Generation X "Whining" about Social "Security"
Erich Schwarz
> Senators
> Danforth and Kerry...3 weeks ago...held a press conference
> where they said the group was nearing a conclusion and that
> among the suggestions were means-testing for SS, raising
> the age of SS eligibility to 70, and several other fairly
> modest ideas. The results was a firestorm of outrage by
> various interested groups - AND NO SIGNIFICANT SUPPORT FROM
> ANYBODY - and so a week later they withdrew their proposals.)
> ...isn't the most
> logical course of action the one that WORKS? The one that
> produces the intended goal? That's called goal-oriented
> behavior. Human beings are highly emotional so it's ILLOGICAL
> to try to act as though these emotions don't matter.
> The leadership of
> the Americans, our founding fathers, were mostly hot-headed
> young radicals, brilliant and well-read, yes, but also
> passionate, testosterone-driven, impulsive and wild.
Those were very well said.
It's tempting to imagine politics being driven by "pure logic," and I
share Brian's distaste for the near-opposite of pure logic that we're
seeing drive it today. But anybody who expects politics to exist without
at least a strong component of emotion, heritage, bias, and intuition is
accepting the losing end of a bet.
Now, about the GenX failure to rally around Danforth and Kerry:
remember that the SS issue is considerably more cerebral than Vietnam. In
1969, losing a political battle over the draft and Vietnam could mean that
one would end up being drafted, shipped out to a rice paddy in Indochina,
and then shot to death. *That* prospect tends to snap people out of
apathy. I agree that the SS issue is in fact as grave as Vietnam was --
perhaps more so -- but it's presently an issue that requires a good deal of
Brian-Yoder-style logic to see at all.
I thus don't think you can fairly make a DIRECT comparison between the
political virtue of GenX in 1994 and of the Boomers in 1969. (Though I
*do* agree that in fact GenX ought to rally around Danforth and Kerry...)
There is really no good reason to assume that the Boomers, placed in GenX's
shoes, would display any more political wisdom than we are showing.
--Erich Schwarz
pelican
>
>> Senators
>> Danforth and Kerry...3 weeks ago...held a press conference
>> where they said the group was nearing a conclusion and that
>> among the suggestions were means-testing for SS, raising
>> the age of SS eligibility to 70, and several other fairly
>> modest ideas. The results was a firestorm of outrage by
>> various interested groups - AND NO SIGNIFICANT SUPPORT FROM
>> ANYBODY - and so a week later they withdrew their proposals.)
>
worry about our future? John Danforth is as rich as Croesus, the heir to
one of the great cereal fortunes (I believe Ralston Purina, but I could
be wrong on this). And Kerry is about to marry the widow of
Pennsylvania's John Heinz, who brings with her into this union a trust
fund worth some $800 million, according to the public prints. Neither of
these superior beings has any need for Social Security, and neither, in
my opinion, has any inkling of what it would be like to be dependent on a
program like Social Security. To them, it is just a faintly interesting
abstact, and this is why they couldn't get any real-world support for
their reforms. Oh, I agree that reforms are necessary--in fact,
absolutely essential to take care of future needs. The program, as it
stands, is going to crash. But the Danforths and the Kerrys of this
world, or the very rich Peter Petersen, for that matter, are not the ones
to do it. The citizenry affected will have to make the ultimate
decisions, and they will have to be consensus-based. We need to have
these decisions made at people-level, not from on high.
Peter Nelson
: >Peter Nelson wrote:
: >
: >> Senators
: >> Danforth and Kerry...3 weeks ago...held a press conference
: >> where they said the group was nearing a conclusion and that
: >> among the suggestions were means-testing for SS, raising
: >> the age of SS eligibility to 70, and several other fairly
: >> modest ideas. The results was a firestorm of outrage by
: >> various interested groups - AND NO SIGNIFICANT SUPPORT FROM
: >> ANYBODY - and so a week later they withdrew their proposals.)
: >
: Pelican: Isn't it a wonder that these two guys are so magnaninous as to
: worry about our future? John Danforth is as rich as Croesus, the heir to
: one of the great cereal fortunes (I believe Ralston Purina, but I could
: be wrong on this). And Kerry is about to marry the widow of
: Pennsylvania's John Heinz, who brings with her into this union a trust
: fund worth some $800 million, according to the public prints. Neither of
: these superior beings has any need for Social Security, and neither, in
: my opinion, has any inkling of what it would be like to be dependent on a
: program like Social Security.
So what? The bottom line is still the same: we need to
act now to prevent a much worse crisis in the future. Who
cares how much money the proponents have? That has no relevance
to anything. It's also ridiculous to sugest that the average
Boomer *or* X-er has a clue how much money those guys are worth or
that this was a factor. It got no support because the issue is
too abstract for the average American, who has an attention-span
of about 10 munites and a time-horizon that goes only until the
next advertisement, The Dem's and the GOP are fighting to
see which tax-cut will win. I have a suggestion for them:
the winning one will be whichever one can direct-deposited soonest
to the taxpayers' bank accounts.
: to do it. The citizenry affected will have to make the ultimate
: decisions, and they will have to be consensus-based. We need to have
: these decisions made at people-level, not from on high.
In politics you need leaders. It's wishful thinking that
they'll be this great grassroots groundswell happening
spontaneously, unless we get to a crisis, and then it will
be too late to avoid massive human suffering.
---peter
Peter Nelson
: Peter Nelson wrote:
: > Senators
: > Danforth and Kerry...3 weeks ago...held a press conference
: > where they said the group was nearing a conclusion and that
: > among the suggestions were means-testing for SS, raising
: > the age of SS eligibility to 70, and several other fairly
: > modest ideas. The results was a firestorm of outrage by
: > various interested groups - AND NO SIGNIFICANT SUPPORT FROM
: > ANYBODY - and so a week later they withdrew their proposals.)
: It's tempting to imagine politics being driven by "pure logic," and I
: share Brian's distaste for the near-opposite of pure logic that we're
: seeing drive it today. But anybody who expects politics to exist without
: at least a strong component of emotion, heritage, bias, and intuition is
: accepting the losing end of a bet.
: Now, about the GenX failure to rally around Danforth and Kerry:
: remember that the SS issue is considerably more cerebral than Vietnam. In
: 1969, losing a political battle over the draft and Vietnam could mean that
: one would end up being drafted, shipped out to a rice paddy in Indochina,
: and then shot to death. *That* prospect tends to snap people out of
: apathy. I agree that the SS issue is in fact as grave as Vietnam was --
: perhaps more so -- but it's presently an issue that requires a good deal of
: Brian-Yoder-style logic to see at all.
I agree, and that's why we need some leadership who can make
these kind of issues real to people at a gut-level. And not
just X-ers; Boomers, too, have got to be able to picture themselves
as frail 75-year-olds, in need of medical care, or just in need of
a roof over the head and few dollars to take a taxi or bus downtown
for groceries at the local food-bank, but totally penniless because
SS went bankrupt back in 2010, and prior to that SS taxes were so
high that they couldn't afford to save for their own retirement.
There are many options to fixing this today, ranging from reducing
benefits, raising the retirement age, or letting people opt-out
altogether from SS. Some of these may involve some inconvenience
or minor disruptions, but these will be NOTHING compared to the
human suffering that will result if we wait 5 or 10 years and THEN
try to act.
: I thus don't think you can fairly make a DIRECT comparison between the
: political virtue of GenX in 1994 and of the Boomers in 1969. (Though I
: *do* agree that in fact GenX ought to rally around Danforth and Kerry...)
Yes, or around *something* to ensure that their future will be
more secure. As it is now their future is in doubt, as is that
of their parents. And while some X-ers are talking about sending
their parents to the ovens, most of them are loving children
who, I'm sure would not want to see their parents out on the street
anymore than themselves.
My wife and I are thinking about having kids and one of the questions
we're wrestling with is, given the way our popular and political
culture emphasizes immediate, short-term or instant gratification
(tax cuts instead of deficit cuts, why save if you can with a
credit card, it's more important to have teak-furniture today than
a rainforest tomorrow, we'll use a condom *next* time, etc) how can
we raise kids who are better at thinking long-term?
: There is really no good reason to assume that the Boomers, placed in GenX's
: shoes, would display any more political wisdom than we are showing.
I'm sure you're right. I was just trying to illustrate how, if an issue
CAN be given a kind of emotional immediacy, it can rally large numbers
of people.
---peter
Jonathan Priluck
pelican <pel...@pentagon.io.com> wrote:
>In article <D1HE3...@world.std.com>,
>Peter Nelson <pne...@world.std.com> wrote:
>>
>Pelican: I'm glad you have such supercilious contempt for average
>Americans, who are the ones who work, pay the taxes, and do the voting
>here. This won't do. Are all people from Massachusetts so
>authoritarian?
No. Certainly not *all* of us, I am at least one exception. :^)
>> In politics you need leaders.....
>> they'll be this great grassroots groundswell happening
>> spontaneously, unless we get to a crisis, and then it will
>> be too late to avoid massive human suffering.
Assumption: All leaders are public figures therefore there is no grassroots
groundswell.................... that you would be aware of.
Best regards, Jon Priluck
--
* Jonathan Aerospace Materials Corp., 37 Antwerp St. Brighton MA, 02135 *
* Tel (617) 783-4588, Internet: jam...@world.std.com *
* Developers and future manufacturers of Lattice Block Materials ... *
* the world's strongest and lightest materials. *
Jan Brittenson
> Oh, I agree that reforms are necessary--in fact, absolutely essential
> to take care of future needs. The program, as it stands, is going to
> crash.
I don't know anyone who's retired lately who hasn't complained
vigorously about how they would have been far better off if they had
been allowed to invest in a 401k plan (or equivalent) instead of
feeding the government monster. Just get rid of SS. If there's
public interest in instituting a welfare program for poverty income
compensation for poor retirees, then go ahead, but call it by its
proper name so people can approve or disapprove. (I would approve, if
it puts part of the burden, e.g. finding an affordable place to live
and getting rid of large mortgages, on the recipient.) Also tell
people how it's going to be financed (say by 401k penalty fees and
whatelse).
--
-- Jan Brittenson
bs...@moomix.com
Terry Steinford
: I don't know anyone who's retired lately who hasn't complained
: vigorously about how they would have been far better off if they had
: been allowed to invest in a 401k plan (or equivalent) instead of
: feeding the government monster. Just get rid of SS. If there's
: public interest in instituting a welfare program for poverty income
: compensation for poor retirees, then go ahead, but call it by its
: proper name so people can approve or disapprove. (I would approve, if
: it puts part of the burden, e.g. finding an affordable place to live
: and getting rid of large mortgages, on the recipient.) Also tell
: people how it's going to be financed (say by 401k penalty fees and
: whatelse).
"Lately" is the key. The big run up in SS taxes has been only in the last
few years. People retiring today paid very low SS taxes during most of
their working lifetime. The annual maximum employee tax was only $290 in
1969. It did not break $1000/yr until 1980 and didn't go over $3000 until
1992. Even doubling those figures to show the true cost which includes the
employer's or self-employment tax and you can see that the total money
input up to about 7 years ago was not very great.
Compare that to maximum benefit in 1994 of $1,147 a MONTH plus $573 a
MONTH for a spouse who never paid a dime of SS tax. And those monthy
checks are guaranteed to go up each year at a rate higher than the
retiree's cost of living.
A person who retired in 1987 has seen his first monthly check of $789
increase to $1,033 this year.
The lobbies supporting that end of the gravy train are not about to let
it end.
Assuming I still pay for the next 20 years until I am 62, every one of
those 20 years will cost over $3000 for me. The last 10 of those 20 will
go through the roof.
We have to find a way to turn off the power to the "third rail of
politics" so the politician that dares touch it will not die.
-- Terry Steinford
t...@gate.net
Brian K. Yoder
>Pelican: Isn't it a wonder that these two guys are so magnaninous as to
>worry about our future? John Danforth is as rich as Croesus, the heir to
>one of the great cereal fortunes (I believe Ralston Purina, but I could
>be wrong on this). And Kerry is about to marry the widow of
>Pennsylvania's John Heinz, who brings with her into this union a trust
>fund worth some $800 million, according to the public prints.
Excuse me but what does the income of a person have to do with the validity of
his political ideas or his trustworthiness? To condemn them merely because
they are rich is just blind bigotry (perhaps driven by a strong dose of
envy and self-loathing to boot).
>Neither of
>these superior beings has any need for Social Security, and neither, in
>my opinion, has any inkling of what it would be like to be dependent on a
>program like Social Security.
Why not? DOes the posession of a large amount of money in the bank
preclude the functioning of one's brain? What is that? The ad mammon
fallacy? ;-)
>To them, it is just a faintly interesting
>abstact, and this is why they couldn't get any real-world support for
>their reforms.
On the contrary, I think it is because nobody really trusts them to
do anything they say they will do, and the facts of this case bear it
out too. They didn't bother changing a thing.
>Oh, I agree that reforms are necessary--in fact,
>absolutely essential to take care of future needs. The program, as it
>stands, is going to crash. But the Danforths and the Kerrys of this
>world, or the very rich Peter Petersen, for that matter, are not the ones
>to do it.
Why not? Because you hate rich people?
>The citizenry affected will have to make the ultimate
>decisions, and they will have to be consensus-based.
What would such a "consensus" consist of? Do you think that what we need is
compromised half-solution that doesn't address the real central issues
by taking a stand on the important choices at hand? What we have now is
a situation where on the one hand there are lots of old folks willing to trade
their votes for a share of the booty gleaned from the rest of us. On the
other hand ther eare lots of wage-earners who don't want any part of it.
What we have NOW is a compromise/consensus where the old get their goodies
and the taxpayers get fleeced and the money to pay the full expenses is
borrowed from folks who will have to pay after the current crop of politicians
is out of office. That's where "consensus" has lead us so far. Can we stand
for any more of it?
>We need to have
>these decisions made at people-level, not from on high.
Are people with large bank accounts not "people" in your book? That might
explain a lot.
--Brian
--
+------------------+---------------------------------------------------------+
| Brian K. Yoder | "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human |
| byo...@netcom.com| freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the |
| US Networx, Inc. | creed of slaves." -- William Pitt |
+------------------+---------------------------------------------------------+
pelican
I don't hate rich people, Bryan. You, on the other hand, seem to hate
old people. But there are a lot of them, Bryan, and they tend to look
out for their own interests, and they vote. They're living longer, too,
so they will be voting for a long, long time. Try screwing them and see
how long you last!
Now, on the subject of Danforth, Kerry, and Petersen attempting to bring
about Social Security reform: these guys are too rich to need Social
Security, and therefore their views are justly suspect. Why should three
self-appointed rich guys give a damn about the old, the frail, the
helpless? My point is that, if *necessary* Social Security reform is to
be attained, it must be done not by these three, but by the people as a
whole, including those who would be affected by it. There is no question
that reform is necessary. But Government must be by the consent of the
governed, especially when dealing with pocketbook issues. Social
Security reform will have to come from the President and Congress,
who are responsible to the people, and not from unelected busybodies,
however concerned they might be.
Rex Ridgeway
pel...@pentagon.io.com on Wed, 28 Dec 1994 wrote:
:Re: Generation X "Whining" about Social "Security"
:To Brian Yoder:
:I don't hate rich people, Bryan. You, on the other hand, seem to hate
:old people. But there are a lot of them, Bryan, and they tend to look
:out for their own interests, and they vote. They're living longer, too,
:so they will be voting for a long, long time. Try screwing them and see
:how long you last!
:Now, on the subject of Danforth, Kerry, and Petersen attempting to bring
:about Social Security reform: these guys are too rich to need Social
:Security, and therefore their views are justly suspect. Why should three
:self-appointed rich guys give a damn about the old, the frail, the
:helpless? My point is that, if *necessary* Social Security reform is to
^^ There is do doubt! It *is* necessary!
:be attained, it must be done not by these three, but by the people as a
:whole, including those who would be affected by it. There is no question
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
almost correct, should read
"including *only* those who *pay* for it."
:that reform is necessary. But Government must be by the consent of the
^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^
Social Security --- ie. Income redistribution or forcing
citizens to give up a part of their income to buy investments
be they stocks, bonds, etc. in *not* a legitmate function of
government to begin with! You then go on to use the words
"consent of the governed" --- *I* did *NOT* give my consent
to the government to take any part of my income each and
every payday and redistribute it to other people via the
Social Security system --- my income, the wages I receive,
should be left to me to invest and/or spend and/or give
away as *I*, the one who earned it, see fit! Currently,
for example I *have* given my consent to take out of
my typical-middle-class-annual-salary about $1000
per paycheck and invest it in a small company Global Gensis
growth fund, a High Yield bond fund, an Asset Manager total return
fund, a Growth and Income fund, and an Equity Income
fund --- the full market value of which in 25 years when
I'll be 65 may or may not be enough in combination with my
pension for my retirement (the Mexican peso devaluation/Global bond
market really hit me hard in some of my other funds, but that's my
problem and if I don't end up with enough money in 25 years to retire
on, too bad! -- I'll have to beg --- i.e. appeal to *voluntary* income
redistribution -- due to *my* poor investment & spending decisions).
I have posted several times a list of easily available
well documented articles and books by noted experts on how
the Social Security sytems is a giant Ponzi scheme. I'll
repeat them very briefly here just to continue to get the
facts out again:
#1: _Social Security: Prospects for Real Reform_; P.J.Ferrara,
editor (Washington, DC: CATO Institute, 1985). In your local
Big State U Library in section HD 7125 S5993. This most
excellent book is available from the CATO Institute at
1-800-767-1241 (noon - 9:00PM Eastern) for $3.00 in paperback.
Read at least Ch. 1: "Rates of Return Promised by SS to Today's
Young Workers" pages 13 thru 32.
#2: _Social Security: A Critique of Radical Reform Proposals_
edited by Charles W. Meyer (Lexington Books, 1987) should be in
your Big State U library in section HD 7125 S593 (next to the
book listed above). Read at least Ch. 3 "Intercohort and
Intracohort Redistribution under SS" pages 49 thru 65.
#3:"An Updated Money's Worth Analysis of Social Security
Retirement Benefits", in _Transactions_ (Journal of Actuaries),
V44, 1992 by Robert J. Myers and Bruce Schobel. Agian,
should be in your local Big State U Library in section
368.306 SO13T. Read at lest the abstract and summary.
(I love to put these references out to the public & on the net, I know
from responses it *really* bugs some people when the ugly truth is made
known! And there are people like me who love to see the objective &
well documnented truth).
:governed, especially when dealing with pocketbook issues. Social
:Security reform will have to come from the President and Congress,
:who are responsible to the people, and not from unelected
:busybodies, however concerned they might be.
There should be two committees formed to deal with the SS
problem. Divide up SS benefits into the percentage
that represents actuarial fair value (i.e. payment made into
the system adjusted for the time value of money and mortality
statistics) and the remaining component of benefits paid out
in *excess* of actuarial fair value. Group 1 would answer the
question "How should should we reform that component of SS
benefits that represents the actuarial fair value?" Group 2
would answer the question "How should should we reform that
component of SS benefits that are over and above actuarial fair
value?" Let current retirees and current workers paying
into the system make up Group 1 --- but in Group 2 allow *only*
representatives from those social/economic groups whose cohorts
are *paying* (or going to be paying!) for those *excess* actuarial
returns (in general group 2 would consist of: current and future
young workers, singles, current high wage earners). Is'nt this
fair? Of course the only logical and consistent response
form Group 1 would be to let people invest their money as they see fit,
the only logical and fair response from Group 2 is elliminate,
zero out, that component of SS return over and above actuarial fair
value.
--
Rex Ridgeway
re...@freenet.fsu.edu
pelican
> act now to prevent a much worse crisis in the future. Who
> cares how much money the proponents have? That has no relevance
> to anything. It's also ridiculous to sugest that the average
> Boomer *or* X-er has a clue how much money those guys are worth or
> that this was a factor. It got no support because the issue is
> too abstract for the average American, who has an attention-span
> of about 10 munites and a time-horizon that goes only until the
> next advertisement, The Dem's and the GOP are fighting to
> see which tax-cut will win. I have a suggestion for them:
> the winning one will be whichever one can direct-deposited soonest
> to the taxpayers' bank accounts.
>
Americans, who are the ones who work, pay the taxes, and do the voting
here. This won't do. Are all people from Massachusetts so
the Kennedys? Perhaps you would just like to prorogue the Congress, send
it home, and rule the country by a junta of the well-intentioned rich?
Kerry, Danforth, Peterson, and Teddy-boy would fit in quite well on such
a body. Who needs popular rule, right? After all, the people only have
an attention span of about 10 munites (huh?), right? And it only goes on
until the next advertisement, right? Gee, it's a wonder this republic
has existed for more than 200 years, if the people are so stupid.
>
> In politics you need leaders. It's wishful thinking that
> they'll be this great grassroots groundswell happening
> spontaneously, unless we get to a crisis, and then it will
> be too late to avoid massive human suffering.
Pelican: Jawohl, ve need leaders! Ja, Germany needed a leader, und zey
got Hitler. Italy needed a leader, und zey got Mussolini. Russia got
Stalin. Japan got Tojo. Ve needed a leader, and ve got Clinton, und zis
last election vas all about undoing a big mistake made by 43% of the
approximately 26% percent of ze electorate zat vent out and voted.
Jawohl, ve really need a leader. Personally, I vould razzer trust ze
people. Zey vill come through! Drop us a line from Serbia, ven you
emigrate.
Name withheld on request
> "Lately" is the key. The big run up in SS taxes has been only in the last
> few years. People retiring today paid very low SS taxes during most of their
> working lifetime. The annual maximum employee tax was only $290 in 1969. It
> did not break $1000/yr until 1980 and didn't go over $3000 until 1992. Even
> doubling those figures to show the true cost which includes the employer's
> or self-employment tax and you can see that the total money input up to
> about 7 years ago was not very great.
Lately? My grandparents bitched about it in 1966 when my grandfather retired
at age 70. After going through all his pay stubs (why my grandmother saved
literally all his pay stubs? who knows), they calculated that if that money
had been placed in an interest bearing account instead of SS, they would be
much better off.
> Compare that to maximum benefit in 1994 of $1,147 a MONTH plus $573 a MONTH
> for a spouse who never paid a dime of SS tax. And those monthy checks are
> guaranteed to go up each year at a rate higher than the retiree's cost of
> living.
> A person who retired in 1987 has seen his first monthly check of $789
> increase to $1,033 this year.
> The lobbies supporting that end of the gravy train are not about to let it
> end.
> Assuming I still pay for the next 20 years until I am 62, every one of those
> 20 years will cost over $3000 for me. The last 10 of those 20 will go
> through the roof.
> We have to find a way to turn off the power to the "third rail of politics"
> so the politician that dares touch it will not die.
I agree. In my opinion, SS is just another way for people to vote themselves
money.
> -- Terry Steinford t...@gate.net
Keith
Brian K. Yoder
>I don't hate rich people, Bryan.
You couldn't tell it from your post. Go back and look at it. You treated
their being wealthy as if it automatically disqualified them from having
any business saying or doing anything.
>You, on the other hand, seem to hate
>old people.
I do? When have I criticized old folks? Heck, I LIKE old folks. I just
don't like them (or the government in their name) robbing me.
>But there are a lot of them, Bryan, and they tend to look
>out for their own interests, and they vote. They're living longer, too,
>so they will be voting for a long, long time. Try screwing them and see
>how long you last!
When did I say I want to "screw" them? I wish them well. I wouldn't
dream of "screwing" them. I just want them to stop having the government
rob me. Is telling them to stop taking my money "screwing" them?
As for "seeing how long I last", are you implying that they'll kill me or
something if I demand that the government stoptaxing me for Social "Security"?
Do you think that is nice? Right? Good? Areyou aware that this is already
the case?
>Now, on the subject of Danforth, Kerry, and Petersen attempting to bring
>about Social Security reform: these guys are too rich to need Social
>Security, and therefore their views are justly suspect.
Suspect? Suspect of what? Nobody "needs" Social "Security". It's a scam.
Who "needs" to be ripped off? Even people with high incomes have to pay taxes
you know. Do you think they should be paying for something they "don't
need"? Why should they have no say in how their money is spent? Worse,
why should they be denied such a voice on the grounds of their having earned a
lot of money? Are you just green with envy and full of vitriol for those
better off than you or what?
>Why should three
>self-appointed
Self-appointed? Danforth and Kerry were elected, you know.
>rich guys give a damn about the old, the frail, the
>helpless?
Why should an unknown nobody like you have anything to say about anything
of importance? Look, how about if you stop whining about the incomes of
people in order to discredit what they do or don't have to say and address
the important issues at hand?
As for "giving a damn about the old, frail, and helpless", what does income
have to do with one's capacity to "give a damn" about anything in particular?
It seems as though you are the one with an inability to have respect for
people on the basis of their social status, not Danforth and Kerry.
>My point is that, if *necessary* Social Security reform is to
>be attained, it must be done not by these three, but by the people as a
>whole,
OK. Where will all 260M of us meet? How about your place. Then we "as
a whole" will make a decision. That would be a whole lot better than if
only the people interested and informed were involved, eh?
>including those who would be affected by it.
Who won't be affected? Everyone gets taxed by Social "Security". Why
do you think that rich folks are not affected?
>There is no question
>that reform is necessary. But Government must be by the consent of the
>governed, especially when dealing with pocketbook issues.
Yeah, that's why we have elections. Just what would satisfy you? If
a committee of bums took over the capital and reached a "consensus"?
You really aren't making any sense.
>Social
>Security reform will have to come from the President and Congress,
>who are responsible to the people, and not from unelected busybodies,
>however concerned they might be.
Were you unaware that Danforth and Kerry are leaders in congress?
Are you seriously claiming to know that they are "busybodies" merely by looking
at their income levels? What a bigot you are.
Hans Lachman
* country goes bankrupt (i.e., defaults on bonds - unconstitutional)
* massive currency printing (hyperinflation) to pay off debts
* impovrishment of the people with 80% tax rates (I thought someone
said that this projection was stated on page 25 of Clinton's
last budget)
* wise action now or soon to avoid or mitigate these consequences
* ???
I prefer the "wise action" choice, which is why I joined the
Concord Coalition (for info call 1-800-231-6800). At least they
have some political visibility.
It's a little disconcerting that many people (most, I guess) do not
have the same preference, to take the steps necessary to avoid the
problems of massive debt. I would like to think that in the coming
years, people in general will come around to reality and do what's
right. This is possible, after all.
Since Social Security seems like such a big problem, here's an
idea for reform (based somewhat on previous posts -- sorry if it's
redundant). The idea is that since SS is partially a welfare-like
program (for those in need) and partially a forced-savings program
(for everybody), why not split it into two programs, and then make
the savings aspect become optional.
Step 1. Split the Social Security trust fund into two funds (50/50?),
an "Aid For the Aged" fund, and a Gov't-run IRA fund. Part of your
SS payment (employer part (?)) goes to SS/AFA, and part (employee
part (?)) goes to SS/G-IRA. (The amount you get in your G-IRA may
be more or less than 50% of whatever you've put in thus far, depending
on what we can work out -- worst case, 0%, but at least you can stop
paying into a system that may never give you anything back anyway.)
Step 2. Allow G-IRA contributions to be optional.
Step 3. Allow direct rollovers from one's G-IRA to any IRA.
Step 4. Put a stringent means-test on SS/AFA (like welfare), to
keep its cost from growing to infinity (like SS is doing).
Perhaps the above is more palatable than trashing the SS program
outright (which is impossible).
In any case, I don't want to pay 80% in taxes in 2015.
Hans Lachman <lac...@netcom.com>
"You are lost in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike."
John
>>Pelican: I'm glad you have such supercilious contempt for average
>>Americans, who are the ones who work, pay the taxes, and do the voting
>>here. This won't do. Are all people from Massachusetts so
>>authoritarian?
>
>No. Certainly not *all* of us, I am at least one exception. :^)
>
>
>>> In politics you need leaders.....
>>> they'll be this great grassroots groundswell happening
>>> spontaneously, unless we get to a crisis, and then it will
>>> be too late to avoid massive human suffering.
>
>Assumption: All leaders are public figures therefore there is no grassroots
>groundswell.................... that you would be aware of.
It only goes to prove that with power comes corruption. Nobody will ever have
"enough.". If somebody did get enough, they lose their motivation.
God 'O Thunder
wrote:
> It only goes to prove that with power comes corruption. Nobody will
ever have
> "enough.". If somebody did get enough, they lose their motivation.
> >---The-Streak--->
I don't know about that (I agree "on the whole" but not w/o
qualification)... My Sys-Admin is one (if not _the_) most moral people
(person) I know. She has TOTAL control over our net and refuses to browse
people's stuff (unless it is a question of security, which it rarely is).
I could not help but play tricks on some of our stuffy users if had the
root password.
So _I_ fit the power=corruption model (but I'd never harm anyone), but my
su is free and clear.
Self-appointed member of the Linguistic Cabal
_________http://coyote.csusm.edu/public/garrett/Garrett_hom.html _________
Eeyore California State University at San Marcos
Literature and Writing TTFN, Ta ta for now...
______________________Turn on, log-in, tune out! --Me____________________
Rex Jackson
writes:
> >---The-Streak--->
>
And I couldn't figure out why I lost my motivation! It's all this crap I
pelican
Rex Jackson <Re...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>And I couldn't figure out why I lost my motivation! It's all this crap I
Pelican: Don't mention 'liquidation' around the goo-goos, Rex. They
might try liquidating *you*. :-)
John Payson
God 'O Thunder <gar...@coyote.csusm.edu> wrote:
>In article <3e412p$g...@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>, Str...@ix.netcom.com (John)
>wrote:
>
>> It only goes to prove that with power comes corruption. Nobody will
>ever have
>> "enough.". If somebody did get enough, they lose their motivation.
>> >---The-Streak--->
>
>I don't know about that (I agree "on the whole" but not w/o
>qualification)... My Sys-Admin is one (if not _the_) most moral people
>(person) I know. She has TOTAL control over our net and refuses to browse
>people's stuff (unless it is a question of security, which it rarely is).
>I could not help but play tricks on some of our stuffy users if had the
>root password.
>
>So _I_ fit the power=corruption model (but I'd never harm anyone), but my
>su is free and clear.
The problem is that power attracts the corrupt, and evolution usually
favors giving power to the corrupt. This is why George Washington refused
to be king. He may have known that he himself would never abuse the power
associated with such a position, but that if the monarchy had too much
power it would soon by occupied by someone who WOULD abuse it.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
supe...@mcs.com | "Je crois que je ne vais jamais voir... | J\_/L
John Payson | Un animal si beau qu'un chat." | ( o o )