|
Post by millring on Jun 4, 2015 12:19:47 GMT -5
How else are you going to compel people to do that which they do not want to do? Promise bacon? Is this a trick question?
|
|
|
Post by millring on Jun 4, 2015 12:22:39 GMT -5
Of course, what John seems to have wanted to ask was something like, "Why do the people I disagree with construct exaggerated, scary arguments?" No it's not. I'm asking why, when the very thing that matters in its defense, and the only thing the weakens it as it is intended -- to scare voters away from such a "Republican" idea, do people continually say "Bush wanted to privatize Social Security"? I am the one demanding accuracy and rhetorically wondering why it is not forthcoming. Yes, I know why it is not forthcoming. I believe you do as well.
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Jun 4, 2015 12:30:24 GMT -5
Heh. Funny thing. I can't "fact check" this because the first four google pages are left wing sources doing exactly the scaremongering I'm talking about. I'd think it should be easy enough to find Ryan's proposal right from the horse's mouth. Can't even find it here: paulryan.house.gov/issues/issue/?IssueID=12227#.VXCFXVLmUSUI'm a librarian, remember? Actually the source I found said that the privatized account would be protected from loss under the Ryan proposal. I don't remember that getting reported. SS is such a sacred cow that any proposal by any side is immediately cause for scaremongering by the other. SS is not broken -- remove the cap and it's good for 75 years That's only true if you remove the cap but keep the payouts as they are so that the folks paying more in don't get a benefit. If you leave the benefit formula as is, the payout will exceed the payin almost immediately. If you remove the cap but leave the benefit cap im place, all the money will leave the country.
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Jun 4, 2015 12:31:37 GMT -5
That was a serious question. I know where I think you got it from, but before I go off on a needless tangent, I thought I'd ask you to clarify your statement. Violence is inherent in communism. How else are you going to compel people to do that which they do not want to do? Ok, I just wanted to make sure. Since we're on the same page, now I can go on my tangent. Which isn't actually all that much of a tangent. But wait. You changed "force" to "violence." Not that it matters, I guess. How do you think the riots in Baltimore and Ferguson look to TV viewers in Russia? We have civil unrest over police brutality followed by a totalitarian government amassing threatening force followed by civil disobedience followed by government violence followed by . . . It must have looked something like that to an outsider. My point is that our system doesn't work without force either. If the masses are threatening to harm property, the masses will find themselves arrested, tear gassed, billy clubbed, and/or shot with rubber bullets.
|
|
|
Post by dradtke on Jun 4, 2015 12:34:30 GMT -5
What do you call putting FICA into self-directed private investments except privatization? And I repeat: Did Bush ever suggest privatizing Social Security? I hear this every election cycle, but the most I ever find evidence for is the suggestion that we might allow a small portion of the FICA to be self-directed into private investment. In his book, Bush says, Karl Rove said, So, no, he didn't suggest "privatizing" Social Security. You're absolutely correct. He suggested "saving" it by putting into "private accounts for individuals" and "personal accounts." Putting money into "private accounts" is "privatizing." You're trying to draw a distinction without a difference. The word "privatize" poll-tested negatively. The words "private accounts" poll-tested positively. They're the same damn thing.
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Jun 4, 2015 12:37:10 GMT -5
Violence is inherent in communism. How else are you going to compel people to do that which they do not want to do? Ok, I just wanted to make sure. Since we're on the same page, now I can go on my tangent. Which isn't actually all that much of a tangent. But wait. You changed "force" to "violence." Not that it matters, I guess. How do you think the riots in Baltimore and Ferguson look to TV viewers in Russia? We have civil unrest over police brutality followed by a totalitarian government amassing threatening force followed by civil disobedience followed by government violence followed by . . . It must have looked something like that to an outsider. My point is that our system doesn't work without force either. If the masses are threatening to harm property, the masses will find themselves arrested, tear gassed, billy clubbed, and/or shot with rubber bullets. Do you see the distinction between using force to compel people to do something they do not want to do (eg, go to work on the collectivist farm) and using force to prohibit people from doing something they want to do (eg, burn down Baltimore)? Which is to say, in and of itself, force is morally neutral. Context is everything. Old example: Two guys push an old lady down into the street. One pushes her into the path of a bus. The other pushes her out of the path of a bus.
|
|
|
Post by dradtke on Jun 4, 2015 12:44:57 GMT -5
That is the usual meaning of "partly." And do you think ANYONE -- present company included -- EVER includes the most important part of that "privatizing social security" -- the "partly" part, when the discussion is brought up? The very purpose of saying "Bush wanted to privatize SS" is to interject the fearsome probability that by "privatize" one means "entirely". How fearful do you think the voting populace would be over allowing 1-2% of a person's contribution to SS? Now how fearful do you think the prospect of leaving the investment of SS entirely up to privatizing would be? And do you think the omission of "partly" is accidental or incidental? Yeah, I know, right? You realize there is nothing stopping anyone from putting 1-2% of their income into a private personal investment account. In fact, it's a good idea and many people do it. Why take it out of SS?
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Jun 4, 2015 12:48:32 GMT -5
About self-managed retirement projects vs. SS: For the self-employed, the SS bite is just under 15% of net income; for employees, it's about half of taxable gross. In either case, the size of the nest egg depends on income. For Jeff--a successful business owner with (if I recall his accounts of his pre-binder-merchant career) a pretty respectable employment history--30 or 40 years of 7-15% of income makes a nice retirement package, especially if managed very conservatively.
That model does not work so well for 7-15% of barely-making-it (let alone minimum-wage) money--the economically marginal are going to need to spend that fraction. Nor does it work so well for those lacking expertise in the private financial system. I know it's not impossible for ordinary people to benefit from private investment--one of my aunts had 30 years of more-than-usual comfort because her husband bought (at employee rates) and held GE stock through his 30 years with the company. But I'm not sure that regimen would be as effective post-2008, even if people still did work for long stretches for major corporations with employee-friendly retirement and benefit policies. (GE would now be considered paternalistic by right-leaning political philosophers.)
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Jun 4, 2015 12:52:36 GMT -5
But we use force for both. We use force to compel people to do things they don't want to do like pay taxes, leave the park after sunset, enlist in the military, pay child support, etc., as well as to prohibit them from doing things they want to do. We use force. We have to. Not everybody likes the rules we have, but the rules are no good unless we enforce them.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Jun 4, 2015 13:02:16 GMT -5
You realize there is nothing stopping anyone from putting 1-2% of their income into a private personal investment account. Actually, yes there is (something stopping anyone from putting 1-2% of their income into a private personal investment account). If the entirety of available funds for saving is swallowed up in the 15% already required by Social Security -- and that is often the case (as it has always been with me) -- then there is no 1-2% left to invest.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Jun 4, 2015 13:07:24 GMT -5
That model does not work so well for 7-15% of barely-making-it (let alone minimum-wage) money--the economically marginal are going to need to spend that fraction. Nor does it work so well for those lacking expertise in the private financial system. And, just as I replied to David, the damnable reality is that it becomes a self-fulfilling ultimate reality. With Social Security demanding the 15% right off the top, it is that very underclass that is ever more cemented into their dependency upon government. Because the government confiscates the very money they COULD HAVE saved on their own, they are utterly dependent upon the government for their retirement. And if one didn't NEED SS in the first place -- always had the surplus with which to save -- well, they get that much further ahead, proving SS not only totally unnecessary, but a needless drag on their personal savings. I'm still left in favor of Social Security, but that doesn't mean I don't grasp this damnable reality. Once you create the dependence, it becomes self-fulfilling.
|
|
|
Post by majorminor on Jun 4, 2015 13:11:07 GMT -5
Because I think many believe the money flows in to SS and goes immediately out the back door to pay for other government things than SS benefits while a fed IOU is issued to the SS general fund. You can't buy Depends and Geritol with an IOU, or a declining monthly benefit amount, or an extended eligibility age. Hey it's a big chunk of any working persons lifetime earnings. If the perception wasn't that the government was completely screwing it up this "privatization" stuff would never have been born. I'm O.K. with SS - heck I don't know any different as it's been part of the equation my whole working life. Just don't screw it up until after I die.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Jun 4, 2015 13:12:03 GMT -5
And this side discussion about being able to invest 1-3% privately is an interesting one. Every time there is a market downturn, someone who thinks such investing is CRAZY points to the dropping market and says "SEE?! See what we saved you from by not allowing you to split your SS contribution?!"
But isn't everyone here with the possible exception of Bruce who pulled out at the wrong time, back to even with their market-based investments ... and then some? I know that everyone I know who didn't panic and pull out in 2008 is now back to what they had AND THEN SOME. And folks like my brother and Paul who had the foresight or luck to go to cash before the crash and subsequently buy in at the bottom have nearly doubled their investment. I know Dar's cousin doubled. That's the cousin who is leaving his multiple millions to his two german shepherd dogs.
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Jun 4, 2015 13:19:34 GMT -5
And this side discussion about being able to invest 1-3% privately is an interesting one. Every time there is a market downturn, someone who thinks such investing is CRAZY points to the dropping market and says "SEE?! See what we saved you from by not allowing you to split your SS contribution?!" But isn't everyone here with the possible exception of Bruce who pulled out at the wrong time, back to even with their market-based investments ... and then some? I know that everyone I know who didn't panic and pull out in 2008 is now back to what they had AND THEN SOME. And folks like my brother and Paul who had the foresight or luck to go to cash before the crash and subsequently buy in at the bottom have nearly doubled their investment. I know Dar's cousin doubled. That's the cousin who is leaving his multiple millions to his two german shepherd dogs. Just to be clear, and besides it really grates on the lefties, Bruce is fine. Yup, I could have done better but I still have more cash than I had in January 2007 when I retired. I may cry over my 1st world problems but I do that to rub it in that I only have 1st world problems because I'm a successful capitalist who worked his ass off for 40 years, got what I think is enough to survive and is now living the American Dream in retirement, house, land, pool and golf and all the bills are paid including the health insurance for me and my wife. My existance is enough to piss some folks off. Tough.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Jun 4, 2015 13:20:16 GMT -5
And I repeat: Did Bush ever suggest privatizing Social Security? I hear this every election cycle, but the most I ever find evidence for is the suggestion that we might allow a small portion of the FICA to be self-directed into private investment. In his book, Bush says, Karl Rove said, So, no, he didn't suggest "privatizing" Social Security. You're absolutely correct. He suggested "saving" it by putting into "private accounts for individuals" and "personal accounts." Putting money into "private accounts" is "privatizing." You're trying to draw a distinction without a difference. The word "privatize" poll-tested negatively. The words "private accounts" poll-tested positively. They're the same damn thing. That's not the distinction I'm making. I'm not arguing about privatizing. I'm pointing out that the "scare" comes in the purposeful omission of the word or concept of "partly" privatizing. It's a distinction and omission that makes all the difference in the debate and the discussion. It is a purposeful omission -- purposely leading one to conclude that Bush wanted to entirely privatize Social Security. "Partly" is purposefully omitted because once people understand that the goal was only for a 1-3% privatization, nobody cares.
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Jun 4, 2015 13:23:03 GMT -5
John, you're asking for truth from Democrats. Per Harry Reid, they don't care about truth they just want to win elections.
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Jun 4, 2015 13:59:08 GMT -5
You realize there is nothing stopping anyone from putting 1-2% of their income into a private personal investment account. In fact, it's a good idea and many people do it. Why take it out of SS? ...other than the government pointing a gun to their head and taking 15% off the top first, and then another sizable percentage for income tax, etc. But other than that, you're right. But I do like the formulation "why take it out of SS?", as if its just "there" (in SS, that is) according to some natural law and hasn't been previously "taken out of" something else. Which is of a piece with Dick's earlier suggestion that all we need to do is remove the SS income cap and presto! Problem solved. Again, as if the money that would subsequently flow into SS isn't already going somewhere else, and as if you could take it out of all those somewhere else's without any negative effects. Which is also of a piece in an earlier (now locked) thread where it was suggested that Bruce etal are the problem and they just have too much stuff and if only Bernie Sanders or someone like him could be in charge of wealth distribution, all would be well with the world.
|
|
|
Post by dickt on Jun 4, 2015 14:09:02 GMT -5
Under both Bush and the Ryan plan the percentage of SS privatized was said to be one third. Just FYI. SS could be easily fixed by removing the cap. Earlier Jeff called SS payouts a pittance. I get $25K a year and only worked 29 years under SS. To me it is no pittance. Round numbers, if I had been free to direct my SS to an S&P 500 based investment for my entire working life, then annuitize the money at retirement, it would be worth around 5x what SS will pay me. And that is based on the (laughably false) assumption that I can count on the SS payments that are currently promised to me. Show me the math. I put approximately into TSP what was put into SS for the same years. If I took $25 k out of my 500k TSP that would be five percent per year and anyone will tell you that it is only safe these days to take 3 to 4 percent from an IRA. Five percent would not be guaranteed to last your lifetime. So unless you are saying I should have $2.5 million in my TSP then I have a very hard time doing the figures.
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Jun 4, 2015 14:11:04 GMT -5
Republicans, on the other hand, are sporting gentlemen who engage in electoral politics for the pleasure of the game, with no thought given to governance nor to the benefits of gaining and maintaining power. Dabblers. Dilletantes. Mere amateurs. And thus they never lie, dissemble, exaggerate, falsify, libel, or pretend.
|
|
|
Post by dickt on Jun 4, 2015 14:13:26 GMT -5
Btw SS is not fifteen percent, it is 12.4. The rest is Medicare.
|
|