the tax in order to support the
> current payers when they get old. All will eventually receive benefits.
Total bull. When we believe that there is an end to the rainbow, we depend
on that. Working people depend on receiving Social Security benefits when
they get old. If they knew that they would not have such benefits, they
would adjust their thinking about how they would survive when they reach the
age when they are no longer working. As for the benefits, as you pointed
out, those benefits are partly paid for by those who are working. Well, the
data is very clear on that point. There are more and more people receiving
this benefit and fewer workers supporting thos who receive the benefits.
Which means that the working stiff is going to have more and more of their
hard earned money confiscated from them to pay for the seniors who receive
those benefits.
>
> The Republicans hope to destroy government and defraud the current FICA
> tax payers. They also work to minimize wages which are the base of the
> system. They simply cannot abide any form of rational government.
>
Yep. I want a system that is first and foremost one that has made promises
it can keep, then have a system that has made promises it cannot possibly
keep. Second, if we really want to help those who through no fault of their
own find themselves in the mess they are in when they no longer work, help
them out, not help those who don't need the help, which is what our current
system does it helps peole who do not need the help. Helping people who do
not need the help only makes the problem worse, not better, and cost a whole
lot more money, not less. As for your last statement, no one is talking
about NO national government, so your accusation is false and a lie.
Jerry Okamura
"Gary Forbis" <forbi...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:3c62b545-6dce-4b15...@k13g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
Let me suggest there is a solution to this. Create a system where if somone
saves enough money during their working years, they are in the position to
not having to work ever again. Then no one sufferes.
Nickname unavailable
correct. the busy hands thing.
> however..... our govt... completely oversized now, chews through that
> money, there is no money as you know in an actual SS fund...its just
> IOU's from the treasury, that is too deep in dept to pay any of it...
> viability is an estimate based on the current work force and
> projections that the economy will keep floating.... but it isnt as you
> know.
>
its not so much the size, america is a huge complex well populated
country. what there are however are way to many wealthy parasites, who
have their hands in almost all government decisions and its coffers. i
recently just read a article that if we cracked down on tax evasion
schemes that the rich use, we could reap a trillion dollars over the
next ten years. that would really help in health care.
then of course there are all of the other conservative losers
schemes such as free trade, we have racked up 6 trillion in debt alone
over the last 15 years due to that outrage, not counting all of the
lost high paying jobs that manufacturing generates. s.s. would look in
pretty good shape with that chunk of change in america, instead of in
the hands of others.
of course there is more, market fundamentalism is costing us
trillions right now.
> we are imo in the deepest of deep trouble.
>
> > remember, when fdr instituted s.s., not one single republican cretin
> > voted for it, and during the depression, they said it would bankrupt
> > america, of course how many decades ago was that:)
>
> all special interests have their own absolutely nasty set of issues as
> you have
> pointed out...
>
conservatism and market fundamentalism spells a death spiral for any
nation.
> > so like any other private insurance company, when things are not
> > going well, they adjust, so can we. free market conservative fear
> > mongering and demagoguery will not destroy s.s. because the people
> > know its a good thing.
>
> on balance thats probably correct.... SS recipients will get
> progressively thinner though
> as the real inflation rate outstrips the heavily spun cpi index.
>
possibly, but then we will go the conservative useless eater route,
and that spells failure.
Nickname unavailable
yep, we raised, feed, and nurtured the upcoming generation.
Nickname unavailable
> On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 10:32:31 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable <Vide...@tcq.net>
then i bow down to your superior knowledge.
Nickname unavailable
> On Jul 3, 12:33 pm, Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 06:32:39 -1000, Jerry Okamura wrote:
> > > Not really. The odds are that our government will somehow figure out a
> > > way to keep this thing going, even if it will someday go broke. They
> > > must know they have made promises on a lot of other programs as well,
> > > and they have not done anything to solve those problems, so they must
> > > believe they can play this string out a little longer.
>
> > There really isn't anything to figure out. We either let the old people
> > die a premature death or we have a social security system. Most seem to
> > be having cardiac arrest over the funding and that rightarded gimmick
> > called a trust fund. People pay FICA tax because government is going to
> > insure that the future people will pay the tax in order to support the
> > current payers when they get old. All will eventually receive benefits.
>
> the ratio of workers to SS recipients in the 60's was something like
> 14 to 1.
> today its about 3 to 1.
>
> shortly as more boomers retire it will be 2 to 1. Its not viable to
> tax the two guys
> left working to pay the SS load of a retiree...simply doesnt work.
>
> However with some incentives to keep working say 5 years
> longer...things would be a
> lot better.
>
> Phil scott
>
you could also just do something simple and fair, and lift the cap on
the tax.
Michael Coburn
> "Michael Coburn" <mik...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:h2lme...@news7.newsguy.com...
>> On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 06:32:39 -1000, Jerry Okamura wrote:
>>
>>> Not really. The odds are that our government will somehow figure out
>>> a way to keep this thing going, even if it will someday go broke.
>>> They must know they have made promises on a lot of other programs as
>>> well, and they have not done anything to solve those problems, so they
>>> must believe they can play this string out a little longer.
>>
>> There really isn't anything to figure out. We either let the old
>> people die a premature death or we have a social security system. Most
>> seem to be having cardiac arrest over the funding and that rightarded
>> gimmick called a trust fund. People pay FICA tax because government is
>> going to insure that the future people will pay the tax in order to
>> support the current payers when they get old. All will eventually
>> receive benefits.
>
> Total bull. When we believe that there is an end to the rainbow, we
> depend on that. Working people depend on receiving Social Security
> benefits when they get old. If they knew that they would not have such
> benefits, they would adjust their thinking about how they would survive
> when they reach the age when they are no longer working.
There is no other way to survive being old than to depend upon the
younger, productive members of the society. That is an absolute fact of
reality. You and other rightarded loons keep trying to create some sort
of fantasy that burying gold in your back yard will change that reality.
In your version you would "withhold" the saved up gold in order to coerce
the current productive members of the society into serving your needs.
But no matter how, you arrange the situation, and no matter how you
coerce or demand or beg, the fact still remains that those disabled by
age are utterly dependent on the young and productive members of the
society. If those young and productive members refuse to support the
elderly than the elderly will die a premature death.
> As for the
> benefits, as you pointed out, those benefits are partly paid for by
> those who are working.
No, moron, those benefits are paid ENTIRELY by those who are working.
> Well, the data is very clear on that point.
> There are more and more people receiving this benefit and fewer workers
> supporting thos who receive the benefits.
Now comes the stupidity part:
> Which means that the working
> stiff is going to have more and more of their hard earned money
> confiscated from them to pay for the seniors who receive those benefits.
If wages increase as they should because of increases in productivity
then the productive segment of the society can support the elderly and
still have a better life even though there are fewer of them. We don't
just support the elderly during the productive era of our lives. We also
invest in the next generation and insure that they are more productive
than were we. This is sometimes called the "long childhood" of the human
species; the proper education and development of the young is essential
to our support in our later years.
Bean counting asshole idiot Republicans have real problems with this
reality. As a matter of fact, they are so hell bent to destroy
civilization that they actively undermine the process by screwing up the
educational system and by standing in the way of progress at all times.
>>
>> The Republicans hope to destroy government and defraud the current FICA
>> tax payers. They also work to minimize wages which are the base of the
>> system. They simply cannot abide any form of rational government.
>>
> Yep. I want a system that is first and foremost one that has made
> promises it can keep, then have a system that has made promises it
> cannot possibly keep.
As I have said before... You are a moron.
> Second, if we really want to help those who
> through no fault of their own find themselves in the mess they are in
> when they no longer work, help them out, not help those who don't need
> the help, which is what our current system does it helps peole who do
> not need the help. Helping people who do not need the help only makes
> the problem worse, not better, and cost a whole lot more money, not
> less. As for your last statement, no one is talking about NO national
> government, so your accusation is false and a lie.
I don't think that you are a liar, Jerry. You are simply mentally
incapable of understanding reality.
Michael Coburn
> "Gary Forbis" <forbi...@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:3c62b545-6dce-4b15-
be08-8e3...@k13g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
Let me suggest, moron, that what you have described already exists. It
is called "Social Security". The FICA taxes you pay are ESSENTIALLY the
same @!(@^#$@&*!! thing as "savings". You are forgoing some consumption
such that you will later be ENTITLED to consume.
Michael Coburn
you could also just do something simple and fair, and lift the cap on
the tax.
B I N G O
Michael Coburn
But that doesn't matter, said the Republican!!!!! What matters is
whether or not you can _FORCE_ them to feed you by owning/controlling
the means of production!
Rightardedness is the root of all stupidity.
phil scott
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Too much tax on the working productive middle class...kills incentive
and deprives these of the fruit of their labor.
IF it wire true that govt, especially calif govt did not *waste so
much money with their hords of special interest commissions and
bogus laws... and if it did not have civil serivce union retirements
finagled in the 150,000 dollar a year range for low end HS grad
type civil servants... as the tax payers retire on a tenth of that.
then...in that case, if the money were not ripped off by special
interestes...I would be well iin favor or raising various taxes.
but thats not the case....govt in the USA has gone corrupt via special
interests.. supporting that with higher taxes enables such state and
national and working cleass self destruction.... civil service via its
unions has joined with the moneyed class in becoming parasites.. thats
the point missed in some cases...because
that has been recent with civil service... over just the last 10 years
or so.
Phil scott
Nickname unavailable
correct.
Michael Coburn
Too much tax on the working productive middle class...kills incentive and
deprives these of the fruit of their labor. IF it wire true that govt,
especially calif govt did not *waste so much money with their hords of
special interest commissions and bogus laws... and if it did not have
civil serivce union retirements finagled in the 150,000 dollar a year
range for low end HS grad type civil servants... as the tax payers retire
on a tenth of that.
then...in that case, if the money were not ripped off by special
interestes...I would be well iin favor or raising various taxes.
but thats not the case....govt in the USA has gone corrupt via special
interests.. supporting that with higher taxes enables such state and
national and working cleass self destruction.... civil service via its
unions has joined with the moneyed class in becoming parasites.. thats the
point missed in some cases...because that has been recent with civil
service... over just the last 10 years or so.
*************************************************************
Most of the stuff in this thread is devoted to the discussion of Social
Security. The problems in California were create by moronic half wits of
California and are of no real interest to the rest of America.
The Reason Social Security has survived and will survive is that it is
totally separated from all the rest of the government. And because of
that the rants of rightarded and otherwise illogical and irrational
idiots and liars cannot be employed to indict the system. But as we can
see..... They will still try.
Rod Speed
>>> Not really. The odds are that our government will somehow figure
>>> out a way to keep this thing going, even if it will someday go
>>> broke. They must know they have made promises on a lot of other
>>> programs as well, and they have not done anything to solve those
>>> problems, so they must believe they can play this string out a
>>> little longer.
>> There really isn't anything to figure out. We either let the old
>> people die a premature death or we have a social security system. Most seem to be having cardiac arrest over the
>> funding and that
>> rightarded gimmick called a trust fund. People pay FICA tax because
>> government is going to insure that the future people will pay the
>> tax in order to support the current payers when they get old. All
>> will eventually receive benefits.
> Total bull.
That last certainly is, quite a few die before they qualify
for benefits and even more never qualify for any SS
benefits, essentially because they never did work at all.
> When we believe that there is an end to the rainbow, we depend on that.
Plenty dont. I know that benefits will be available if I need them
but prefer to make my own provision for the time past work and
just use the benefits as a safety net in case the shit does hit the fan
very comprehensively indeed and my own provision doesnt work.
And even with the complete implosion of the entire world financial system,
that has not affected my provision for the time past working one iota,
essentially because I have the absolute vast bulk of the assets in
the equivalent of a 401K invested in fixed interest securitys which
have done fine even with the entire world financial system imploding.
> Working people depend on receiving Social Security benefits when they get old.
Thats just plain wrong. Plenty dont depend on them at all.
> If they knew that they would not have such benefits, they would adjust their thinking about how they would survive
> when they reach the age when they are no longer working.
Plenty just use SS as a safety net instead.
You dont seriously believe that say the likes of Paulson or the shrub
change a damned thing about how they do things because of SS do you ?
> As for the benefits, as you pointed out, those benefits are partly paid for by those who are working. Well, the data
> is very clear on that point. There are more and more people receiving this benefit and fewer workers supporting thos
> who receive the benefits.
Yes, but there are still a hell of a lot more who are paying in than are receiving.
And that will continue while ever the very high level of legal and illegal immigration continues.
> Which means that the working stiff is going to have more and more of their hard
> earned money confiscated from them to pay for the seniors who receive those benefits.
Thats arguable given that plenty are deferring their retirement
just because their 401Ks have done so badly lately.
Thats not necessarily a bad thing either with people living much
longer than they used to at the time that SS was started.
Some of them even enjoy their work.
>> The Republicans hope to destroy government and defraud the current
>> FICA tax payers. They also work to minimize wages which are the base of the system. They simply cannot abide any
>> form of rational government.
> Yep. I want a system that is first and foremost one that has made promises it can keep, then have a system that has
> made promises it cannot possibly keep.
The trouble with that approach is that that would mean
that the promises would have to be rather more meager
than they are now and most wouldnt be too keen on that.
It makes more sense to do what FDR did, hope that it will
turn out to be feasible to do more than what is guaranteed
to work. It turned out that it did work out like that in practice.
> Second, if we really want to help those who through no fault of their own find themselves in the mess they are in when
> they no longer work, help them out, not help those who don't need the help, which is what our current system does it
> helps peole
> who do not need the help.
The problem with that approach is that it penalises those who
do make adequate provision for their time past working and just
use SS as a safety net in case the shit does hit the fan very
comprehensively indeed economically as it might actually do even now.
> Helping people who do not need the help only makes the problem worse, not better, and cost a whole lot more money, not
> less.
Yes, but that approach has other real downsides too.
> As for your last statement, no one is talking about NO national government,
The most rabid of the libertarians do just that.
> so your accusation is false and a lie.
Nope. In the case of that particular individual he was responding to,
that fool actually is stupid enough to believe that that is the way to go.
Rod Speed
> Gary Forbis <forbi...@msn.com> wrote
>> I've been thinking about this subject line.
>> How would you respond to this subject:
>> "Our old people are consuming our enheritance"?
>> Seed corn comes from the prior year's crop.
>> Upon what basis do this year's farmers lay
>> claim to the products of those who produced
>> last year's crops?
>> Over the span of years it's hard to quantify
>> which generations were productive and which
>> were not. We are but human. Sure, it would
>> be wrong for the elderly to expect to live a better
>> lifestyle than the current productive members,
>> however, it would also be wrong for the current
>> productive members to discount the effort that
>> when into getting them where they are.
> Let me suggest there is a solution to this. Create a system where if
> somone saves enough money during their working years, they are in the position to not having to work ever again. Then
> no one sufferes.
Those who sufer are those who cant manage to save that much.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Jerry Okamura wrote
>>> Not really. The odds are that our government will somehow figure
>>> out a way to keep this thing going, even if it will someday go broke. They must know they have made promises on a
>>> lot of other programs as well, and they have not done anything to solve those problems, so they must believe they
>>> can play this string out a little longer.
>> And WW2, with its MUCH higher debt shows that the west can survive it fine.
> What happened in the past is no indication that it will work again in the future.
Yes, but it does show that its possible.
And there is no evidence that it isnt going to be possible to do that again.
phil scott
> On Sun, 05 Jul 2009 10:25:47 -0700, phil scott wrote:
>
> Too much tax on the working productive middle class...kills incentive and
> deprives these of the fruit of their labor. IF it wire true that govt,
> especially calif govt did not *waste so much money with their hords of
> special interest commissions and bogus laws... and if it did not have
> civil serivce union retirements finagled in the 150,000 dollar a year
> range for low end HS grad type civil servants... as the tax payers retire
> on a tenth of that.
>
> then...in that case, if the money were not ripped off by special
> interestes...I would be well iin favor or raising various taxes.
>
> but thats not the case....govt in the USA has gone corrupt via special
> interests.. supporting that with higher taxes enables such state and
> national and working cleass self destruction.... civil service via its
> unions has joined with the moneyed class in becoming parasites.. thats the
> point missed in some cases...because that has been recent with civil
> service... over just the last 10 years or so.
>
> *************************************************************
>
> Most of the stuff in this thread is devoted to the discussion of Social
> Security. The problems in California were create by moronic half wits of
> California and are of no real interest to the rest of America.
Id like to edit yer remarks while agreeing pretty much 100% in
principle... the productive
working class are brighter than the entrenched criminally insane moron
class in the burocracy.
it is true however that the morons in the working class elected and
tolerate these.
and you are missing the fact that...what begins in calfornia, like a
bad case of crabs at the
yacht club, sweeps east infecting the rest of the nation.
brace yersef.
>
> The Reason Social Security has survived and will survive is that it is
> totally separated from all the rest of the government.
correct administratively..but not fiscally...the rest of govt has
stolen the SS funds,
there is nothing but worthless IOU's in the SS fund...it is in
limitlessly worse shape
than most realize.
Phil scott (independent)
Michael Coburn
This is certainly not the case in California, and the election of Bush
and the re-election of the Republican Congress in 2004 supports the claim
that the manipulating, tap dancing, pigs are smart enough to defraud the
productive class in the right (created) circumstances.
> it is true however that the morons in the working class elected and
> tolerate these.
As I said above, "the manipulating, tap dancing, pigs are smart enough to
defraud the productive class in the right (created) circumstances."
> and you are missing the fact that...what begins in calfornia, like a bad
> case of crabs at the
> yacht club, sweeps east infecting the rest of the nation.
>
> brace yersef.
You are assuming that the current US administration and the media will be
employing the California mess to spread rightardedness across America.
They may, in fact, do quite the opposite and expose California for the
non-representative direct mob rule madhouse that it is. It is all spin.
And the administration has a huge leg up on spin at all times. They can
"employ" California as a poster child for whatever they wish to
accomplish. And I don't think its going to be conservatism or
rightardedness.
>> The Reason Social Security has survived and will survive is that it is
>> totally separated from all the rest of the government.
>
> correct administratively..but not fiscally...the rest of govt has stolen
> the SS funds,
> there is nothing but worthless IOU's in the SS fund...it is in
> limitlessly worse shape
> than most realize.
>
>
> Phil scott (independent)
The proper response to this hasn't changed but it will be interesting to
see how it is handled politically. The tax cutting Republican pigs have
abused the FICA tax to show smaller deficits. Starting with Reagan they
managed a huge tax shift from the rentiers to the producers using the
"trust fund". But again, I do not know how this will be played out in
the tap dancing arena of politics.
Rod Speed
> Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net> wrote
>> phil scott wrote
>> Too much tax on the working productive middle class...kills
>> incentive and deprives these of the fruit of their labor. IF it wire
>> true that govt, especially calif govt did not *waste so much money
>> with their hords of special interest commissions and bogus laws...
>> and if it did not have civil serivce union retirements finagled in
>> the 150,000 dollar a year range for low end HS grad type civil
>> servants... as the tax payers retire on a tenth of that.
>> then...in that case, if the money were not ripped off by special
>> interestes...I would be well iin favor or raising various taxes.
>> but thats not the case....govt in the USA has gone corrupt via
>> special interests.. supporting that with higher taxes enables such
>> state and national and working cleass self destruction.... civil
>> service via its unions has joined with the moneyed class in becoming
>> parasites.. thats the point missed in some cases...because that has
>> been recent with civil service... over just the last 10 years or so.
>> *************************************************************
>> Most of the stuff in this thread is devoted to the discussion of
>> Social Security. The problems in California were create by moronic
>> half wits of California and are of no real interest to the rest of America.
> Id like to edit yer remarks while agreeing pretty much 100% in principle...
> the productive working class are brighter than the
> entrenched criminally insane moron class in the burocracy.
Nope, if they were actually brighter, they wouldnt have ended up in the part
of the economy that has seen real wages decline for quite a while now.
> it is true however that the morons in the working class elected and tolerate these.
They did indeed, and they voted for fools like Raygun and the shrub and
pulled the plug on the shrub's dad who had enough of a clue to have got
the rest of the world to pay for the first gulf war and who had enough of
a clue to realise that it was never going to be feasible to invade Iraq and
occupy it, so he didnt even try.
> and you are missing the fact that...what begins in
> calfornia, like a bad case of crabs at the yacht club,
> sweeps east infecting the rest of the nation.
Like hell it does with a vast raft of stuff.
> brace yersef.
No need, hardly anyone will be stupid enough to go the california route now
that the downsides have become so obviously that even the fools have noticed.
>> The Reason Social Security has survived and will survive is
>> that it is totally separated from all the rest of the government.
> correct administratively..but not fiscally...the rest of govt has stolen
> the SS funds, there is nothing but worthless IOU's in the SS fund...
They aint anything like worthless. No politician will be
stupid enough to let SS implode completely, you watch.
> it is in limitlessly worse shape than most realize.
Pure fantasy. Its nothing like as bad as the economy for starters.
Rod Speed
> Nickname unavailable <Vide...@tcq.net> wrote
>> phil scott <p...@philscott.net> wrote
>>> Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net> wrote
>>>> Jerry Okamura wrote
> Too much tax on the working productive middle class...
> kills incentive and deprives these of the fruit of their labor.
Yes, but the middle class in the US is actually taxed at a LOWER
rate than in any other modern first world country BAR NONE.
> IF it wire true that govt, especially calif govt did not *waste so
> much money with their hords of special interest commissions and
> bogus laws... and if it did not have civil serivce union retirements
> finagled in the 150,000 dollar a year range for low end HS grad
> type civil servants... as the tax payers retire on a tenth of that.
Yes, but the reality is that its only a couple of K that have
retired in the $150K range, so that not the budget problem.
The prisons alone cost a hell of a lot more than that.
> then...in that case, if the money were not ripped off by special
> interestes...I would be well iin favor or raising various taxes.
> but thats not the case....govt in the USA has gone corrupt via
> special interests.. supporting that with higher taxes enables
> such state and national and working cleass self destruction....
The US total tax as a percentage of GDP is STILL the lowest in the entire modern first world.
> civil service via its unions has joined with the moneyed class in becoming
> parasites.. thats the point missed in some cases...because that has been
> recent with civil service... over just the last 10 years or so.
Sure, but it isnt the real problem.
Rod Speed
Wrong. The other obvious approach is to save for your time past working.
> That is an absolute fact of reality.
You wouldnt know what a real absolute fact of reality was if it bit you on your lard arse.
> You and other rightarded loons keep trying to create
> some sort of fantasy that burying gold in your back yard will change
> that reality. In your version you would "withhold" the saved up gold
> in order to coerce the current productive members of the society into
> serving your needs. But no matter how, you arrange the situation, and
> no matter how you coerce or demand or beg, the fact still remains
> that those disabled by age are utterly dependent on the young and
> productive members of the society.
Wrong, as always. They can always pull the plug when things get like that.
> If those young and productive members refuse to support
> the elderly than the elderly will die a premature death.
Another pig ignorant lie with the majority of people.
>> As for the
>> benefits, as you pointed out, those benefits are partly paid for by
>> those who are working.
> No, moron, those benefits are paid ENTIRELY by those who are working.
Wrong with savings.
>> Well, the data is very clear on that point.
>> There are more and more people receiving this benefit and fewer
>> workers supporting thos who receive the benefits.
> Now comes the stupidity part:
You should have put that at the top of your shit.
>> Which means that the working
>> stiff is going to have more and more of their hard earned money
>> confiscated from them to pay for the seniors who receive those
>> benefits.
> If wages increase as they should because of increases in productivity
> then the productive segment of the society can support the elderly and
> still have a better life even though there are fewer of them.
Not if the number of those still working drops too
far below the number of those no longer working.
> We don't just support the elderly during the productive era of our
> lives. We also invest in the next generation and insure that they
> are more productive than were we. This is sometimes called the
> "long childhood" of the human species; the proper education and
> development of the young is essential to our support in our later years.
But that doesnt have to be done via taxation. The other obvious way
to get that is with migration. Someone else pays for their education etc.
> Bean counting asshole idiot Republicans have real problems with
> this reality. As a matter of fact, they are so hell bent to destroy
> civilization that they actively undermine the process by screwing up
> the educational system and by standing in the way of progress at all
> times.
Works fine when you have a high level of migration.
>>> The Republicans hope to destroy government and defraud the current
>>> FICA tax payers. They also work to minimize wages which are the
>>> base of the system. They simply cannot abide any form of rational
>>> government.
>>>
>> Yep. I want a system that is first and foremost one that has made
>> promises it can keep, then have a system that has made promises it
>> cannot possibly keep.
>
> As I have said before... You are a moron.
>
>> Second, if we really want to help those who
>> through no fault of their own find themselves in the mess they are in
>> when they no longer work, help them out, not help those who don't
>> need the help, which is what our current system does it helps peole
>> who do not need the help. Helping people who do not need the help
>> only makes the problem worse, not better, and cost a whole lot more
>> money, not less. As for your last statement, no one is talking
>> about NO national government, so your accusation is false and a lie.
> I don't think that you are a liar, Jerry. You are simply mentally
> incapable of understanding reality.
You in spades.
Adam Russell
"Jerry Okamura" <okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:JF44m.6105$%R2....@newsfe07.iad...
Maybe not, but it is proof that someone saying it cant possibly work out is
full of it, since it did.
Michael Coburn
And what would we "save" but canned goods and clothing and a dwelling to
keep us out of the weather. And at that we would be forced to migrate to
a place on the earth where the winters would allow us to live without any
additional energy. I have actually accomplished the latter two of these
being located in an owned home in a temperate climate with a store of
clothing. Yet I am still dependent upon the productive segment of the
society for food and medicines. And my comfort is greatly increased by
Internet access and a computer and books and electricity. And all of
these latter things are provide by other members of the society bring
productive.
>> That is an absolute fact of reality.
>
> You wouldnt know what a real absolute fact of reality was if it bit you
> on your lard arse.
A virus is not in any position to criticize anyones hold on reality.
>> You and other rightarded loons keep trying to create some sort of
>> fantasy that burying gold in your back yard will change that reality.
>> In your version you would "withhold" the saved up gold in order to
>> coerce the current productive members of the society into serving your
>> needs. But no matter how, you arrange the situation, and no matter how
>> you coerce or demand or beg, the fact still remains that those disabled
>> by age are utterly dependent on the young and productive members of the
>> society.
>
> Wrong, as always. They can always pull the plug when things get like
> that.
The virus is now running away from its original position.
>> If those young and productive members refuse to support the elderly
>> than the elderly will die a premature death.
>
> Another pig ignorant lie with the majority of people.
Yet another totally unsupported assertion. But that is what we get from
a bot. It "bumps the thread along".
>>> As for the
>>> benefits, as you pointed out, those benefits are partly paid for by
>>> those who are working.
>
>> No, moron, those benefits are paid ENTIRELY by those who are working.
>
> Wrong with savings.
The manner in which the productive are encouraged to provide for the non-
productive is not at issue when observing the indisputable FACT that the
productive are producing and PROVIDING a share of the produce to the non-
productive. Whether the productive members of the society are coerced by
the massah into the fields or other "means of production" are withheld
pending the cooperation of the productive, or whether the service of the
productive is performed out of a recognized societal obligation and a
duty to the ongoing survival of the species is not really germane to the
actual FACT: The unproductive are provided for (supported) by the
productive or they cease to exist. This support of the non productive is
not limited to the aged. It also presents itself in regard to the young
and the temporarily infirm. What a virus might see as personal savings
is nothing more than a more civilized and socially acceptable bludgeon.
>>> Well, the data is very clear on that point. There are more and more
>>> people receiving this benefit and fewer workers supporting thos who
>>> receive the benefits.
>
>> Now comes the stupidity part:
>
> You should have put that at the top of your shit.
>
>>> Which means that the working
>>> stiff is going to have more and more of their hard earned money
>>> confiscated from them to pay for the seniors who receive those
>>> benefits.
>
>> If wages increase as they should because of increases in productivity
>> then the productive segment of the society can support the elderly and
>> still have a better life even though there are fewer of them.
>
> Not if the number of those still working drops too far below the number
> of those no longer working.
The virus sates the obvious as though it were a contradiction. The bot is
in need of adjustment at the least. Surely if the able bodied and
brained are wiped out by a plague that only infects the productive then
the rest of the species will surely croak. What a marvelous observation.
>> We don't just support the elderly during the productive era of our
>> lives. We also invest in the next generation and insure that they are
>> more productive than were we. This is sometimes called the "long
>> childhood" of the human species; the proper education and development
>> of the young is essential to our support in our later years.
>
> But that doesnt have to be done via taxation. The other obvious way to
> get that is with migration. Someone else pays for their education etc.
I cannot find any generally accepted definition of the word "migration"
that would establish the foregoing paragraph as rational.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migration
>> Bean counting asshole idiot Republicans have real problems with this
>> reality. As a matter of fact, they are so hell bent to destroy
>> civilization that they actively undermine the process by screwing up
>> the educational system and by standing in the way of progress at all
>> times.
>
> Works fine when you have a high level of migration.
I think the bot has misspelled "immigration". This is, in fact, the new
form of slavery. In this conception of society there is an established
underclass that is consider to be disposable and robotic. The members of
the robotic class are actually kept in other sovereignties somewhat like
mold growing in a petri dish. The elements needed to form the robots
(differing skill sets and differing manners) are all contained and
compartmentalized within these sovereignties so as to produce the proper
form of robots (attitude, skill, religious hot buttons, societal views,
etc). As these "cultures" produce matured output that can best serve the
land owning rentier class, they are imported very much free of charge and
employed to the serve the rentier class until they wear out. At that
point they are simply cast aside.
>>>> The Republicans hope to destroy government and defraud the current
>>>> FICA tax payers. They also work to minimize wages which are the base
>>>> of the system. They simply cannot abide any form of rational
>>>> government.
>>>>
>>> Yep. I want a system that is first and foremost one that has made
>>> promises it can keep, then have a system that has made promises it
>>> cannot possibly keep.
>>
>> As I have said before... You are a moron.
>>
>>> Second, if we really want to help those who through no fault of their
>>> own find themselves in the mess they are in when they no longer work,
>>> help them out, not help those who don't need the help, which is what
>>> our current system does it helps peole who do not need the help.
>>> Helping people who do not need the help only makes the problem worse,
>>> not better, and cost a whole lot more money, not less. As for your
>>> last statement, no one is talking about NO national government, so
>>> your accusation is false and a lie.
>
>> I don't think that you are a liar, Jerry. You are simply mentally
>> incapable of understanding reality.
>
> You in spades.
I think the handlers of the virus may be struggling a bit.
Michael Coburn
And we get less than what we pay for. The civilized nations get health
care and a better safety net and better pensions. We get more Aircraft
carriers.
>> IF it wire true that govt, especially calif govt did not *waste so much
>> money with their hords of special interest commissions and bogus
>> laws... and if it did not have civil serivce union retirements finagled
>> in the 150,000 dollar a year range for low end HS grad type civil
>> servants... as the tax payers retire on a tenth of that.
>
> Yes, but the reality is that its only a couple of K that have retired in
> the $150K range, so that not the budget problem.
>
> The prisons alone cost a hell of a lot more than that.
The virus gets one right.
>> then...in that case, if the money were not ripped off by special
>> interestes...I would be well iin favor or raising various taxes.
>
>> but thats not the case....govt in the USA has gone corrupt via special
>> interests.. supporting that with higher taxes enables such state and
>> national and working cleass self destruction....
>
> The US total tax as a percentage of GDP is STILL the lowest in the
> entire modern first world.
And the social services are MUCH MUCH less.
>> civil service via its unions has joined with the moneyed class in
>> becoming parasites.. thats the point missed in some cases...because
>> that has been recent with civil service... over just the last 10 years
>> or so.
>
> Sure, but it isnt the real problem.
--
Nickname unavailable
yes, but lifting the cap will not affect the middle class. the
wealthy have it capped low for them.
> IF it wire true that govt, especially calif govt did not *waste so
> much money with their hords of special interest commissions and
> bogus laws... and if it did not have civil serivce union retirements
> finagled in the 150,000 dollar a year range for low end HS grad
> type civil servants... as the tax payers retire on a tenth of that.
>
read what i have posted recently on prop 13. you have been hoodwinked
by a conservative fanatic. who laughed at you all the way to the bank.
he simply priced you out of your homes. and he got a free ride to
boot.
> then...in that case, if the money were not ripped off by special
> interestes...I would be well iin favor or raising various taxes.
>
special interests, who's special interest? conservatives view you and
me as special interests. do not fall for that crap.
> but thats not the case....govt in the USA has gone corrupt via special
> interests..
the real special interests already run government, and their take
home pay is in the millions/billions.
supporting that with higher taxes enables such state and
> national and working cleass self destruction.... civil service via its
> unions has joined with the moneyed class in becoming parasites.. thats
> the point missed in some cases...because
> that has been recent with civil service... over just the last 10 years
> or so.
>
you do not understand why civil service is that way it is. it really
cuts down on corruption. in mexico, they used to only allow civil
servants to serve for one year, they were stolen blind worse than even
now.
> Phil scott
Rod Speed
Hard to substantiate that claim when the US has
one of the highest living standards in the entire world.
> The civilized nations get health care
You cant count that one, because they do in fact spend less than
half the percentage of GDP that the US does, to get a much better
result, particularly for the dregs of society that need a lot of health care.
> and a better safety net and better pensions.
> We get more Aircraft carriers.
And a hell of a lot more than just aircraft carriers too.
>>> IF it wire true that govt, especially calif govt did not *waste so
>>> much money with their hords of special interest commissions and
>>> bogus laws... and if it did not have civil serivce union
>>> retirements finagled in the 150,000 dollar a year range for low
>>> end HS grad type civil servants... as the tax payers retire on a
>>> tenth of that.
>> Yes, but the reality is that its only a couple of K that have
>> retired in the $150K range, so that not the budget problem.
>> The prisons alone cost a hell of a lot more than that.
> The virus gets one right.
>>> then...in that case, if the money were not ripped off by special
>>> interestes...I would be well iin favor or raising various taxes.
>>> but thats not the case....govt in the USA has gone corrupt via
>>> special interests.. supporting that with higher taxes enables such
>>> state and national and working cleass self destruction....
>> The US total tax as a percentage of GDP is STILL the lowest in the
>> entire modern first world.
> And the social services are MUCH MUCH less.
Thats very arguable when you count them properly and include what the states provide.
The only substantial difference is with the length of the dole and
medical services for those who are dying of a serious medical
problem and who arent covered by their health insurance for that.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Michael Coburn wrote
You could try saving money. Worked fine for me.
> And at that we would be forced to migrate to a place on the earth
> where the winters would allow us to live without any additional energy.
Not if you have had enough of a clue to save enough money to pay for that, like I have.
> I have actually accomplished the latter two of these being located
> in an owned home in a temperate climate with a store of clothing.
And I had enough of a clue to have saved enough money so I
can live exactly like I did when I was still working. Better in fact
because I have more free time to spend what I feel like spending.
> Yet I am still dependent upon the productive
> segment of the society for food and medicines.
I choose to pay for those out of the earnings of my savings.
> And my comfort is greatly increased by Internet access and a
> computer and books and electricity. And all of these latter things
> are provide by other members of the society bring productive.
Mostly those in china.
>>> That is an absolute fact of reality.
>> You wouldnt know what a real absolute fact
>> of reality was if it bit you on your lard arse.
<reams of your puerile shit any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it belongs>
>>> You and other rightarded loons keep trying to create some sort of
>>> fantasy that burying gold in your back yard will change that
>>> reality. In your version you would "withhold" the saved up gold in
>>> order to coerce the current productive members of the society into
>>> serving your needs. But no matter how, you arrange the situation,
>>> and no matter how you coerce or demand or beg, the fact still
>>> remains that those disabled by age are utterly dependent on the
>>> young and productive members of the society.
>> Wrong, as always. They can always pull the plug when things get like that.
> The virus is now running away from its original position.
Lying, as always when it gets done like a fucking dinner, as always.
>>> If those young and productive members refuse to support
>>> the elderly than the elderly will die a premature death.
>> Another pig ignorant lie with the majority of people.
> Yet another totally unsupported assertion.
Yes, yours was just that.
<reams of your puerile shit any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it belongs>
>>>> As for the benefits, as you pointed out, those benefits
>>>> are partly paid for by those who are working.
>>> No, moron, those benefits are paid ENTIRELY by those who are working.
>> Wrong with savings.
> The manner in which the productive are encouraged to provide
> for the non- productive is not at issue when observing the
> indisputable FACT that the productive are producing and
> PROVIDING a share of the produce to the non- productive.
Plenty provide what they need for themselves.
> Whether the productive members of the society are coerced
> by the massah into the fields or other "means of production"
> are withheld pending the cooperation of the productive, or
> whether the service of the productive is performed out
> of a recognized societal obligation and a duty to the ongoing
> survival of the species is not really germane to the actual FACT:
> The unproductive are provided for (supported) by the productive or
> they cease to exist.
Or they provide what they need for themselves.
> This support of the non productive is not limited to the aged.
> It also presents itself in regard to the young and the temporarily
> infirm. What a virus might see as personal savings is nothing
> more than a more civilized and socially acceptable bludgeon.
Only in your pathetic little drug crazed pig ignorant fantasyland.
No surprise that you are completely unemployable, bludging off the productive.
>>>> Well, the data is very clear on that point. There are more and more
>>>> people receiving this benefit and fewer workers supporting thos who
>>>> receive the benefits.
>>> Now comes the stupidity part:
>> You should have put that at the top of your shit.
>>>> Which means that the working
>>>> stiff is going to have more and more of their hard earned money
>>>> confiscated from them to pay for the seniors who receive those
>>>> benefits.
>>> If wages increase as they should because of increases in
>>> productivity then the productive segment of the society can support
>>> the elderly and still have a better life even though there are
>>> fewer of them.
>> Not if the number of those still working drops too far below the
>> number of those no longer working.
<reams of your puerile shit any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it belongs>
>>> We don't just support the elderly during the productive era of our
>>> lives. We also invest in the next generation and insure that they
>>> are more productive than were we. This is sometimes called the
>>> "long childhood" of the human species; the proper education and
>>> development of the young is essential to our support in our later years.
>> But that doesnt have to be done via taxation. The other obvious way
>> to get that is with migration. Someone else pays for their education etc.
> I cannot find any generally accepted definition of the word
> "migration" that would establish the foregoing paragraph as rational.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migration
Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.
>>> Bean counting asshole idiot Republicans have real problems with this
>>> reality. As a matter of fact, they are so hell bent to destroy
>>> civilization that they actively undermine the process by screwing up
>>> the educational system and by standing in the way of progress at all
>>> times.
>> Works fine when you have a high level of migration.
> I think the bot has misspelled "immigration".
Nope. That works with both immigration and emigration.
> This is, in fact, the new form of slavery.
You wouldnt know what real slavery was if it bit you on your lard arse.
British doctors who end up in america are hardly slaves, fuckwit.
> In this conception of society there is an established
> underclass that is consider to be disposable and robotic.
Only in your pathetic little drug crazed lefty fantasyland, comrade.
> The members of the robotic class are actually kept in other
> sovereignties somewhat like mold growing in a petri dish. The
> elements needed to form the robots (differing skill sets and
> differing manners) are all contained and compartmentalized within
> these sovereignties so as to produce the proper form of robots
> (attitude, skill, religious hot buttons, societal views, etc). As
> these "cultures" produce matured output that can best serve the land
> owning rentier class, they are imported very much free of charge and
> employed to the serve the rentier class until they wear out. At that
> point they are simply cast aside.
You can make that stupid claim about ALL the productive, fool.
>>>>> The Republicans hope to destroy government and defraud the current
>>>>> FICA tax payers. They also work to minimize wages which are the
>>>>> base of the system. They simply cannot abide any form of rational
>>>>> government.
>>>>>
>>>> Yep. I want a system that is first and foremost one that has made
>>>> promises it can keep, then have a system that has made promises it
>>>> cannot possibly keep.
>>>
>>> As I have said before... You are a moron.
>>>
>>>> Second, if we really want to help those who through no fault of
>>>> their own find themselves in the mess they are in when they no
>>>> longer work, help them out, not help those who don't need the
>>>> help, which is what our current system does it helps peole who do
>>>> not need the help. Helping people who do not need the help only
>>>> makes the problem worse, not better, and cost a whole lot more
>>>> money, not less. As for your last statement, no one is talking
>>>> about NO national government, so your accusation is false and a
>>>> lie.
>>
>>> I don't think that you are a liar, Jerry. You are simply mentally
>>> incapable of understanding reality.
>> You in spades.
<reams of your puerile shit any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it belongs>
phil scott
california's problems are commnly attributed to over liberalism..not
any form of the
conservative disease... you will find that a tendency to polarize
yer blames etc on the left or the right etc.
tends to be blinding. These messes include both parties and
special interests that take the money
donating to **both parties.
its the issues that are relevant... the 'parties' act as
distractions. though the party differences are not entirely
irrelevant.
a person must get past the polarity though (thats dems are right,
repugs are wrong etc) in order to see the real issues,
which are a nasty mix of all of that, generalized insanity, and
ruthless special interests (on all sides of the aisle, and tunneling
in from below)
>
> >> The Reason Social Security has survived and will survive is that it is
> >> totally separated from all the rest of the government.
>
> > correct administratively..but not fiscally...the rest of govt has stolen
> > the SS funds,
> > there is nothing but worthless IOU's in the SS fund...it is in
> > limitlessly worse shape
> > than most realize.
>
> > Phil scott (independent)
>
> The proper response to this hasn't changed but it will be interesting to
> see how it is handled politically. The tax cutting Republican pigs have
> abused the FICA tax to show smaller deficits. Starting with Reagan they
> managed a huge tax shift from the rentiers to the producers using the
> "trust fund". But again, I do not know how this will be played out in
> the tap dancing arena of politics.
I do... history does... our founding fathers commented extensively on
it... govt goes corrupt on the
natural decay cycle of its populace..these get fat, lazy and stupid
and elect ruinous idiots, such a nation
collapses (that is looses empire not dissapears entirely) every 260
years give or take not much.
the reboot cycle involves one or two stavation generations... 50 to
150 years.
no exceptions yet.
>
> > And because of
> >> that the rants of rightarded and otherwise illogical and irrational
> >> idiots and liars cannot be employed to indict the system. But as we
> >> can see..... They will still try.
emotionally charged language such as this person used, attracts those
who are not up to
thinking things out themselves, and tends to smoke over the real
issues.
it should be cleaner to simply point out the flat noses, and stubbly
hair among the generously fed set.
Phil scott
>
> >> --
> >> "Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson
>
> --
phil scott
>
> - Show quoted text -
talking to speed is a waste of time.
re the civil servant retirement costs... those are 98% of the
vacaville calif budget. (they just went bankrupt) other cities and
states are
close.
in 2004 those retirement costs in most cities ran approx 40% of city
budgets...but with the collapsing sales and ppty tax, that percenage
is now
close to or over 100% (the state of calif makes up the 38% shortfall
by borrowing, but its credit is now near junk bond status, it cant
sell em anymore).
Phil scott
Michael Coburn
So the "commonly attributed" is rightarded swill. What's new. We have
the rightards continuing to blame the implosion of the world economy on a
black guy who got a loan for a house in Houston.
> you will find that a tendency to polarize yer
> blames etc on the left or the right etc. tends to be blinding. These
> messes include both parties and special interests that take the money
> donating to **both parties.
Nope. Real economics tells us that the absolute best source of public
revenue is am ad valorem tax because it does not distort the productive
economy. As far as the "liberal" nature of the spending in California I
would suggest that you observe that in real governments that is managed
by appropriate representation. In this one case the Democrats are
probably more to blame that the Republicans, but the current situation is
the result of unbridled rightardedness.
> its the issues that are relevant... the 'parties' act as distractions.
> though the party differences are not entirely irrelevant.
>
>
> a person must get past the polarity though (thats dems are right,
> repugs are wrong etc) in order to see the real issues, which are a nasty
> mix of all of that, generalized insanity, and ruthless special interests
> (on all sides of the aisle, and tunneling in from below)
None of this California crap is relevant to a discussion of a proper
Social Security system. We do not have individual defined benefit plans
in the Social Security system and the system is not supported by ad
valorem taxes.
>> >> The Reason Social Security has survived and will survive is that it
>> >> is totally separated from all the rest of the government.
>>
>> > correct administratively..but not fiscally...the rest of govt has
>> > stolen the SS funds,
>> > there is nothing but worthless IOU's in the SS fund...it is in
>> > limitlessly worse shape
>> > than most realize.
>>
>> > Phil scott (independent)
>>
>> The proper response to this hasn't changed but it will be interesting
>> to see how it is handled politically. The tax cutting Republican pigs
>> have abused the FICA tax to show smaller deficits. Starting with
>> Reagan they managed a huge tax shift from the rentiers to the producers
>> using the "trust fund". But again, I do not know how this will be
>> played out in the tap dancing arena of politics.
>
> I do... history does... our founding fathers commented extensively on
> it... govt goes corrupt on the
> natural decay cycle of its populace..these get fat, lazy and stupid and
> elect ruinous idiots, such a nation collapses (that is looses empire not
> dissapears entirely) every 260 years give or take not much.
>
> the reboot cycle involves one or two stavation generations... 50 to 150
> years.
>
> no exceptions yet.
You seek to make up shit as needed. Since the founders commented
extensively on the loony crap you are spouting then it should be easy for
you to give us a cite or two. Lets see em....
>> > And because of
>> >> that the rants of rightarded and otherwise illogical and irrational
>> >> idiots and liars cannot be employed to indict the system. But as we
>> >> can see..... They will still try.
>
>
> emotionally charged language such as this person used, attracts those
> who are not up to
> thinking things out themselves, and tends to smoke over the real issues.
>
>
> it should be cleaner to simply point out the flat noses, and stubbly
> hair among the generously fed set.
I would say that you certainly do not suffer from "thinking things out
themselves" illness. Your stuff comes from your own belly button lent.
Michael Coburn
This claim is part lie and part fantasy.
> in 2004 those retirement costs in most cities ran approx 40% of city
> budgets...but with the collapsing sales and ppty tax, that percenage is
> now
> close to or over 100% (the state of calif makes up the 38% shortfall
> by borrowing, but its credit is now near junk bond status, it cant sell
> em anymore).
Lets ses some actual cites for all this garbage.
Rod Speed
> no exceptions yet.
You're lying now. Pity about Spain, Portugal, Britain, Holland, Japan,
etc etc etc. NOT ONE 'starving generation' in a lot longer than 260 years.