Bear Pit: now the sole domicile of politics at LuLa

[Frans Waterlander]

I blame only the hypocrites also getting Social Security payments.

You do an extremely poor job of expressing yourself. Do you mean to say that if people are against irresponsible government spending, they also should be against receiving Social Security payments, although they have paid into the system (and get an extremely poor rate of return)?

Paying Social Security contributions is not an option, it's mandatory. And yes, the government spends all of those contributions without setting it aside or better yet, invest it in rather safe investment options. If we were allowed to invest those contributions ourselves, we could get a hell of a better return. Reagan, among many others, promoted such and approach, but was vilified for it.

So, what exactly is your problem?

[faberryman]

You do an extremely poor job of expressing yourself. Do you mean to say that if people are against irresponsible government spending, they also should be against receiving Social Security payments, although they have paid into the system (and get an extremely poor rate of return)?

Paying Social Security contributions is not an option, it's mandatory. And yes, the government spends all of those contributions without setting it aside or better yet, invest it in rather safe investment options. If we were allowed to invest those contributions ourselves, we could get a hell of a better return. Reagan, among many others, promoted such and approach, but was vilified for it.

So, what exactly is your problem?

You remind me of Sally, Charlie's Brown's younger sister: "All I want is what I have coming to me. All I want is my fair share."

https://youtu.be/FyGHjxsr28o

[Robert Roaldi]

Trump is being a contrarian right to the bitter end https://www.businessinsider.com/nato-trump-transition-military-biden-iran-2020-12?amp.

I guess he thinks that making the transition difficult for the Biden administration is their punishment for winning. That's what I like about Trump, he always puts the country first.

That article is from Business Insider, did you notice, it's not from Home-Grown Dope Today.

[Chris Kern]

So now you blame Alan, and many of us, including me, for getting Social Security payments? We paid for it. It's not a gift, but an "investment" with a lousy return.

Actually, it's a transfer payment, a redistributive mechanism that collects tax receipts from employers and employees (including self-employed individuals) and makes payments to people who are retired.  In that sense, it might plausibly be characterized as "a gift," or a government handout, from those who are currently working to those who used to be but are no longer.  More accurately, it is a social welfare program—but, notably, one without a means test.  (I.e., those who don't actually need the money for necessary living expenses nevertheless receive it because they participated in the program while they were working.)

[John Camp]

Actually, it's a transfer payment, a redistributive mechanism that collects tax receipts from employers and employees (including self-employed individuals) and makes payments to people who are retired.  In that sense, it might plausibly be characterized as "a gift," or a government handout, from those who are currently working to those who used to be but are no longer.  More accurately, it is a social welfare program—but, notably, one without a means test.  (I.e., those who don't actually need the money for necessary living expenses nevertheless receive it because they participated in the program while they were working.)

That's absolutely true, but that's not the way it's sold. The feds pretend we all have our little accounts that we pay into and then get to withdraw when we get old.

[Frans Waterlander]

Actually, it's a transfer payment, a redistributive mechanism that collects tax receipts from employers and employees (including self-employed individuals) and makes payments to people who are retired.  In that sense, it might plausibly be characterized as "a gift," or a government handout, from those who are currently working to those who used to be but are no longer.  More accurately, it is a social welfare program—but, notably, one without a means test.  (I.e., those who don't actually need the money for necessary living expenses nevertheless receive it because they participated in the program while they were working.)

That's a total mischaracterization of the program: it's no gift, no handout, not redistribution, no welfare. You and your employers - and nobody else - pay into your Social Security account, 6.2% of wages for each, the selfemployed pay 12.4%. Your payouts depend on how long you worked and how much you and your employers contributed to your account. As such it's a kind of investment program, albeit with an extremely low rate of return.

The fact that the government hasn't put the money in your (and everybody else's) account on ice or invested it but spent it on other items or the fact that the program will run out of money soon, doesn't make it a gift, a handout, a redistribution or welfare. Government mismanagement have caused 1) a poor rate of return and b) an impending shortfall. Go blame the government, not the people that were forced to participate.

[Frans Waterlander]

That's absolutely true, but that's not the way it's sold. The feds pretend we all have our little accounts that we pay into and then get to withdraw when we get old.

That's totally inaccurate and if the law isn't changed, you WILL receive your future payments at the expense of "the taxpayer". Go blame government, not the folks that were/are forced to participate.

[Frans Waterlander]

Relax. As much as you would like to be, you are not a victim. Nobody is blaming anybody for anything except Alan, who is blaming Republicans and Democrats alike for deficit spending and running up the national debt and causing inflation and going off the gold standard and printing money and generally being socialist. Andrew was just pointing out that unless we did all those things Alan wouldn't be getting his social security check because the country is bankrupt. I look at it a little differently: if China wasn't loaning us money Alan wouldn't be getting his social security check, and I guess you wouldn't be either. So take the money and spend it as quickly as possible before it becomes completely worthless. That's what has happened in Venezuela you know. And be grateful that at least you are getting something for having paid in all those years. Those coming behind you may not be so lucky.

Oh, I get it now: government mismanagement is saving us! Maybe it's time for economy 101 and higher?

[faberryman]

Oh, I get it now: government mismanagement is saving us! Maybe it's time for economy 101 and higher?

Huh?

[Frans Waterlander]

Huh?

Andrew pointed out that deficit spending, running up the national debt, printing money and generally being socialist allows people to receive Social Security payments? I'm afraid he's right and other if not all other government programs fall into that category. It's called government mismanagement and part of the DC swamp. Maybe, just maybe we need to go back to economics 101 and up: live within your means, cut out the BS.

[Alan Klein]

That's a total mischaracterization of the program: it's no gift, no handout, not redistribution, no welfare. You and your employers - and nobody else - pay into your Social Security account, 6.2% of wages for each, the selfemployed pay 12.4%. Your payouts depend on how long you worked and how much you and your employers contributed to your account. As such it's a kind of investment program, albeit with an extremely low rate of return.

The fact that the government hasn't put the money in your (and everybody else's) account on ice or invested it but spent it on other items or the fact that the program will run out of money soon, doesn't make it a gift, a handout, a redistribution or welfare. Government mismanagement have caused 1) a poor rate of return and b) an impending shortfall. Go blame the government, not the people that were forced to participate.

+1

A few years back, some politicians were trying to change SS to a private investment scheme where everyone would have their own real account.   Of course, the socialists complained that we can't trust people to save.  Only SS enforced by the government can save them in retirement.  We do have 401K's.  But when you're contributing 6.2 % plus the employer's percentage, there's not much left over to save for many people. 

In my first job, I worked for Bank of America for $60 a week.  When I got my salary check stub, I couldn't believe they took out $1.80 for SS  (There was no Medicare then).  That's 3%.  (It's more than doubled since then.  I remember complaining they shouldn't be allowed to do that.  Frankly, if I had saved SS all those years in a simple 3% interest bank savings account, I would have doubled or tripled the SS money that I get.  Plus, whatever I didn't spend would be left to give to my family when I die, something you can't do with SS.  SS is just a huge Ponzi scheme.  The government is like Bernie Madoff taking money from younger fools to give to older fools, hoping they don't run out of chairs before the music stops. 

[Robert Roaldi]

Did Pence come out against Trump's wishes? I think that's what this article says, but it's late and I'm tired. https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/532273-pence-asks-judge-to-toss-gop-lawmakers-bid-to-overturn-election.

[BernardLanguillier]

Did Pence come out against Trump's wishes? I think that's what this article says, but it's late and I'm tired. https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/532273-pence-asks-judge-to-toss-gop-lawmakers-bid-to-overturn-election.

It makes sense for Republicans equipped with a brain to position themselves as far as possible from Trump now that a majority of voters realize the total moron would be dictator they had been supporting against reason.

I hope they look back at media coverage also and realize that what they perceived as being biased coverage of Trump was just objectivity.

Cheers,
Bernard

[TechTalk]

Social Security... it's a kind of investment program, albeit with an extremely low rate of return.

No... Social Security is not a kind of investment program.

Oh, I get it now: government mismanagement is saving us! Maybe it's time for economy 101 and higher?

No... you don't get it at all.

+1

SS is just a huge Ponzi scheme.  The government is like Bernie Madoff taking money from younger fools to give to older fools, hoping they don't run out of chairs before the music stops. 

You don't get it either.

Let me spell it out for you. Social Security I-N-S-U-R-A-N-C-E is an insurance program. It's a mandatory social insurance program to provide retirement, survivor, and disability benefits. Like most private insurance, it has a broad risk pool of insured and defined eligibility, rates, coverage, and benefits.

Not understanding this most basic aspect of Social Security, it is no surprise that you exhibit a poor understanding of other aspects of the program. Recognizing your hostility toward government in general, your dislike of a program as successful and popular as Social Security also is no surprise.

[Alan Klein]

No... Social Security is not a kind of investment program.

No... you don't get it at all.

You don't get it either.

Let me spell it out for you. Social Security I-N-S-U-R-A-N-C-E is an insurance program. It's a mandatory social insurance program to provide retirement, survivor, and disability benefits. Like most private insurance, it has a broad risk pool of insured and defined eligibility, rates, coverage, and benefits.

Not understanding this most basic aspect of Social Security, it is no surprise that you exhibit a poor understanding of other aspects of the program. Recognizing your hostility toward government in general, your dislike of a program as successful and popular as Social Security also is no surprise.

Social Security is mainly a retirement program.  Sure, there are payments for disabled and survivors, a small percentage of Americans.  But it's sold as a retirement program by the government and most of its payments are just for that.  To support some official's perverse arguments the money isn't ours, that they didn't have to keep it in trust for us, is to argue in favor of a thief that he should be allowed to keep his stolen goods.  Why would you support such a thing?

Unfortunately, your kids and mine will most likely never see a dime from the program.  By then, there won't be enough cheese left for a mouse to get a tooth in. 

[jeremyrh]

Social Security is mainly a retirement program.  Sure, there are payments for disabled and survivors, a small percentage of Americans.  But it's sold as a retirement program by the government and most of its payments are just for that.  To support some official's perverse arguments the money isn't ours, that they didn't have to keep it in trust for us, is to argue in favor of a thief that he should be allowed to keep his stolen goods.  Why would you support such a thing?

Think of it this way - if everyone had to make their own retirement provisions, the ones who hadn’t been able to, due to low wages, ill health or whatever, would be a starving mob at the gates of Klein Mansion and you’d have to spend all that money on security guards.

[Robert Roaldi]

Unfortunately, your kids and mine will most likely never see a dime from the program.  By then, there won't be enough cheese left for a mouse to get a tooth in.

I've been hearing this old meme about social security systems since I've been an adult.

I wonder how those GM workers felt when they lost large portions of their private pensions and health benefits. Funny how management never had to pay back their bonuses though.

[faberryman]

I've been hearing this old meme about social security systems since I've been an adult.

It's never a problem. You just up the contribution rate and delay the retirement age. It's not exactly rocket science. I think the secretary in Congress has a macro on her word processor for that.

One of the problems is that people live too long because of Medicare. If they cut back on Medicare, say you only get Medicare from 65 to 70, then the Social Security trust fund would last longer. That way we wouldn't have so many people in nursing homes too. That would solve the problem with COVID. It's all Johnson's fault. Great Society my ass. It's just a bunch of old people mooching off the government and saying all I want is what I have coming to me; all I want is my fair share. Death panels were a good idea too, just a little before their time.

Who wants to go to a nursing home anyway. There are only three things to look forward to in a nursing home: bingo, unlimited Jello, and a bed that you can make go up and down. Bingo and Jello get old fast. Then the only thing left to do is put a Star Wars tape into the VCR and move the bed up and down pretending you're in a dog fight with a TIE Fighter. All the Star Wars guys had oxygen masks on when they were flying their fighters so you're all set there. Maybe get your grandson to give you some Star Wars pajamas for Christmas. Maybe one pair with Luke Skywalker and one pair with Darth Vader. That way you could switch sides for a little variety. Maybe a flannel pair for winter with Luke in his Hoth outfit.

[digitaldog]

Maybe it's time for economy 101 and higher?

Or maybe time for photography 101: do show us such proof of concept.

Photography as a new hobby, 2021 resolution for Frans.

[jeremyrh]

It's never a problem. You just up the contribution rate and delay the retirement age. It's not exactly rocket science. I think the secretary in Congress has a macro for that.

Or pay for it the old fashioned way - by printing some money.