Social Security
The Fiendish Plot of Fascinet
will have to use general revenue--about $45 billion, or 3.6% of
federal income tax revenues--to pay Social Security and Medicare
benefits. With the growing baby boomer retirement, Social Security's
demand on outside tax revenues will quickly grow.
How would you fix it?
Reduce benefits?
Raise the retirement age?
Raise taxes?
Impose means testing?
Move the system to privately owned accounts so that retirement
benefits can grow and federal revenue contributions are reduced?
-F
Bobo Bonobo?
> In 2004, for the first time in recent history, the federal government
> will have to use general revenue--about $45 billion, or 3.6% of
> federal income tax revenues--to pay Social Security and Medicare
> benefits. With the growing baby boomer retirement, Social Security's
> demand on outside tax revenues will quickly grow.
>
> How would you fix it?
>
> Reduce benefits?
I think it'd be cool if some old man with nothing to lose
would...well...you know :)
> Raise the retirement age?
That's something that might be a part of the solution, since advances
in medical care mean that people can often lead longer productive
lives.
> Raise taxes?
Right now only the first $87,900 is subject to the payroll taxes. How
about we remove that ceiling? Oh no, we can't do that. That would
benefit the lower and middle income Americans at the expense of
wealthy people, and that isn't the American Way, is it?
Let's also make income from capital (capital gains, dividends, stock
options) subject to the same payroll taxes as income from actually
working. Why not? Oh yeah, because it benefits working people at the
expense of people who own things.
> Impose means testing?
Since most rich people are already anti-Social Security, then that's
not a bad idea. The only reason not to do that is that it would
expose the farce that's been put forward for years that SS is
governemt "retirement insurance."
> Move the system to privately owned accounts so that retirement
> benefits can grow and federal revenue contributions are reduced?
That's right, let's have plumbers and secretaries and janitors and
even doctors and lawyers be forced to gamble their retirement security
in equities and securities. The problem with that, more than anything
else, is that people in the above careers are not likely to be as
savvy with investing as the big money people whose only function in
our economy is to invest (own things), and to live lives of luxury.
Working people almost never benefit from privatization. Look who
supports it, the same people who are hostile to the working class in
other ways.
>
> -F
--Bryan
Tiny Human Ferret
Launch nuclear weapons at all retirement homes.
Tax everyone under the age of 50 at a rate of 90 percent but give them
free food and solar-powered skateboards for transportation. Cardboard
housing will become a major growth industry. Very old people are to have
all of the money in the world spent on prolonging their lives as long as
possible. Only doctors will be allowed to vote.
--
The incapacity of a weak and distracted government may
often assume the appearance, and produce the effects,
of a treasonable correspondence with the public enemy.
--Gibbon, "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire"
LLivermore
Security was enacted, people typically lived only a few years - less than five,
if memory serves me correctly - after retirement. Now they regularly live on
into their 80s and 90s. Not only would this save Social Security for those who
genuinely need it, it would also stop the ridiculous waste of human resources
that occurs when you turn perfectly healthy and competent 65 year olds, often
people with a lifetime of training and experience, out to pasture. One of the
factors in European civilization's great leap ahead of the world's other
civilizations was when eyeglasses were invented, effectively almost doubling
the useful lives of craftsmen (up until that time, their skills had become
useless as soon as their vision began to deteriorate in their late 20s or 30s).
Utilizing the experience and wisdom of healthy and energetic men and women in
their 60s and 70s could provide a similar advantage.
Also, Bobo is right for once. There should be no ceiling on the Social
Security tax. If people paid SS tax on their entire incomes, we could probably
even lower rather than raise the percentage rate of said tax.
darkerfuture
"The Fiendish Plot of Fascinet" <fasc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5c050f32.0408...@posting.google.com...
*doesn't live in America* I'm not entirely sure which category of political
view this falls into, but I still don't understand the obsession with living
to be really old. Why fight for years and years just to stay alive while
your mind and body deteriorate, when you could allow yourself to move onto
something else (possibly something new)...?
LLivermore
view this falls into, but I still don't understand the obsession with living
to be really old. Why fight for years and years just to stay alive while
your mind and body deteriorate, when you could allow yourself to move onto
something else (possibly something new)...?>>
If you're over the age of 18 or 20, your mind and body are already
deteriorating. Why don't you move onto "something new?"
MistressDeath
I would trim the goddamn fat. I don't recall the amount of money a
recent report states the gov't wastes every year on defunct programs
and the like, but it was astronimical. Also, if gov't workers, who go
through reams and reams of paper, recycled it themselves and used the
same paper over and over, they'd save money, too. I furthermore
suggest that those thousand-dollar congressional haircuts be limited
to something reasonable, like one every six weeks; that politicians
carpool in their limos, and that Airforce One get a hybrid engine.
The American people have been paying for their leaders to waste money
long enough. I say it's time the leaders paid for some of it
themselves.
--Mistress If I Wanted My Money In The Shitter, I'd Flush It Myself
Tiny Human Ferret
Well, for old people, Death is more scary than for young people, if only
because for young people it's generally avoidable with a little
commonsense, for old people it's a looming certainty, and thus more than
ever to be resisted, even when it's an all-consuming effort.
Void Pointer
"darkerfuture" <nobod...@stupidaddress.com.invalid> wrote in message news:<cfl2l5$le5$1...@sparta.btinternet.com>...
> "The Fiendish Plot of Fascinet" <fasc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:5c050f32.0408...@posting.google.com...
> > How would you fix it?
> >
> > Reduce benefits?
> > Raise the retirement age?
> > Raise taxes?
> > Impose means testing?
> > Move the system to privately owned accounts so that retirement
> > benefits can grow and federal revenue contributions are reduced?
Yes.
Social Security is supposed to be a safety net for those who need it.
It's not supposed to be a free ride.
The whole concept is limited socialism, so why not just be honest
about it?
1) Tax all income, as has been suggested. The rich subsidize the
needy.
(As opposed to having the needy/middle class subsidize themselves.)
2) Disqualify people for social security that have retirement saved
up. (Means testing.)
3) Disqualify people that ought to have retirement saved up. If you
made, say, over 60K per year average through your working life, you're
SOL when it comes to social security. You should have had retirement
savings. (Means testing.)
4) That allows taxes on income to be reduced, as the only people being
subsidized are those who need it.
Then also, janitors don't need to risk their retirement in Enron
stock, but the people who own shares and/or other securities anyway
do.
The bottom line - Social Security is supposed to be just what it's
name implies: a safety net for those that need it.
> *doesn't live in America* I'm not entirely sure which category of political
> view this falls into, but I still don't understand the obsession with living
> to be really old. Why fight for years and years just to stay alive while
> your mind and body deteriorate, when you could allow yourself to move onto
> something else (possibly something new)...?
For a fast example, Irving Layton, comes to mind.
People don't just become useless with age. Some people do hold on
quite well.
Who are we to say they shouldn't?
-------------
Void Pointer
0x5179C94A168582BE142A3D2C3A8AAEF0
alt.gothic OG
Revoke social security benefits from foreigners who became US citizens
so that they can collect social security while living abroad.
Regards...
alt.gothic OG
of their own. Maybe you love your wife/husband/domestic partner and
you want to spend every moment with them. Maybe you're curious how
world politics will unfold. Maybe you want to see if Iraq wins any
gold medals in the Olympics. Maybe because you dedicated your life to
some type of research (like a cure for AIDS) and you want to see if
your contributions amount to anything. Maybe because top posting gives
you some sort of thrill.
There are so many reasons to want to stay alive. If you can't think of
any, maybe you should end yours.
Regards...
"darkerfuture" <nobod...@stupidaddress.com.invalid> wrote in message news:<cfl2l5$le5$1...@sparta.btinternet.com>...
>
Daniel Kolle
of Fascinet) thought hard and said:
>How would you fix it?
Privatization.
--
-Daniel "Mr. Brevity" Kolle; 16 A.A. #2035
Koji Kondo, Yo-Yo Ma, Gustav Mahler, Krzysztof Penderecki, and Geirr Tveitt are my Gods.
Head of EAC Denial Department and Madly Insane Scientist.
The Fiendish Plot of Fascinet
> Raise the retirement age to at least 70, maybe even 75. At the time Social
> Security was enacted, people typically lived only a few years - less than five,
> if memory serves me correctly - after retirement. Now they regularly live on
> into their 80s and 90s. Not only would this save Social Security for those who
> genuinely need it, it would also stop the ridiculous waste of human resources
> that occurs when you turn perfectly healthy and competent 65 year olds, often
> people with a lifetime of training and experience, out to pasture. One of the
> factors in European civilization's great leap ahead of the world's other
> civilizations was when eyeglasses were invented, effectively almost doubling
> the useful lives of craftsmen (up until that time, their skills had become
> useless as soon as their vision began to deteriorate in their late 20s or 30s).
> Utilizing the experience and wisdom of healthy and energetic men and women in
> their 60s and 70s could provide a similar advantage.
>
Mean life expectancy at birth was about sixty and mean life expectancy
at thrity was about sixty-eight, but mean life expectancy at
sixty-five was seventy-seven.[1] Life expectancy is therefore a hard
number to analyze. People who retired generally would live a long
time.
The ratio of retirees per employed worker is what pundits like to
quote (1:5 in 1940 to 2:7 today), but that excludes important
categories of working age adults: the unemployed, housewives, and
crimials--none of whom actually contribute to the system [3].
Percentage of the population over retirement age (65 in 1935, 67 in
2004) is probably the best number to look at, and that's only doubled
from 6% to 13% in the past sixty-five years. However, that should
balloon soon. The advantage of both of these numbers that they take
into account other demographic trends that threaten the system as much
or more than the aging population.
However, I think we should remember that this increase in the number
of retirees is exactly what Social Security was designed to do. If
you can drop 17% of the employed labor force out of the workforce
numbers, then after other people fill those slots, you can claim a
huge decrease in unemployment. That's the second reason why raising
the retirement age will never fly: it increases the unempolyment rate
immediately. The first is that the AARP (one of America's largest and
most powerful special interest groups) would caterwaul incessantly
until the idea was dropped.
It's a shame that we trick people with decades of useful experience to
retire just so McDonald's has some cheap labor. All the moreso due to
the fact that computerization has reduced the amount of practical
experience that younger individuals can bring to bear on emergency
situations.
A recent example I read about was in the field of air traffic control.
Computers have made the skies safer and cheaper than before,
eliminating much of the human error involved. But, like every device,
they fail. Young air traffic controllers are taught how to direct
airplanes with the computerized system, so when a problem occurred
recently with an automated warning, the first response of the
controller on duty wasn't to use the old manual system and just radio
in the warning, it was to press the button that made automated system
work two or three times to see if it would start working in the way
you might try your starter a few times before you decided to walk to
work. He did call in the warnings himself, but just in time, and it
created something of a
This lead to the usual sophmoric rantings about lack of training,
etc., but it's pretty much what you should expect. The air traffic
controller in question was doing what came most naturally to him in
that situation, and without the prior experience that the inspection
team brought to the investigation, he had to use his wits in an
unconventional setting. Having even a part-time retirement-age
supervisor in such situations would have helped tremedously.
>
> Also, Bobo is right for once. There should be no ceiling on the Social
> Security tax. If people paid SS tax on their entire incomes, we could
> probably even lower rather than raise the percentage rate of said tax.
>
These are both excellent ideas, but I think that only the latter has
any opportunity of enactment, and it's just not enough.
-F
[1] Life expectancy is quoted in Y years from age X, so I've just
added X and Y to make the numbers directly comparable. Also,
legislation was finalized in 1935 but monthly payments started in
1940. These numbers are very similar, but I've averaged them.
[2] I've had to estimate 1935-40 workforce numbers through trendlines.
[3] I know there's a less PC term than the unemployed, I just can't
think of it right now, and "criminals" indicates both black and gray
market workers.
The Fiendish Plot of Fascinet
> fasc...@yahoo.com (The Fiendish Plot of Fascinet) wrote in message news:<5c050f32.0408...@posting.google.com>...
> > In 2004, for the first time in recent history, the federal government
> > will have to use general revenue--about $45 billion, or 3.6% of
> > federal income tax revenues--to pay Social Security and Medicare
> > benefits. With the growing baby boomer retirement, Social Security's
> > demand on outside tax revenues will quickly grow.
> >
> > How would you fix it?
> >
> > Reduce benefits?
> > Raise the retirement age?
> > Raise taxes?
> > Impose means testing?
> > Move the system to privately owned accounts so that retirement
> > benefits can grow and federal revenue contributions are reduced?
>
> so that they can collect social security while living abroad.
>
> Regards...
>
As I recall, they have to live in the U.S. at least six months out of
the year to do so.
However, as long as we're limiting the number of people who can enter
the U.S. legally, it's probably a good idea to limit immigration to
people with at least two decades of work ahead of them (that is, who
are forty) or have important skills (people with graduate degrees in
technical fields, for example) rather than focus on family
reunification. If you immigrate, you should only be able to sponsor
your spouse and minor children. Adult children and parents should
have to compete on the basis of their own value to American society.
This would take care of the problem you're talking about, at least as
it has manifested in the Russian community.
-F
The Fiendish Plot of Fascinet
That's an excellent idea.
I'd like to reiterate that I have a case-and-a-half of cheap scotch
for anyone who wants to drink it all in the space of three hours in
the dumpster-tomb of his or her choice while I watch.
That's always a great way to spend a Saturday night.
-F
The Fiendish Plot of Fascinet
> I suppose I might as well officially de-lurk.
>
> "darkerfuture" <nobod...@stupidaddress.com.invalid> wrote in message news:<cfl2l5$le5$1...@sparta.btinternet.com>...
> > "The Fiendish Plot of Fascinet" <fasc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:5c050f32.0408...@posting.google.com...
>
>
> > > How would you fix it?
> > >
> > > Reduce benefits?
> > > Raise the retirement age?
> > > Raise taxes?
> > > Impose means testing?
> > > Move the system to privately owned accounts so that retirement
> > > benefits can grow and federal revenue contributions are reduced?
>
> Yes.
>
> Social Security is supposed to be a safety net for those who need it.
> It's not supposed to be a free ride.
>
> The whole concept is limited socialism, so why not just be honest
> about it?
>
> 1) Tax all income, as has been suggested. The rich subsidize the
> needy.
> (As opposed to having the needy/middle class subsidize themselves.)
>
Why should we keep the social security tax in this case and not simply
move social security into general revinue?
It would reduce the administration cost of social security and would
make political debates a little more honest: in increasing social
security benefits, congress would not be funding other programs as
well as otherwise. It's true today, it's just obscured by the tax.
>
> 2) Disqualify people for social security that have retirement saved
> up. (Means testing.)
>
Although this is a good idea, it goes directly against the idea of
social security as implemented in the United States. Implementing
such a system would make it impossible for retirees to believe that
they weren't just being handed a check. Part of the popularity of the
system is that old people feel that they've earned this money and
aren't just taking it due to political power. This would make it very
difficult to pass a law to such an effect, and would decrease the
popularity of the system enough that it would probably see a massive
reduction in funding.
>
> 3) Disqualify people that ought to have retirement saved up. If you
> made, say, over 60K per year average through your working life, you're
> SOL when it comes to social security. You should have had retirement
> savings. (Means testing.)
>
When did sixty thousands dollars a year become, well, more than
"middle class?"
Eighty-seven thousand dollars a year is the tax cut-off.
If someone earns twenty thousand dollars a year, he should be saving
for his retirement by any logic that says someone who earns sixty
thousand or eighty thousand or three hundred thousand dollars a year.
The choice, even at low wages, isn't between rent or food and savings
or insurance,* it's between chicks or booze and savings or insurance.
This is also the belief of the SSA:
"But Social Security was never meant to be the only source of income
for people when they retire...To have a comfortable retirement,
Americans need much more than just Social Security. They also need
private pensions, savings and investments."
>
> 4) That allows taxes on income to be reduced, as the only people being
> subsidized are those who need it.
>
> Then also, janitors don't need to risk their retirement in Enron
> stock, but the people who own shares and/or other securities anyway
> do.
>
> The bottom line - Social Security is supposed to be just what it's
> name implies: a safety net for those that need it.
>
A safety net should apply to anyone who's destitute, right?
Why would you deny it to the people who have contributed the most?
The program has always been peddled as pension system for everyone
based upon their contributions (after those working in the depression
had all retired). The money you're getting from SSI is supposed to be
what has accumulated from your contributions, similar to like savings.
That's where the idea of a "trust fund" that never existed came from,
that's why there was supposed to be a "lock-box" on this money, and
that's why social security checks are of different amounts based on
average contributions and number of years worked, etc.
Social Security was never mean as an income transfer program like it
has become and you imagine its purpose to be.
>
> > *doesn't live in America* I'm not entirely sure which category of political
> > view this falls into, but I still don't understand the obsession with living
> > to be really old. Why fight for years and years just to stay alive while
> > your mind and body deteriorate, when you could allow yourself to move onto
> > something else (possibly something new)...?
> For a fast example, Irving Layton, comes to mind.
>
> People don't just become useless with age. Some people do hold on
> quite well.
>
> Who are we to say they shouldn't?
>
We are the Usenet.
-F
* The only years I've had no savings are the years when I've earned
less than seven thousand five hundred dollars per annum. Not only did
I save at the time, I was able to pay for one or two courses a
semester.
The Fiendish Plot of Fascinet
> fasc...@yahoo.com (The Fiendish Plot of Fascinet) wrote in message news:<5c050f32.0408...@posting.google.com>...
> > In 2004, for the first time in recent history, the federal government
> > will have to use general revenue--about $45 billion, or 3.6% of
> > federal income tax revenues--to pay Social Security and Medicare
> > benefits. With the growing baby boomer retirement, Social Security's
> > demand on outside tax revenues will quickly grow.
> >
> > How would you fix it?
> >
> > Reduce benefits?
>
> I think it'd be cool if some old man with nothing to lose
> would...well...you know :)
>
Like I just said, I have the scotch to help him along.
>
> > Raise the retirement age?
>
> That's something that might be a part of the solution, since advances
> in medical care mean that people can often lead longer productive
> lives.
>
I'm not so sure that old people were so unproductive before.
>
> > Raise taxes?
>
> Right now only the first $87,900 is subject to the payroll taxes. How
> about we remove that ceiling? Oh no, we can't do that. That would
> benefit the lower and middle income Americans at the expense of
> wealthy people, and that isn't the American Way, is it?
> Let's also make income from capital (capital gains, dividends, stock
> options) subject to the same payroll taxes as income from actually
> working. Why not? Oh yeah, because it benefits working people at the
> expense of people who own things.
>
You don't own things?
If you started a contracting firm, you could do the same job as you do
now, but it wouldn't be sexual harrassment if you flirted with the
fourteen year olds, anymore.
Well, it wouldn't benefit people with earnings in the lower four
quintiles of income, because the benefits will stay the same and their
taxes won't be reduced, but it would take money from the upper middle
class.
Taxing directed investment in limited liability corporations is a bad
idea because it's a tax on progress. I am, however, all for taking
capital gained through property sales and other speculative
investments and taxing them as well as mutual funds.
>
> > Impose means testing?
>
> Since most rich people are already anti-Social Security, then that's
> not a bad idea. The only reason not to do that is that it would
> expose the farce that's been put forward for years that SS is
> governemt "retirement insurance."
>
I think both this and the previous idea are, in essence, good, but I
also believe that if we destroy the illusion of retirement insurance,
then we'll undermine support for the system.
Eventually, we'd end up with a program as popular as AFDC.
>
> > Move the system to privately owned accounts so that retirement
> > benefits can grow and federal revenue contributions are reduced?
>
> That's right, let's have plumbers and secretaries and janitors and
> even doctors and lawyers be forced to gamble their retirement security
> in equities and securities. The problem with that, more than anything
> else, is that people in the above careers are not likely to be as
> savvy with investing as the big money people whose only function in
> our economy is to invest (own things), and to live lives of luxury.
> Working people almost never benefit from privatization. Look who
> supports it, the same people who are hostile to the working class in
> other ways.
>
Some studies--and I'm not sure how good they are--say that investment
bankers aren't actually all that good at what they do. That is, they
aren't better than you.
I think the reasons for this being a popular idea are two-fold.
First, pension schemes have made way for private retirement accounts
like 401K's, etc., that are attached to individuals instead of being,
basically, gifts of the company that can be turned off at any time, as
in the United case. This has made people more comfortable with
handling their own money. Second, the myth that Social Security pays
you back your own money. People like to be in control, especially in
the United States. You don't know what the government is doing in
your "trust fund,"* and when someone who believes in the "trust fund"
hears that the government is borrowing money to help pay current
benefits, it should be as scary as if you'd found out that you'd lost
your principle when you invested your money.
The major problem with these plans is that they pay out what's left in
an account to your family (excl., say, your spouse) instead of using
it to provide for people who've either screwed up their investments or
have lived their own money out.
-F
* Well, we Usenet Laureates do, but most people don't.
The Fiendish Plot of Fascinet
> fasc...@yahoo.com (The Fiendish Plot of Fascinet) wrote in message news:<5c050f32.0408...@posting.google.com>...
> > In 2004, for the first time in recent history, the federal government
> > will have to use general revenue--about $45 billion, or 3.6% of
> > federal income tax revenues--to pay Social Security and Medicare
> > benefits. With the growing baby boomer retirement, Social Security's
> > demand on outside tax revenues will quickly grow.
> >
> > How would you fix it?
> >
> > Reduce benefits?
> > Raise the retirement age?
> > Raise taxes?
> > Impose means testing?
> > Move the system to privately owned accounts so that retirement
> > benefits can grow and federal revenue contributions are reduced?
> >
> > -F
>
> I would trim the goddamn fat. I don't recall the amount of money a
> recent report states the gov't wastes every year on defunct programs
> and the like, but it was astronimical.
>
One more excellent idea.
I don't know how much fat there really is to cut, though.
Didn't Bill Clinton "re-invent" government to be smaller and leaner?
Didn't Al Gore "reduce" its size?
I mean, it's not like the Washington area has seen any growth in the
past ten years, and even if it had, there are other industries in DC
than the government.
But really, there are many, many unnecessary programs. We need to
(deer #617 is staring at me through my office window I think they've
finally lost the fuzz on their antlers) evaluate programs and decide
whether they are needed and, if they are needed, whether they should
be administered nationally. A good one-size-fits-all program will
often be more expensive than several excellent programs tailored to
specific needs.
Basically, we need to stop measuring "caring" in dollars.
>
> Also, if gov't workers, who go through reams and reams of paper, recycled
> it themselves and used the same paper over and over, they'd save money, too.
>
Excellent idea. I don't know how many times a day I doodle in the
left hand corner of a piece of paper and throw it out before grabbing
a piece of scratch paper from the printer.
> I furthermore
> suggest that those thousand-dollar congressional haircuts be limited
> to something reasonable, like one every six weeks; that politicians
> carpool in their limos, and that Airforce One get a hybrid engine.
> The American people have been paying for their leaders to waste money
> long enough. I say it's time the leaders paid for some of it
> themselves.
>
I think even congressmen can't get enough haircuts to impact the
budget noticably.
-F
Bobo Bonobo?
I don't know what you are talking about. You can't collect SS unless
you've been working and paying into it. It's not an entitlement of
citizenship.
Where do people get kooky ideas like that?
>
> Regards...
--Bryan
Bobo Bonobo?
> On 13 Aug 2004 11:48:51 -0700, fasc...@yahoo.com (The Fiendish Plot
> of Fascinet) thought hard and said:
>
> >How would you fix it?
>
> Privatization.
Investment is kind of like parimutuel gambling. The values of
investments are determined by the actions of other investors. There
are winners and losers. To ask the average working person to put
his/her skills at investment to the test against savvy professional
investors and rich capitalists who essentially own for a living is to
ask said workers to be the loser in the game.
You show me how it wouldn't be that way.
--Bryan
darkerfuture
"Tiny Human Ferret" <ixnayamsp...@earthops.net> wrote in message
news:411E3665...@earthops.net...
Hmm. The point still completely passes me by. I work in a care home for the
elderly, so every few weeks someone dies, sometimes more than one at once
(generally they go in threes)..... Seeing that has, in my opinion, made me
more curious about what happens. But then again, I guess I'm slightly
obsessed with fighting natural human instincts.
Bobo Bonobo?
>
> If you started a contracting firm, you could do the same job as you do
> now, but it wouldn't be sexual harrassment if you flirted with the
> fourteen year olds, anymore.
>
"fourteen year olds" is quite the exaggeration, and as far as my "job"
goes, I don't ever "flirt" with the youth girlies, even the ones who
are 18, 19. The good churchy people'd frown on that, and I like them
to like me. Ultimately, they sign my paychecks.
It used to be "look, but be very discreet, but in the past several
years there haven't been any real cuties, and they don't tend to wear
the ultrashort skirts that they used to wear every Easter morning.
Back 7 or 8 years ago, that was a thing. Perhaps the pendulum will
swing back.
>
> -F
--Bryan
Nighting
> Well, for old people, Death is more scary than for young people, if only
> because for young people it's generally avoidable with a little
> commonsense, for old people it's a looming certainty, and thus more than
> ever to be resisted, even when it's an all-consuming effort.
Only more scary if you've already decided it's something to be afraid of.
Die with dignity, for god's sake, instead of fighting it and whining like a
kid at the dentist's office. It'll only hurt a bit. I hope.
Nighting
Tiny Human Ferret
If you think about it, it's much less about the pain, and more about the
inability to affect, and to be affected by, the world to which we're
accustomed. At least one tends to presume that this would be among the
results of death.
Afraid to die? Hmmm maybe not. Afraid that, being dead, I might leave
many things undone which I had intended to do? Of this I live in terror,
absolute terror. Not for myself, but for posterity.
Void Pointer
> > I suppose I might as well officially de-lurk.
> >
> > "darkerfuture" <nobod...@stupidaddress.com.invalid> wrote in message news:<cfl2l5$le5$1...@sparta.btinternet.com>...
> > > "The Fiendish Plot of Fascinet" <fasc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > news:5c050f32.0408...@posting.google.com...
> >
> >
> > 1) Tax all income, as has been suggested. The rich subsidize the
> > needy.
> > (As opposed to having the needy/middle class subsidize themselves.)
> >
>
> Why should we keep the social security tax in this case and not simply
> move social security into general revinue?
>
Valid point.
> It would reduce the administration cost of social security and would
> make political debates a little more honest: in increasing social
> security benefits, congress would not be funding other programs as
> well as otherwise. It's true today, it's just obscured by the tax.
>
Agreed.
> >
> > 2) Disqualify people for social security that have retirement saved
> > up. (Means testing.)
> >
>
> Although this is a good idea, it goes directly against the idea of
> social security as implemented in the United States. Implementing
> such a system would make it impossible for retirees to believe that
> they weren't just being handed a check. Part of the popularity of the
> system is that old people feel that they've earned this money and
> aren't just taking it due to political power. This would make it very
> difficult to pass a law to such an effect, and would decrease the
> popularity of the system enough that it would probably see a massive
> reduction in funding.
>
True. That said, I believe that there are already limits on income
from investments. I may be mistaken, but I believe that with roughly
250K in income from investments you are disqualified as it is.
I would just reduce that figure.
It wouldn't be easy, especially since it would be seen as the
government taking back what was promised (and since it was promised
when paying social security taxes, it was earned).
At the least, a massive reduction in funding would be in order given
the massive reduction in benefits payments.
> >
> > 3) Disqualify people that ought to have retirement saved up. If you
> > made, say, over 60K per year average through your working life, you're
> > SOL when it comes to social security. You should have had retirement
> > savings. (Means testing.)
> >
>
> When did sixty thousands dollars a year become, well, more than
> "middle class?"
>
I'd say that puts one in the upper middle class. The figure was
arbitrary and, for an actual implementation, I'd say one should come
up with a number through some more sensible means. It also should be
indexed to something, so that it doesn't need revision due to cost of
living or inflation changes.
> Eighty-seven thousand dollars a year is the tax cut-off.
>
True. That just benefits those making more, though. It doesn't have
any effect on my proposal, as I suggest taxing all income to make the
system more equitable.
> If someone earns twenty thousand dollars a year, he should be saving
> for his retirement by any logic that says someone who earns sixty
> thousand or eighty thousand or three hundred thousand dollars a year.
> The choice, even at low wages, isn't between rent or food and savings
> or insurance,* it's between chicks or booze and savings or insurance.
>
True, true. I'd still submit, though, that there is a point at which
people can reasonably be held entirely responsible for their own
retirement.
> This is also the belief of the SSA:
>
> "But Social Security was never meant to be the only source of income
> for people when they retire...To have a comfortable retirement,
> Americans need much more than just Social Security. They also need
> private pensions, savings and investments."
>
That seems to – at the very least – not contradict my impression of
the purpose of social security. It's the safety net, not a free ride.
> >
> > 4) That allows taxes on income to be reduced, as the only people being
> > subsidized are those who need it.
> >
> > Then also, janitors don't need to risk their retirement in Enron
> > stock, but the people who own shares and/or other securities anyway
> > do.
> >
> > The bottom line - Social Security is supposed to be just what it's
> > name implies: a safety net for those that need it.
> >
>
> A safety net should apply to anyone who's destitute, right?
>
> Why would you deny it to the people who have contributed the most?
>
I suppose there's a difference between someone who elects to not save
money, and thus deserves their due, and someone who is destitute for
other reasons.
As for how you'd tell the difference, I'm not sure.
I do believe that the system should be for anyone who is destitute.
I suppose that removing this point may be a necessary simplification.
So long as point #2 remains intact, the system I propose remains
essentially intact.
> The program has always been peddled as pension system for everyone
> based upon their contributions (after those working in the depression
> had all retired). The money you're getting from SSI is supposed to be
> what has accumulated from your contributions, similar to like savings.
> That's where the idea of a "trust fund" that never existed came from,
> that's why there was supposed to be a "lock-box" on this money, and
> that's why social security checks are of different amounts based on
> average contributions and number of years worked, etc.
>
> Social Security was never mean as an income transfer program like it
> has become and you imagine its purpose to be.
>
I'll have to check on my history, but I was under the impression that
it was supposed to be a safety net – not a government mandated IRA.
It was structured like an IRA, so it could sustain itself, but that
wasn't its purpose.
Also, however noble the ideal of social security paying based on
contributions is, I don't plan on it being around for me. I consider
my contributions part of the income transfer system that it has
become. I'm not complaining about that. I know some people on social
security, and for whom it's their only source of income. I just don't
expect social security to last until I retire.
> > Who are we to say they shouldn't?
> >
>
> We are the Usenet.
Hehe.
-------------
Void Pointer
0x5179C94A168582BE142A3D2C3A8AAEF0
Nighting
> Nighting wrote:
> > "Tiny Human Ferret" <ixnayamsp...@earthops.net> wrote in message
> > news:411E3665...@earthops.net...
> >
> >
> >>Well, for old people, Death is more scary than for young people, if only
> >>because for young people it's generally avoidable with a little
> >>commonsense, for old people it's a looming certainty, and thus more than
> >>ever to be resisted, even when it's an all-consuming effort.
> >
> >
> > Only more scary if you've already decided it's something to be afraid
of.
> >
> > Die with dignity, for god's sake, instead of fighting it and whining
like a
> > kid at the dentist's office. It'll only hurt a bit. I hope.
>
> If you think about it, it's much less about the pain, and more about the
> inability to affect, and to be affected by, the world to which we're
> accustomed. At least one tends to presume that this would be among the
> results of death.
>
> Afraid to die? Hmmm maybe not. Afraid that, being dead, I might leave
> many things undone which I had intended to do? Of this I live in terror,
> absolute terror. Not for myself, but for posterity.
But you knew this was coming all your life. You get this shot to do what
you can; posterity will have to take care of themselves. And I don't think
they'll screw it up any worse than we or the thousands of generations before
us have.
I am reminded of a short story I read somewhere back in the mists of
adolescence, in which the old people _don't_ die off, but stick around to
"finish things up" for sometimes hundreds of years. The result is a world
terrorized by ancient, inhuman ancestors who own everything, leaving
posterity to scrabble around, bowing and scraping, hoping to curry favor
with great-great-great-Grandma or whoever.
No, better to just let go and move on, says I.
Nighting (who may feel differently in old age, but thinks not)
LLivermore
As the old joke goes:
Q. Who on earth would want to live to be 102 years old?
A. Someone who's 101.
The Fiendish Plot of Fascinet
You mean you don't sneak teenage girls into the rectory during services?
I'm so disappointed.
-F
Daniel Kolle
How about allowing people to opt out of SS and manage their own retirement?
LLivermore
And what happens if they manage it badly? Let them starve in the streets?
Hatter
Limit investing to 40%. Split it evenly between Nasdaq and NYSE index
funds and don't allow any deviation from that.
Hatter
Hatter
His crystal's gone dark, get him.
Hatter
alt.gothic OG
> >
> > so that they can collect social security while living abroad.
>
> I don't know what you are talking about. You can't collect SS unless
> you've been working and paying into it.
Not true. Any citizen over the age of 65 can collect social security
benefits regardless of contribution amount. You just have to be poor
and I think it's called "Supplemental Security Income"
> It's not an entitlement of
> citizenship.
It used be that you just needed to be a green card holder, but they
changed that law about 4 years ago.
> Where do people get kooky ideas like that?
>
Go to your local old folks retirement center and look at all those
immigrants, who don't even speak English, and didn't hold a job in the
US and ask them where they get their $700/mo check from.
> --Bryan
Regards...
LLivermore
funds and don't allow any deviation from that.>>
Yeah, like the stock market never went down.
Oh well, even if the market goes down and stays down for a few years, it always
comes back up again eventually. I guess in the meantime, the old folks who
have their pensions invested there can subsist on dog food and dumpster diving.
I mean God forbid the government should bail them out; I mean, that would
undermine the free enterprise system.
Tiny Human Ferret
Ah, it's been dark for a while. It's just that now he's got a job with a
certain extremely large local employer from which it is impossible to
get fired for doing this sort of thing. In fact, this is the way to the
fast track into Administration.
Catbert purrs, and Dogbert wags, when Fascinet is in the room.
Daniel Kolle
hard and said:
><<How about allowing people to opt out of SS and manage their own retirement?>>
>
>And what happens if they manage it badly? Let them starve in the streets?
Yes. Your own retirement is not something to be undertaken lightly.
Daniel Kolle
hard and said:
The government's job is not to, ask you say, bail people out.
Nyx
news:3b1c7a4.04081...@posting.google.com:
>
> Limit investing to 40%. Split it evenly between Nasdaq and NYSE index
> funds and don't allow any deviation from that.
Really should be s&p 500 index funds. More stable, better growth.
Nyx
Daniel Kolle
thought hard and said:
>I suppose I might as well officially de-lurk.
>
>"darkerfuture" <nobod...@stupidaddress.com.invalid> wrote in message news:<cfl2l5$le5$1...@sparta.btinternet.com>...
>> "The Fiendish Plot of Fascinet" <fasc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:5c050f32.0408...@posting.google.com...
>
>
>> > How would you fix it?
>> >
>> > Reduce benefits?
>> > Raise the retirement age?
>> > Raise taxes?
>> > Impose means testing?
>> > Move the system to privately owned accounts so that retirement
>> > benefits can grow and federal revenue contributions are reduced?
>
>Yes.
>
>Social Security is supposed to be a safety net for those who need it.
>It's not supposed to be a free ride.
>
>The whole concept is limited socialism, so why not just be honest
>about it?
>
>1) Tax all income, as has been suggested. The rich subsidize the
>needy.
Why should the rich subsidize those who are worse off?
>2) Disqualify people for social security that have retirement saved
>up. (Means testing.)
Oh, goody, more government. Peachy.
>3) Disqualify people that ought to have retirement saved up. If you
>made, say, over 60K per year average through your working life, you're
>SOL when it comes to social security. You should have had retirement
>savings. (Means testing.)
I love how liberals pick and choose. "Oh, you are an evil rich
capitalist. You should have your retirement already saved up.
Oh? You are janitor, eh? Good Ol' Uncle Sam will fix ya right
up."
<snip>
>The bottom line - Social Security is supposed to be just what it's
>name implies: a safety net for those that need it.
And what would is wrong with allowing those who feel they do not need
to safety net to leave? Are you afraid the everyone and their brother
will leave, leaving the government with less influence over people's
lives?
Nyx
>
> Why should the rich subsidize those who are worse off?
Because if they don't the poor will come and eat them.
Nyx
Dag
The problem with that is what does one do with all the people who think
they don't need a safty net, fuck up, and end up at 65 with no job and
no retirement savings worth mentioning? Sure the concpet of laughing at
them as they starve in the streets might be appealing, but I'm not sure
people in general will let the government take that approach. Basically
the government will be forced by the voters to do something about the
problem and and that will cost money.
Dag
LLivermore
<Because if they don't the poor will come and eat them.>
Even if you're not a socialist, this is a very good point.
LLivermore
> funds and don't allow any deviation from that.
<Really should be s&p 500 index funds. More stable, better growth. >
True, but even the S&P can go down for years at a time, and though it will go
back up eventually, people can get awfully hungry waiting for that to happen.
LLivermore
retirement?>>
>
>And what happens if they manage it badly? Let them starve in the streets?
<Yes. Your own retirement is not something to be undertaken lightly.>
I love German humor.
The Fiendish Plot of Fascinet
> Hatter wrote:
> > fasc...@yahoo.com (The Fiendish Plot of Fascinet) wrote in message news:<5c050f32.04081...@posting.google.com>...
> >
> >>llive...@aol.com (LLivermore) wrote in message news:<20040814104114...@mb-m07.aol.com>...
> >>
> >>><<*doesn't live in America* I'm not entirely sure which category of political
> >>>view this falls into, but I still don't understand the obsession with living
> >>>to be really old. Why fight for years and years just to stay alive while
> >>>your mind and body deteriorate, when you could allow yourself to move onto
> >>>something else (possibly something new)...?>>
> >>>
> >>>If you're over the age of 18 or 20, your mind and body are already
> >>>deteriorating. Why don't you move onto "something new?"
> >>>
> >>
> >>That's an excellent idea.
> >>
> >>I'd like to reiterate that I have a case-and-a-half of cheap scotch
> >>for anyone who wants to drink it all in the space of three hours in
> >>the dumpster-tomb of his or her choice while I watch.
> >>
> >>That's always a great way to spend a Saturday night.
>
>
> Ah, it's been dark for a while. It's just that now he's got a job with a
> certain extremely large local employer from which it is impossible to
> get fired for doing this sort of thing. In fact, this is the way to the
> fast track into Administration.
>
> Catbert purrs, and Dogbert wags, when Fascinet is in the room.
>
I don't see what you people have against cheap scotch.
-F
Endymion
Walls, gates, private security...
Ever been to Mexico? Or South Africa?
--
Endymion
disintegration ta mindspring.com
Endymion
> The problem with that is what does one do with all the people who think
> they don't need a safty net, fuck up, and end up at 65 with no job and
> no retirement savings worth mentioning? Sure the concpet of laughing at
> them as they starve in the streets might be appealing, but I'm not sure
> people in general will let the government take that approach. Basically
> the government will be forced by the voters to do something about the
> problem and and that will cost money.
That is a legitimate concern. The problem we're facing now is that the tax
burden imposed by creating the safety net has become so heavy that it
prevents many people of ordinary income - families with $30, $40, $50, even
$60k+ (for older middle-aged couples with mortgages and kids in college)
from providing sufficient private savings for their own retirement that
they're entirely free of the need for this safety net, and since the system
is only growing more insolvent with time, it just adds to the burden on
future taxpayers. It's a snowball that's gaining mass, velocity, and
momentum at a frightening pace.
My own solution has been to earn more than this and not have children. Since
I made this choice of my own free will, and made enormous personal
sacrifices (in terms of time, borrowed money, and lifestyle) in my youth to
get where I am now, and am foregoing what I am told are the incomparable
joys of parenthood, I see no reason why I should subsidize anyone who has
chosen not to make similar sacrifices *beyond the level at which any
ordinary middle-income person also subsidizes them* (that is, beyond the
percentage - I'm not asking for a regressive tax).
Your life is the result of choices you've made. I can understand an argument
for mitigating the consequences to the extent of removing starvation from
them, but beyond that? Why punish some people for being responsible and
thrifty and reward others for being careless spendthrifts? And if you do,
what behaviors do you expect to see resulting from such a social experiment?
Void Pointer
message <fpq2i0d908sdf5b1q...@4ax.com>:
<snip>
> >1) Tax all income, as has been suggested. The rich subsidize the
> >needy.
>
> Why should the rich subsidize those who are worse off?
>
That's how it's been in this country for quite some time. Ever heard
of Welfare and Social Security Disability Income?
I think Nyx's comment, "Because if they don't the poor will come and
eat them," addressed this extremely well.
> >2) Disqualify people for social security that have retirement saved
> >up. (Means testing.)
>
> Oh, goody, more government. Peachy.
Let's see…. Less money going to social security payments because
people with retirement savings aren't paid, resulting in the partial
privatization of Social Security in America…
How, exactly, does this mean more government?
> >3) Disqualify people that ought to have retirement saved up. If you
> >made, say, over 60K per year average through your working life, you're
> >SOL when it comes to social security. You should have had retirement
> >savings. (Means testing.)
>
> I love how liberals pick and choose. "Oh, you are an evil rich
> capitalist. You should have your retirement already saved up.
> Oh? You are janitor, eh? Good Ol' Uncle Sam will fix ya right
> up."
>
Well, if my choice were completely arbitrary, would you suggest that I
would be just as likely to support paying the rich Social Security,
while forgetting the poor?
No? (I assume.)
So, what, then, is the concept behind my ‘arbitrary' choice?
I think that some people can and can be expected to take care of
themselves. ‘Evil rich capitalists,' in your words, not mine, don't
have much need of Social Security. Most do have nice retirements
saved up. Some at 35 or 40.
If you're poverty stricken, then – by definition – you can't get by.
You need help. That's what I think Social Security should be.
If it were a government mandated IRA, it would be pretty big
government. That would be the government getting its hands into your
business. That's not very conservative.
> <snip>
>
> >The bottom line - Social Security is supposed to be just what it's
> >name implies: a safety net for those that need it.
>
> And what would is wrong with allowing those who feel they do not need
> to safety net to leave? Are you afraid the everyone and their brother
> will leave, …
My system sets it up so that those who actually don't need a safety
net don't get one. Only those who do. Yes, even rich republicans
would pay for that.
In my system, the government doesn't force you to pay into a
retirement account, it forces you to pull the weight of your society,
not just your own.
Some people can't work. They're too old or they're disabled.
I believe it is the mark of a civilized society to take care of them.
If that's liberal picking and choosing, then, by all means, I confess
it.
I'm not a socialist. I support a merit-based system that has no
ceiling. You can go as far as you want to. I just don't think the
system's floor should be rock bottom. There should be a minimum
standard of living that all people are entitled to have - even if they
worked their entire lives for $12,000 a year. Even if they can't
work.
(I do not support free rides, though. If you can work, you must. No
unlimited welfare. Unemployment insurance, yes, but no unlimited
welfare.)
> … leaving the government with less influence over people's
> lives?
Yes. I very much fear that the government won't be able to control
me. That's why I support a little modern civility. That's exactly
why.
-------------
Void Pointer
0x5179C94A168582BE142A3D2C3A8AAEF0
Though the converse is not necessarily true, every single freedom
fighter is someone else's terrorist. In America, we are at war with
ALL forms of terror anywhere in the world. Consequently, we are at
war with freedom everywhere in the world.
Daniel Kolle
thought hard and said:
>If you're poverty stricken, then – by definition – you can't get by.
Yes, you can. Throwing more money at poverty will not get rid of it.
Daniel Kolle
and said:
>On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 21:25:59 -0500, Daniel Kolle <DKo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 14 Aug 2004 10:58:28 -0700, voi...@hotmail.com (Void Pointer)
>> thought hard and said:
>
>>>The bottom line - Social Security is supposed to be just what it's
>>>name implies: a safety net for those that need it.
>>
>> And what would is wrong with allowing those who feel they do not need
>> to safety net to leave? Are you afraid the everyone and their brother
>> will leave, leaving the government with less influence over people's
>> lives?
>
>The problem with that is what does one do with all the people who think
>they don't need a safty net, fuck up, and end up at 65 with no job and
>no retirement savings worth mentioning?
And whose fault might that be?
Nyx
@mailgate2.lexis-nexis.com:
>
> Walls, gates, private security...
>
> Ever been to Mexico? Or South Africa?
>
Guns, explosives, molotov cocktails, kidnapping...
Do you really want to turn America into that? Are you that greedy?
Nyx
Nyx
> And whose fault might that be?
The public eductation system.
Nyx
Endymion
> Do you really want to turn America into that? Are you that greedy?
You didn't ask what I wanted. You answered the question of why the rich
should subsidize the poor by saying that otherwise the poor will kill and
eat them.
My response to that is: it's cheaper to shoot a man than to feed or bribe
him for a lifetime. Bullets are dirt cheap. And if you shoot enough, the
rest will probably get the message and give up trying. If you bribe a bunch,
it will only encourage more to come seeking a handout.
Now, if you think you have a *moral* argument, that's another matter, but
you didn't make one. You argued mere self-preservation, and I countered on
the same basis. I have no moral qualms whatsoever against killing people who
are trying to rob, kill, and eat me, and anyone who has is a weakling and a
coward.
Daniel Kolle
Always the fault of everyone except the individual.
>Nyx
Brian Baird
disinte...@mindspring.com says...
> I have no moral qualms whatsoever against killing people who
> are trying to rob, kill, and eat me, and anyone who has is a weakling and a
> coward.
What kind of liberal sissy-shit is this? There's nothing wrong with
killing anyone. You're only proving they are inferior to you and your
superior genes. If we limit our killing to people that are trying to
rob, kill or eat us, how will we breed a race of superhuman conquerors?
Brian Baird
DKo...@hotmail.com says...
> >The public eductation system.
>
> Always the fault of everyone except the individual.
So I guess you're going to tell seven year old Timmy to suck it up and
get on with life?
You pervert.
Tiny Human Ferret
though of course if they subsidize the poor for long enough, there will
be too many poor to support and they'll just get eaten anyway.
Tiny Human Ferret
Let's open the borders and flood the US with immigrant poor to compete
with poor Americans so that we start a competition to see who will work
the most for the least pay! Those who promote and exploit the trend can
afford those gated communities with lots of armed guards. And once the
process is done, those who promote and exploit the trend will
effectively be kings and queens.
Tiny Human Ferret
I heard an interesting quote the other day, which I cannot attribute:
"the US Government is essentially a huge insurance company with a slight
sideline in national defense."
Tiny Human Ferret
> Tiny Human Ferret <ixnayamsp...@earthops.net> wrote in message news:<41213A2C...@earthops.net>...
>
>>Hatter wrote:
>>
>>>fasc...@yahoo.com (The Fiendish Plot of Fascinet) wrote in message news:<5c050f32.04081...@posting.google.com>...
<chomp>
>>>>>If you're over the age of 18 or 20, your mind and body are already
>>>>>deteriorating. Why don't you move onto "something new?"
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>That's an excellent idea.
>>>>
>>>>I'd like to reiterate that I have a case-and-a-half of cheap scotch
>>>>for anyone who wants to drink it all in the space of three hours in
>>>>the dumpster-tomb of his or her choice while I watch.
>>>>
>>>>That's always a great way to spend a Saturday night.
>>
>>>His crystal's gone dark, get him.
>>
>>Ah, it's been dark for a while. It's just that now he's got a job with a
>>certain extremely large local employer from which it is impossible to
>>get fired for doing this sort of thing. In fact, this is the way to the
>>fast track into Administration.
>>
>>Catbert purrs, and Dogbert wags, when Fascinet is in the room.
>>
>
>
> I don't see what you people have against cheap scotch.
It's not the scotch. It's those smelly dumpsters. Plus they're hard to
climb out of when you're drunk. Furthermore, I have it on firm authority
that Sunday morning is when the dumpster you had in mind is unloaded.
It's bad enough to wake up in a dumpster with a hangover, but waking up
with a hangover being dumped out of a dumpster into the trash-compactor
bin just is no fun at all.
Nyx
> Let's open the borders and flood the US with immigrant poor to compete
> with poor Americans so that we start a competition to see who will work
> the most for the least pay! Those who promote and exploit the trend can
> afford those gated communities with lots of armed guards. And once the
> process is done, those who promote and exploit the trend will
> effectively be kings and queens.
That's exactly what the lawyers and the corporations want. That's the
plan and has been for most of the last century.
First they broke the labor unions and then they opened the gates with
NAFTA.
Nyx
Dag
> On 17 Aug 2004 09:01:48 GMT, Dag <f98...@dd.chalmers.se> thought hard
> and said:
>>The problem with that is what does one do with all the people who think
>>they don't need a safty net, fuck up, and end up at 65 with no job and
>>no retirement savings worth mentioning?
>
> And whose fault might that be?
Impossible to say without knowing the specific situation. It may very
well be their own fault, but it could be that they got fucked over by
someone else or simply bad luck. Anyway fault is irrelevant here. As
long as the majority of the voting public do not accept old people
starving do death in large numbers on the street the government will
be forced to deal with the problem. And dealing with the problem costs
money that has to come from somewhere. Change the opinion of the voting
public and I'm sure the government would be happy to implement whatever
the voters think would work better.
Dag
Tiny Human Ferret
Everytime I see someone suggest "index funds" in the context of
"reliability is the most important factor", I cringe. I seem to recall
the Bank of England being damn near taken down maybe 5 years ago by
someone who forgot what can happen with index funds.
Hatter
was this subreference too esoteric?
> >
> > Ah, it's been dark for a while. It's just that now he's got a job with a
> > certain extremely large local employer from which it is impossible to
> > get fired for doing this sort of thing. In fact, this is the way to the
> > fast track into Administration.
> >
> > Catbert purrs, and Dogbert wags, when Fascinet is in the room.
> >
>
> I don't see what you people have against cheap scotch.
>
> -F
I have gone through many bottles of Old Smuggler, so I really have
nothing against cheap scotch, except bladder walls.
Hatter
Hatter
> <<Limit investing to 40%. Split it evenly between Nasdaq and NYSE index
> funds and don't allow any deviation from that.>>
>
>
> Oh well, even if the market goes down and stays down for a few years, it always
> comes back up again eventually. I guess in the meantime, the old folks who
> have their pensions invested there can subsist on dog food and dumpster diving.
> I mean God forbid the government should bail them out; I mean, that would
> undermine the free enterprise system.
That is why the 40% limitation. Also since the SS fund is raided
regularly for the general government fund leaving it bond that pay
less than inflation, which will eventually render the funds actual
value less than it should be. This is the actual risk of being too
conservative. Lets put it this way, if you buy $100,000.00 in bonds at
3% and the prevailing interest/inflation rate goes up to 9% the bond
is now really only worth 33,000.00. The spliting is to offset
the possibility either way to minimze the chance of said pathetic
situation you mention, which under current circumstances of the
inflation of drug, housing, food, and gas prices is equally as likely
a circumstance. You seem to just making an appeal to emotion just
railing against capitalism, use logic instead.
Nyx
> Everytime I see someone suggest "index funds" in the context of
> "reliability is the most important factor", I cringe. I seem to recall
> the Bank of England being damn near taken down maybe 5 years ago by
> someone who forgot what can happen with index funds.
Well, if it's about putting money from social security in the market then
I'm against it.
If it's about putting your own money for retirement then I'm for it.
It's the difference between a defined contribution plan and a defined
benefits plan.
Social Security should be a saftey net. If everything else fails then it
should be there. If the market collapses and it's what social security is
based on then there will be twice as much trouble as if it was just a
market collapse.
Oh, and pull all your money out of the market by 2015 or so. The baby
boomers all retire around then and they have to start selling off the
stocks in their 401k program. There will be a major collapse.
I'm taking mine out in 2012 because I actually think there may be
something to this singularity business.
Nyx
The Fiendish Plot of Fascinet
Science allows you to dream your Aryan dreams in a kinder, gentler way, Brian.
-F
The Fiendish Plot of Fascinet
Science allows you to dream your Aryan dreams in a kinder, gentler way, Brian.
-F
Endymion
> Social Security should be a saftey net. If everything else fails then it
> should be there. If the market collapses and it's what social security is
> based on then there will be twice as much trouble as if it was just a
> market collapse.
Don't be an idiot. If "all else fails" then where is the revenue to pay for
social security supposed to come from? Are little green men from Mars going
to come down and fund it with Krugerrands they've been hoarding?
Every argument you anti-market types can muster is nothing more than a
failure to understand the difference between a proper, sober long-term
invetment strategy and a get-rich-quick scheme cooked up by people like the
funky-haired kid in the AmeriTrade ads. No one is advising people to start
day-trading on the NASDAQ with their payroll deductions.
> Oh, and pull all your money out of the market by 2015 or so. The baby
> boomers all retire around then and they have to start selling off the
> stocks in their 401k program. There will be a major collapse.
Sure, Nyx.
First of all, the boomers haven't been saving adequately for their
retirement anyway.
Second, anyone with two grains of sense knows to start moving their
investments from high-risk, high-yield investments like the stock market
into lower-risk, lower yield investments gradually for years, even a decade
or more, before they retire. If they had any sense, anyone planning to
retire in 2015 would have started doing so the minute the market started
rumbling in 2000. But of course baby boomers have gone entire lifetimes
eschewing common sense, so why should their retirement be any different?
Third, what do imagine people do with their retirement investments when they
retire? Convert them all to cash and then spend the next 20-30 years sitting
around eating the currency? No, they don't have to keep them in 401(k)s,
because they can spend or convert them with no tax penalty, but that doesn't
mean they're going to spend the whole nest egg in one year, or that they
won't want to earn interest on the 96% they don't spend right away. And
however they shift that money around for accounting purposes, where do you
imagine it will end back up?
> I'm taking mine out in 2012 because I actually think there may be
> something to this singularity business.
You've gone balmier than klaatu.
I advise you to invest everything with the Moonies.
By the way, just-released population projections show US population rising
to 480 million by 2050, while Europe and Japan's populations drop. That
means our populations will get younger and more productive, while theirs
will get older and have fewer workers supporting more retirees. If anyone's
market is going to crash due to pressure from retirees, it ain't gonna be
Wall Street's.
siani
> Daniel Kolle <DKo...@hotmail.com> preached like a republican in
> message <fpq2i0d908sdf5b1q...@4ax.com>:
>
>>On 14 Aug 2004 10:58:28 -0700, voi...@hotmail.com (Void Pointer)
>>thought hard and said:
>
>
> <snip>
>
>>>1) Tax all income, as has been suggested. The rich subsidize the
>>>needy.
>>
>>Why should the rich subsidize those who are worse off?
>>
>
>
> That's how it's been in this country for quite some time. Ever heard
> of Welfare and Social Security Disability Income?
ever heard of "dole scum"?
> I think Nyx's comment, "Because if they don't the poor will come and
> eat them," addressed this extremely well.
it's wrong, though. higher levels of social security do not lead to lower
levels of crime. in the longer term they lead to higher levels of crime.
>>>2) Disqualify people for social security that have retirement saved
>>>up. (Means testing.)
>>
>>Oh, goody, more government. Peachy.
>
>
> Let's see…. Less money going to social security payments because
> people with retirement savings aren't paid, resulting in the partial
> privatization of Social Security in America…
how is giving less to people who have prepared for their retirement a
merit-based system?
>>>3) Disqualify people that ought to have retirement saved up. If you
>>>made, say, over 60K per year average through your working life, you're
>>>SOL when it comes to social security. You should have had retirement
>>>savings. (Means testing.)
>>
>>I love how liberals pick and choose. "Oh, you are an evil rich
>>capitalist. You should have your retirement already saved up.
>> Oh? You are janitor, eh? Good Ol' Uncle Sam will fix ya right
>>up."
>>
>
>
> Well, if my choice were completely arbitrary, would you suggest that I
> would be just as likely to support paying the rich Social Security,
> while forgetting the poor?
>
> No? (I assume.)
>
> So, what, then, is the concept behind my ‘arbitrary' choice?
that failure equals merit.
> I think that some people can and can be expected to take care of
> themselves. ‘Evil rich capitalists,' in your words, not mine, don't
> have much need of Social Security. Most do have nice retirements
> saved up. Some at 35 or 40.
i get it. everyone ought to have the same quality of retirement, however hard
they work. if some people do better than others in the world of work, it's not
because they worked hard, or made good choices, or earned it in any way, so they
should be stripped of their earnings, and the moneys given to those who have
earned less, and are therefore more deserving.
> If you're poverty stricken, then – by definition – you can't get by.
> You need help. That's what I think Social Security should be.
lots of people are poverty stricken, and it's their own fault. and, fwiw, the
poverty line is a mobile concept. it moves in relation to the average lifestyle
of the society. below the poverty line in the US is well above it in Trinidad.
>>>The bottom line - Social Security is supposed to be just what it's
>>>name implies: a safety net for those that need it.
>>
>>And what would is wrong with allowing those who feel they do not need
>>to safety net to leave? Are you afraid the everyone and their brother
>>will leave, …
>
>
> My system sets it up so that those who actually don't need a safety
> net don't get one. Only those who do. Yes, even rich republicans
> would pay for that.
your system is a pipe dream.
> In my system, the government doesn't force you to pay into a
> retirement account, it forces you to pull the weight of your society,
> not just your own.
i don't think i want to pull around the entire society. there are people who
have *earned* their poverty, and i don't *want* them to have a warm bed at
night, 5 kids, and enough to eat.
> Some people can't work. They're too old or they're disabled.
what's this "can't work"? i know a guy who can't stand or eat who works. i
used to work with a guy who was 92 - he was still working there after i left.
it's *harder* for some people to work.
>
> I believe it is the mark of a civilized society to take care of them.
> If that's liberal picking and choosing, then, by all means, I confess
> it.
>
> I'm not a socialist. I support a merit-based system that has no
> ceiling.
so, if you work hard your whole life, and are really good at what you do, then
you will not get one penny less from the government? even if you end up earning
a $100,000 plus salary?
what about if you're a lazy sod, and never do a lick of work, despite being
entirely able? do you have the right to fail in your system?
> (I do not support free rides, though. If you can work, you must. No
> unlimited welfare. Unemployment insurance, yes, but no unlimited
> welfare.)
and what if you *don't*? what if, despite lots of training and support you just
don't work? what if they march you out on the chain gang road sweeping gang,
and you just poke the guy ahead of you with the broom? do you still get that
minimum standard of living?
who gets to decide who deserves what? the government? a team of their peers?
or the individual, through their behaviour and decisions.
frankly, unconstrained capitalism *is* a merit based system with no ceiling.
>>… leaving the government with less influence over people's
>>lives?
>
>
> Yes. I very much fear that the government won't be able to control
> me. That's why I support a little modern civility. That's exactly
> why.
modern civility includes giving people the choice about helping people. it is
decidedly uncivil to *force* anyone to help anyone else.
there is no freedom without the freedom to fail. what could possibly be more
fair than allowing each and every person to reap what they have sown?
siani
--
\\||//
- oo -
-|--|- (hedgehog)
Tiny Human Ferret
Start with that waitress over at Dr Dremo's? Um, breeding, not killing,
dummy.
;-/
Tiny Human Ferret
Maybe we should send him some samples of our antidepressant gas. Or
maybe he can steal some prozac from the monkeys.
Tiny Human Ferret
The phrase I've been really thinking sums it up is "deconstruction of
the New Deal".
Basically, all of history from the Wobblies to the mid-1990s is being
repealed.
Slash! No more unions, no more OSHA, not even anti-TB regs for
healthcare workers in sanitoriums!
the lunatics take taken over the asylum and are partying in the pharmacy.
Nyx
@mailgate2.lexis-nexis.com:
> Every argument you anti-market types
Ok, everything you said in your post is wrong because I'm not anti-market.
I'm heavily invested in the market. I just think social security should be
safer.
Nyx
Nyx
> I advise you to invest everything with the Moonies.
Why not? The republicans seem to love him. George Bush takes everything he
ssays about North Korea as gospel.
Nyx
Nyx
> it's wrong, though. higher levels of social security do not lead to
> lower levels of crime. in the longer term they lead to higher levels
> of crime.
Um, yeah, you got proof of that? How about some studies?
Nyx
Brian Baird
fasc...@yahoo.com says...
> > What kind of liberal sissy-shit is this? There's nothing wrong with
> > killing anyone. You're only proving they are inferior to you and your
> > superior genes. If we limit our killing to people that are trying to
> > rob, kill or eat us, how will we breed a race of superhuman conquerors?
> >
>
> Science allows you to dream your Aryan dreams in a kinder, gentler way, Brian.
Science was born to destroy!
Panurge
> To ask the average working person to put
> his/her skills at investment to the test against savvy professional
> investors and rich capitalists who essentially own for a living is to
> ask said workers to be the loser in the game.
What you do is give your money to the "savvy professional investors",
probably in the form of a mutual fund. There are, after all, people out
there who make a fair living (in both senses of the word) helping Joe
Bloke make the most of his money.
--
"Composers tend to think most people really care a lot about music.
Well, most people don't." --Aaron Copland
Nyx
26101A.212...@news02.east.earthlink.net:
>
> What you do is give your money to the "savvy professional investors",
> probably in the form of a mutual fund. There are, after all, people
out
> there who make a fair living (in both senses of the word) helping Joe
> Bloke make the most of his money.
No, they make money from commissions. From selling you stuff.
No mutual funds outperforms the s&p 500 in the long term. So why not just
invest in publicly traded s&p 500 index funds? Under the symbol spdr.
Nyx
Panurge
> Always the fault of everyone except the individual.
Better than "always the fault of the individual." That's just a license
to let everyone else shit on you. Why not just come out and say you
support the law of the jungle and be done with it? Oh, BTW, don't
forget to "dig your own coal" (Robert Wyatt).
Tiny Human Ferret
> Tiny Human Ferret <ixnayamsp...@earthops.net> wrote in
> news:412350...@earthops.net:
>
>
>>Everytime I see someone suggest "index funds" in the context of
>>"reliability is the most important factor", I cringe. I seem to recall
>>the Bank of England being damn near taken down maybe 5 years ago by
>>someone who forgot what can happen with index funds.
>
>
> Well, if it's about putting money from social security in the market then
> I'm against it.
>
> If it's about putting your own money for retirement then I'm for it.
Holy heck, what happened to you? Been taking brain-enhancers or
something? Usually you're pretty snarky in a many-neurons way, but this
is actually constructive. In fact, I think you have created a useful new
aphorism.
Look, if money is being taxed from people, putting in in the market
where the landsharks can work scams on it, that's beyond sucking up the
fascism, that's fascism out in the open, especially if the folks that
profit from the landsharking on the forced contributions from the
citizenry still profit like fuck after they sacrifice a scapegoat.
If, on the other hand, you want to take the risk -- and get the possible
benefits -- with your own money, yeah, that can work.
>
> It's the difference between a defined contribution plan and a defined
> benefits plan.
>
> Social Security should be a saftey net. If everything else fails then it
> should be there. If the market collapses and it's what social security is
> based on then there will be twice as much trouble as if it was just a
> market collapse.
>
> Oh, and pull all your money out of the market by 2015 or so. The baby
> boomers all retire around then and they have to start selling off the
> stocks in their 401k program. There will be a major collapse.
The stock market is a totally rigged game. It's just "the smart money"
placing bait to chum in the "non smart money". Once you have all of your
goods in the pool, they drain the pool. You get to be a fish on the
beach, they have all of the cool water and all of the goodies in it...
because they're the ones who built the drainage system.
>
> I'm taking mine out in 2012 because I actually think there may be
> something to this singularity business.
It may be happening right now. Taking things out of stocks and putting
it elsewhere might not be a bad idea, but also not a good one... because
what will be of value in the future? that's one of the central tenets of
Singularity Theory: we cannot know anything about it, especially not
what will be of worth, other than food, water, fuel, and ammunition.
Tiny Human Ferret
> "Nyx" <n...@sxxxy.org> wrote
<CHOMP>
>>I'm taking mine out in 2012 because I actually think there may be
>>something to this singularity business.
>
>
> You've gone balmier than klaatu.
That might turn out to be the edge permitting survivability.
>
> I advise you to invest everything with the Moonies.
That also might tend to be the best bet. Been downtown lately? To the
District, I mean?
>
> By the way, just-released population projections show US population rising
> to 480 million by 2050, while Europe and Japan's populations drop. That
> means our populations will get younger and more productive, while theirs
> will get older and have fewer workers supporting more retirees. If anyone's
> market is going to crash due to pressure from retirees, it ain't gonna be
> Wall Street's.
You are missing the whole point about the Singularity.
We have no idea whether or not they'll have anything like Wall Street
Markets; for all we know, the economy might become based on potlatch and
I don't think you can argue sensibly that it could not.
And yes, I saw those population projections, for the the incredible
surprise was that Thailand has a rather significantly lower fertility
rate than does the US, and so does Korea.
However, look at the population pyramid, times the fertility rate, in
subsaharan Africa and in particular in the predominantly Islamic world,
and if you don't think that those figures declare the approach of the
Singularity, you are ten thousand times more mad than I have ever been
declared to be.
This annoys me enough that I might have to sober up for the next few
weeks just to have it out with you over this. I'm generally "republican"
in terms of the old-school or the gingrich-radicals, but you appear to
be desperate enough to have the Democrats defeated that you're willing
to put yourself out in la-la land. Careful or we'll have to call you
Endymion the Unfair again. Do us a favor and don't try to convince the
ubnconvincable, thus rhetoric is to be eschewed. Rather, inform us so
that we all march in lockstep towards the Fascism that seems unavoidable
whether it's a Fascism of Bush or Kerry.
BTW in case you hadn't noticed the world is preparing itself to be at
the throat of the USA as they were at the throat of the Axis powers in
WWII, and for about the same reasons... though people like you talking
raw shit in service of a mad party would be reason enough.
Panurge
> I have no moral qualms whatsoever against killing people who
> are trying to rob, kill, and eat me, and anyone who has is a weakling and a
> coward.
Not true. It's only necessary to *stop* him. If that can be done
without killing, so much the better. The idea that that might be
"unrealistic" is simply a measure of our failure of imagination. So,
yes, you can have such moral qualms, if only on that level.
But thanks for expressing so succinctly what's wrong with the
conservative moral system.
Nyx
> Holy heck, what happened to you? Been taking brain-enhancers or
> something? Usually you're pretty snarky in a many-neurons way, but
> this is actually constructive. In fact, I think you have created a
> useful new aphorism.
Because usually ya'll don't talk about things that I think about or read
about.
Having spent the past couple of years reading every business book I can
find I actually know a couple of things on the subject.
And all games are rigged, all corporations and etc are rigged. That's
why they look like a conspiracy. The rich have set themselves up in such
a way that no matter what happens they profit from it. The market goes
down, they make money. The market goes up, they make money. There's a
war, they make money. There's peace, etc.
It's not a scam so much as it is really, really smart. And they don't
want anyone else in the game so it's rigged to keep the poor down.
That's why the education system sucks because they want it to suck. You
weren't taught the same things in school that the rich taught their
children. You were taught to work hard for someone else. The rich teach
their children to work smart for themselves.
But you can become rich. It does happen. It often takes a couple of
generations but it does happen.
You can get out and play the game, maybe strike out and lose, maybe win.
Or you can keep your money in your sock drawer and definatley lose. If
you don't step up to the plate that's worse than strking out.
Cash is worthless. Inflation eats it away. The only thing of lasting
value is land....even that can be undependable in the short term.
The only thing you can really count on is yourself and your own mind.
People have to educate themselves to think about money in a different
way. It's not cash or gold or anything tangible.
In fact, I'm not sure what it is. I'm not sure that it can even be
summed up as "a means of exchange" because what you exchange it for is
tangible.
I'm in the process of trying to understand what money is.
Nyx
Nyx
> Not true. It's only necessary to *stop* hi
And the best way to stop him would be what? Hmmmm....how about making him
happy and healthy?
Nyx
James Donovan
I have no moral qualms whatsoever against killing people who
> are trying to rob, kill, and eat me, and anyone who has is a weakling and a
> coward.
>
hurting or killing another person is certainly NOT a coward or weakling.
I'd certainly waste anyone who tried to rob, kill, or eat me, or someone
I love, but can respect the conviction of someone who would actually lay
down their life before committing an act of violence, regardless of how
daft I see that line of thought.
It's easy to use physical means to stop an attacker, compared with the
difficulty of refusing to do so, regardless of circumstances, of pacifism.
Call them stupid, suicidal, or whatnot, but true pacifists are NOT
cowards, by any stretch of "cowardice."
--
Regards,
James
The shady Doctor Ralf Dudenheimer
<jdon...@dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote:
>I'd certainly waste anyone who tried to rob, kill, or eat me, or someone
>I love
I can understand why you'd kill someone who tried to rob, kill or eat
you. But why would you want to kill someone you love?
I find this offensive and rude.
Ralf #2
--
They were funky China men from funky Chinatown
They were chopping them up, they were chopping them down
Tiny Human Ferret
I think she's not making the distinction between US Social Security or
SSI, and Welfare. If she's talking about the way we used to run the
Welfare system, I would tend to agree.
James Donovan
> On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 00:26:46 -0700, James Donovan
> <jdon...@dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote:
>
>
>>I'd certainly waste anyone who tried to rob, kill, or eat me, or someone
>>I love
>
>
> I can understand why you'd kill someone who tried to rob, kill or eat
> you. But why would you want to kill someone you love?
>
> I find this offensive and rude.
>
> Ralf #2
>
I don't, I should have typed something along the lines of having no
qualms about using force against someone who directly threatened a loved
one, or myself. However, my grammar deteriorated as a direct result
from my attempts to better enjoy my last night of libation before I once
again have to be a responsible student... Likely my current hangover
is just as bad.
--
Regards,
James
The Fiendish Plot of Fascinet
> "Endymion" <disinte...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> > I have no moral qualms whatsoever against killing people who
> > are trying to rob, kill, and eat me, and anyone who has is a weakling and a
> > coward.
>
> Not true. It's only necessary to *stop* him. If that can be done
> without killing, so much the better. The idea that that might be
> "unrealistic" is simply a measure of our failure of imagination. So,
> yes, you can have such moral qualms, if only on that level.
>
> But thanks for expressing so succinctly what's wrong with the
> conservative moral system.
>
Stopping someone with minimal force is very hard and and very dangerous.
Good luck.
-F
The Fiendish Plot of Fascinet
> On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 15:52:23 -0500, Daniel Kolle <DKo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On 17 Aug 2004 09:01:48 GMT, Dag <f98...@dd.chalmers.se> thought hard
> > and said:
>
> >>The problem with that is what does one do with all the people who think
> >>they don't need a safty net, fuck up, and end up at 65 with no job and
> >>no retirement savings worth mentioning?
> >
> > And whose fault might that be?
>
> Impossible to say without knowing the specific situation. It may very
> well be their own fault, but it could be that they got fucked over by
> someone else or simply bad luck. Anyway fault is irrelevant here. As
> long as the majority of the voting public do not accept old people
> starving do death in large numbers on the street the government will
> be forced to deal with the problem.
>
I'm glad we've decided to not exaggerate.
>
> And dealing with the problem costs money that has to come from
> somewhere. Change the opinion of the voting public and I'm
> sure the government would be happy to implement whatever
> the voters think would work better.
>
Cop out.
-F
The Fiendish Plot of Fascinet
> fasc...@yahoo.com (The Fiendish Plot of Fascinet) wrote in message news:<5c050f32.04081...@posting.google.com>...
> > voi...@hotmail.com (Void Pointer) wrote in message news:<9cc59db1.04081...@posting.google.com>...
>
> > The program has always been peddled as pension system for everyone
> > based upon their contributions (after those working in the depression
> > had all retired). The money you're getting from SSI is supposed to be
> > what has accumulated from your contributions, similar to like savings.
> > That's where the idea of a "trust fund" that never existed came from,
> > that's why there was supposed to be a "lock-box" on this money, and
> > that's why social security checks are of different amounts based on
> > average contributions and number of years worked, etc.
> >
> > Social Security was never mean as an income transfer program like it
> > has become and you imagine its purpose to be.
> >
>
> I'll have to check on my history, but I was under the impression that
> it was supposed to be a safety net ? not a government mandated IRA.
> It was structured like an IRA, so it could sustain itself, but that
> wasn't its purpose.
>
> Also, however noble the ideal of social security paying based on
> contributions is, I don't plan on it being around for me. I consider
> my contributions part of the income transfer system that it has
> become. I'm not complaining about that. I know some people on social
> security, and for whom it's their only source of income. I just don't
> expect social security to last until I retire.
>
You're being smart about that.
The problem won't come with us, I don't think. Younger people already
feel that the system will collapse before we retire. The system will
most likely collapse before people who expected it to use it in
retirement do retire. though, and that's where we have to watch oout.
Although I expect Social Security to collapse, there are already
entitlements that will provide a more normal "safety net" service.
AFDC and food stamps will cover the most egregious problems.
Many--perhaps too many--people will probably be too proud to take
welfare without the cover of the "trust fund." Many of those will be
too proud to take money from their children (if they have them).
-F
Endymion
> Panurge <pan...@mindspring.com> wrote
>
> > Not true. It's only necessary to *stop* hi
>
> And the best way to stop him would be what? Hmmmm....how about making him
> happy and healthy?
Yes, because if you pay off people who try to rob and kill you, that NEVER
encourages others to do the same. Just ask the Romans, if you can find any.
Thanks for expressing so succinctly what's wrong with the liberal moral
system.
siani
http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-wc67.html
http://www.ncpa.org/hotlines/juvcrm/tcc1.html
http://www.preservenet.com/studies/WelfareReform.html
http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj16n1-1.html
http://www.jesbeard.com/w4.htm
while the actual articles are not terribly well written, they cite useful stuff
that i cannot find the original publications of.
this was also interesting...
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/BG1221.cfm
siani
> Nyx wrote:
>
>> siani <si...@velvet.net> wrote in news:2oi4t3F...@uni-berlin.de:
>>
>>
>>> it's wrong, though. higher levels of social security do not lead to
>>> lower levels of crime. in the longer term they lead to higher levels
>>> of crime.
>>
>>
>>
>> Um, yeah, you got proof of that? How about some studies?
>
>
> I think she's not making the distinction between US Social Security or
> SSI, and Welfare.
no, you're right, i'm not. i'm not up to the minute on current federal and
state programs, so i wouldn't presume to comment on specifics. i am purely
talking in large concepts.
> If she's talking about the way we used to run the
> Welfare system, I would tend to agree.
i think i likely am - i've done some poking about, and you used to have a UK
style dole system (although far less luxurious), and now have a "workfare"
program, yes?
siani
no, you're right. stupid is far more accurate.
Nyx
news:cg2ihf$oi9$1...@mailgate2.lexis-nexis.com:
> Yes, because if you pay off people who try to rob and kill you, that
> NEVER encourages others to do the same. Just ask the Romans, if you
> can find any.
Yeah, an Empire that lasted 1500 years. Wouldn't want to copy that.
Obviously they didn't know what they were doing.
Remember, the Eastern half of the empire didn't fall until the Turks came
along.
Nyx
The Drums of Fascinet
LLivermore wrote:
> <<How about allowing people to opt out of SS and manage their own
retirement?>>
>
> And what happens if they manage it badly? Let them starve in the
streets?
You could, for example, allow any contributions that would result in
payments above the minimum to be invested in a reasonably secure
manner, such as Hatter's, or even something looser. You could allow
them to contribute a part to each, as well. That way, people could
have a measure of control over a sizable portion of their retirement
while they retain a minimum standard of living in old age.
-F
Endymion
> > Yes, because if you pay off people who try to rob and kill you, that
> > NEVER encourages others to do the same. Just ask the Romans, if you
> > can find any.
>
> Yeah, an Empire that lasted 1500 years. Wouldn't want to copy that.
> Obviously they didn't know what they were doing.
>
> Remember, the Eastern half of the empire didn't fall until the Turks came
> along.
The Eastern half learned to stop paying off the barbarians and go back to
killing them again. It grew quite militarily effective while the West was
going through its dark ages and destroyed the Goths on the battlefields (and
siege ramparts) of Italy. Read up on Belisarius sometime. But they were
Greeks, and Romans in name only.
You'll have to learn a lot more ancient history than you will in this
lifetime before you can presume to lecture me on it, boy.
Endymion
>
> You are missing the whole point about the Singularity.
Nope. I get the point just fine. You and Nyx and the people who talk about
it are the ones missing the point.
The point of the so-called "Singularity" is this and only this, and you
would be well-advised to pay attention:
Every once in a while, a bunch of self-important eggheads and Hari
Seldon-wannabes grow hilariously unaware of the strict limitations of their
otherwise useful theoretical and statistical models, and make utter asses of
themselves by making wild predictions far beyond the point where the
resolution of those models is sufficient that they have any meaning.
It's really not that different from Secchi and Schiaparelli seeing "canals"
on Mars based on fuzzy lines below the level of resolution of the optics
then available to them, or 60s hippies completely misunderstanding the
nature and meaning of the subjective experiences they underwent while under
the influence of LSD and foolishly thinking they actually *had* seen and
spoken with God.
No one - NO one, no matter how brilliant, or how good their models, even
with modern techniques - in 1490 could have predicted the financial
situation in the Spain of 1530 given the information then available. No one
in 1770 could have possibly predicted the political and social fabric of
Europe in 1820 given the information then available, no matter how great
their genius. And no one, no Marxist, no prophet, no Psychohistorian, in
1912 could have predicted the state of both Europe and the then colonial
empires by 1972. Hell, even predicting economic trends through 19*22* would
have been impossible.
In short, the "Singularity" is a myth caused by a flaw in our models - just
as the notion that a rock dropped from your hand will never reach the floor
because it must drop half the distance, then half that distance, then half
that distance, etc. to infinity, is a myth created by a flawed model.
> you appear to be desperate enough to have the Democrats
> defeated that you're willing to put yourself out in la-la land.
La-la land is now defined as *not* believing that the End Times are just
around the corner?
And you wonder why I often feel like the only sane man at a feast of
lunatics around here.
> BTW in case you hadn't noticed the world is preparing itself to be at
> the throat of the USA as they were at the throat of the Axis powers in
> WWII, and for about the same reasons... though people like you talking
> raw shit in service of a mad party would be reason enough.
This is so idiotic on so many levels I don't even know where to begin.
I'll leave it at two observations. One, last year it was the Israelis. Make
up your damn mind, or better, just stop with the fucking Nazi analogies for
everyone you dislike. The world has already had one Hitler too many.
Two, horseshit. An obvious reason why: people love to bitch and moan and
gripe about the US, and stateless nutjobs like bin Laden and a few
psychopaths like Saddam will take it further, but by and large the bitching
is done precisely as a way to blow off steam about a situation people are
irritated by but know they don't really want to change. It's like bitching
about your parents - you bitch, but would you want them to go away and take
your allowance money with them?
But the bitching is precisely the proof that the US *isn't* the Axis powers.
NO one bitched at Hitler. Everyone tiptoed around him and gave speeches
saying how reasonable he was and bent over backwards trying not to offend
him, because they were all so terrified of provoking him. And Germany didn't
have several thousand nuclear warheads. If Bush and the US were one-tenth
the cowboys idiots like you claim, the world would be in such raw terror
that no one would dare say a word about it - they'd only plot to strike in
secret, while desperately AVOIDING saying anything to offend Americans in
public. The fact that no one fears offending the US makes it plain as the
nose on your face that the US is no bully, and that no one has the slightest
fear of it acting like one. Which makes your analogy an absurdity beyond the
power of words to convey.