Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare = WELFARE

[Chaparral2f]

It makes me a little annoyed to think of the possibility of my money paying for his lifestyle. I'm a full time student that barely make enough to be eligible for tax returns.

 

Ah yes, the milk of human kindness reveals itself once again. I do have one observation though. If you or any of your other student friends who couldn't afford the rent are attending school on a pell grant, of any other kind of government assistance (ie loan guarentees or gov't loans) I feel that I cannot let any of my hard earned money pay for you freeloaders to waste your time going to classes and partying at my expence!! After all as our beloved president Reagon once said, the world will always need ditch diggers (Although the preceding aren't my true feelings, it is in face what seems obviously to be the new Amerikanism, the philosophy that is prevelent in the early 21st century.)

[blueovalz]

The bantering taking place here has only briefly touched on the issue of government using the SS monies as general revenue (I am somewhat surprised this issue seems to be of little concern), which to me (perhaps through a lack of understanding) appears to be the crux of the "shortfall" facing recipients of SS. If these bonds were cashed out, (This is probably not a realistic conclusion), where would SS be in terms of meeting its promises? Is not the real issued here the issue of government spending, and not on the issue of social security? From the viewpoint of the uninitiated, if the financial history of SS has been a vastly positive pay-in/pay-out ratio, then in itself, SS should be financially sound, but it's not. If my credits exceed my debits (in a savings account at the bank) during my entire life, then I should expect the balance to be in the black. If it's in the red, then a crime would appear to have taken place, and the discussion with the other account holders would be "when is my money going to be replaced." Instead, this string seems to be responding with this: "We should get rid of the saving's accounts and the banks, and put our money in the pillow case."

[JMortensen]

"We should get rid of the saving's accounts and the banks, and put our money in the pillow case."

Maybe the argument is more like: It's fine to put a couple thousand dollars in a savings account, but when you've got billions of dollars you can use that money to make A LOT MORE MONEY. After all, the bank isn't just holding your money when you make a deposit, they are using that money to make LOTS more money by lending it and collecting interest and investing it. Social security ends up being the govt's slush fund instead of a good investment with a good return because the money just sits there or is used for whatever project needs cash at the moment.

 

So I would argue that the government has billions of our dollars and they also have the world's largest pillow case. If I had a couple thousand dollars I might put it in a bank or hide it in a pillowcase. If I had a billion dollars I would start the Bank of Jon.

[blueovalz]

Exactly Jon, so don't those bonds (used to pull money out of the SS fund) draw some interest (albiet, a small amount)? I mean, why isn't this issue being scrutinized more than the minimal (at best) coverage it has received. Everybody is hammering SS as a concept, when the real issue is the use of it for general revenues. Am I missing something here?

[Heavy Z]

What they are borrowing from Terry is this: in 1982 (or thereabouts) an increase in the amount that ss takes out of everyone's paycheck was passed, with the idea that this surplus would be used to pay off debt incurred and any potential shortfalls in revenue. Instead, the last 20 years has seen administrations looting these funds, Bush at a rate 4 times higher than the average set by his father, Reagan, and Clinton. Now the issue of ss insolvency has come up, like it's a surprise or something. Like you, I wonder why the news hasn't connected the dots here.

 

Pete, thanks for the links you posted earlier. From what I read questions remain about specifics, past and present, that a bona fide study of the issue would help answer IMO.

[Guest Ptrust]

It isnt just the programs that need all the help it is the people that run them.

 

Who else can pass laws and not live by them, not pay anything for health insurance, or pay into medicare, ss or any of that but collect what they are making untill they die, and then there wife gets to collect that amount untill she passes.

 

We the people can not correct what is wrong with the programs untill we correct the people that are in the offices that run them. Yes we can vote people in and take people out, but what they do while in there is harder then hell to change.

 

About ten years ago I heard a Governer of a state say how can we tell the people of this state how to run there lives unless we can run ours correctly.

 

SS is a good program for those who work hard all there lives on min wage jobs and try to save what they can but have short falls. I dont consider them to be freeloaders or anything like that. Not all people have had the same luxury as others

[Chaparral2f]

Ptrust

 

Amen!

[RedNeckZ]

I think the system needs some work to it. But my view has changed over the last few years because of my age and health. I have payed into the system for over 30 years now. I have also seen what the companys are starting to do in most of the working plants in NC. They are kicking out the older personnel in the plants, because they don't want to pay retirement pay to these people (don't see a bill of rights for employees in this state do you?). The down sizing of most work places will go on. It will leave a lot of people on the street with nothing. Yes, S.S. does have a lot of problems. But I don't see giving it to the private sector is going to help. Most likely they will learn to raid the funds and make off with them (look at the last stock fall). Whenever we have gone to the private sector, we have suffered (military). Just look at what the medical area has done for us, who gets messed up by them. You now have a cap on how much you can sue them for. Doesn't stop them from raising their rates, does it? Also is any one going to want you after you have been used up by the company? Most companys don't want to keep you for more then 15 to 20 years now. I have only 15 years to go before I reach that problem (retirement). My wife gets layed off this 28th of Apr., because of down sizing. She is going back to school to learn a new trade. But we don't see any work for her any time soon. She has lost her last husbands S.S. because she remarried. Who gets that money? It goes into the fund to be used by others. No, the system needs to be rework some. But the biggest thing we need to do is overhaul the congress, who waste so much of our money. This was all setup to help the people who got left out in the cold in the time of FDR. It still happens today.

[fredtam]

What they are borrowing from Terry is this: in 1982 (or thereabouts) an increase in the amount that ss takes out of everyone's paycheck was passed' date=' with the idea that this surplus would be used to pay off debt incurred and any potential shortfalls in revenue. Instead, the last 20 years has seen administrations looting these funds, Bush at a rate 4 times higher than the average set by his father, Reagan, and Clinton. Now the issue of ss insolvency has come up, like it's a surprise or something. Like you, I wonder why the news hasn't connected the dots here.

 

Pete, thanks for the links you posted earlier. From what I read questions remain about specifics, past and present, that a bona fide study of the issue would help answer IMO.[/quote']

 

Again the surplus is used to buy Special Treasury Bonds. The Government is not raiding Social Security. It is used exactly as you described:

"pay off debt incurred and any potential shortfalls in revenue"

This amount is still, even with the intrest of bonds, not enough to keep SS afloat. The only cost incurred by this method is if the Government doesn't have the cash on hand to payout the bonds. In this case programs would be cut to pay or taxes would be raised.

 

The dates you see relative to SS failing are factoring in the surplus and all intrest. It is still not enough.

 

Also SS being screwed up has been an issue for a long time. Maybe you weren't paying attention or it just doesn't get the public audience it should because it is the "third rail".

[JKDGabe]

Anybody ever heard of the Peter principle?

 

We're the richest nation on earth, that's true. I've lived in several other countries and visited alot more for short periods and I've seen how government intervention works. Or should I say, DOESN'T work. Higher taxes lead to less productivity. It's simply human nature to do what you have to and no more. Yes, there are exceptions to the rule. Look at the trend, we're getting more socialistic. When does government give power back to the people? Only when forced and that usually takes war on some scale.

 

The scale as I see it: family - neighbors - community. If you have no family then the neighbors should help and so on. When a major disaster strikes the neighboring community should help. But when government is expected to do it, why should we?

 

I guess I'm just old fashioned and believe in the principles on which this nation was founded. (and it wasn't socialistic!)

 

"The government that governs least, governs best." Jefferson

 

Don't worry, I don't expect a penny for my thoughts. I gotta go to work, getting older as I sit here and type.

[Heavy Z]

Again the surplus is used to buy Special Treasury Bonds. The Government is not raiding Social Security. It is used exactly as you described:

"pay off debt incurred and any potential shortfalls in revenue"...

 

According to the bill, the SS surplus was to be used for(and only for) SS, not the multitude of non-SS programs that have been paid for over the years. Politicians from both parties have made this point repeatedly in the past.

 

I agree it's a third rail, that is part of the problem.

[Guest livewire23]

I'd like to make a few points relating to this thread on a few recurring arguments that I've seen crop up.

 

Firstly, there has been a lot of debate going back and forth as to whether the govn't is acting in the public's general interests, or if they're robbing us blind left and right. But I think it is important to keep in mind that the premise behind the govn't of the US, and a large part of what made it so wildly successful, is that the govn't will be trying to screw us silly everywhere it can. The constitution was written with the idea that our elected representatives are going to act in their own interests, and not in the interests of those who elected them. The constitution is rather ingeniously set up to work around the issue, both by curbing their ability to screw us, and by making their interests our interests. This is the guiding ideology behind the checks and balances, and presumably the two-party system, and everything else that sets factions against each other with a goal of creating a balance in the middle.

 

Secondly, and on a related note, people have made several references to our $1+ bullets, but it must be stated that although its nice to blame the govn't, and indeed there is a problem on their side, someone has to charge such a price for us to pay it. This is not only an example of the problems of a bloated and "spaced-out" government, but also a perfect showcase of what happens when private industry is brought into the matter. Increasingly the government is becoming a socialist institution, which if you think about it, is really what you want. No matter what level of benefits you expect from the government, you expect them to deliver those benefits for you, at the best possible value. Even if all you'd like is two policemen in every state, you want your government to provide them affordably, and not charge you whatever they think they can stiff you for them. This is intrinsically not a very capitalist notion, and runs much closer to socialist ideals. I'm not advocating big government here, just a government that serves the people. However, when the government tries to mesh with private enterprise, who, thanks to our nation's fervent support of capitalism, will try to milk every deal for every dime possible, we'll end up with a problem (In all honesty they do the same in communist countries, they just get more heartily punished if busted there). To keep things fair, it also should be mentioned that in reality private enterprise could probably do most jobs more efficiently than the government, as many failed communist nations have shown us in the past, however, its not in their interest to do so. So in conclusion, we want a socialist government to provide services with capitalistic efficiency. And hence you have your problem.

 

Lastly, in response to the person who was claiming social security came before the american anti-communist wave, that's not true. Although it did come before WWII, and long before the McCarthy Trials (I believe that's what you were referring to...), communism had long been a taboo word in the US. The McCarthy trial era was part of what I believe was either the second or third 'red scare', with the first one having occurred in or slightly before 1920. It was during this period that the American Communist Party became almost completely non-existent. Which makes all accusations of people being card-carrying communists rather dumb, since there certainly weren't that many members of the communist party. This first red scare was in response to Russia falling to communism, and fears regarding recent bombings being a communist conspiracy to take over the US.

 

Having said all that, I'd like to step onto the next rung of my soapbox, and talk about social security. I can't say I'm terribly familar with social security's problems as of the last 20-30 years, seeing as I'm not of an age to be seriously thinking about retirement, and indeed I don't even know how much I've paid into SS, although I doubt its more than a couple hundred $. It does however, seem that it really is an outdated system, and is in serious need of an overhaul at the very least Honestly, if you sit down and look at the time in which SS was proposed, and then consider that even within the next decade the financial, population and health situation had made a drastic change, it should be fairly obvious that its not a system that was designed for current times. I'd say its a testament to SS that its managed to live this long. But even as early as 1960 it should have become apparent that this was not the system that was needed, since there had been huge shifts not only in life expectancy, but also in where people lived, the kinds of jobs they held, and the amounts of money they made. I believe that Lyndon Johnson either tried to or managed to make changes in SS, however whatever he did was so overshadowed by the Vietnam war that I can't really recall what he did manage to pull off.

 

Although it is rare, I find myself in complete agreement with PPraska, as I think that even though SS may have originally been conceived as an entitlement program, it is probably more appropriate today as a welfare program. Indeed the large number of people who have testified that they could spend their money better than govn't are an illustration of the changes in finance that have occured since the origins of SS. How many people in 1940 were sitting around thinking of all the ways they could invest their money? Not many, indeed most probably still had all their cash in jar, because who would trust banks when they had all come crashing down so few years before? So today the people most in need of SS as it stands today are those who have, for whatever reason, lost both the ability to work, and the money to live on. If you have either of the above, then how much is $300 a month going to brighten your day anyway?

 

On the other side of the spectrum, I also think that there is a place for some kind of government 'assistance' with retirement. Because a lot of people are not broke, and they manage to get by, but not so well that they'll have the $$ left over to retire comfortably. The key word here is confortably. Because there is really no reason why people should have to drop to the bottom of the pool as soon as their income dries up. At the same time, the govn't's place is really not to maintain the standard of living of everyone in the country out of its own (read: our) pockets. The savings accounts as bush proposes them hardly seem the solution to this problem, but indeed it would be nice to have a bit of a forced investment program, that will siphon and invest in a tax-free way to ensure that you've got a little something to retire on. I think what I'm suggesting here is that SS get split up into a more clearly defined welfare program and entitlement program, and perhaps make the entitlement program optional. Either way, the entitlement program would have to be designed as a self-sustaining program.

 

In all honesty though, and here's where I start ranting without evidence, I'm not entirely sure SS is as broken as GW is trying to make it sound. It seems like he's just trying to cover an extremely heavy spending policy by shuffling govn't money around, and freeing up even more dough so that a couple of years down the line we don't look back and go, 'hey, that bastard stiffed us good, where'd all our money go?'. This way, he can restructure the government a bit and hide a few of the holes that money is pouring out of. And I know some people are going to take issue with that last bit, but really its just what I'm seeing, and is of no consequence in the long run.

 

edit: yikes that was a long post!

[JMortensen]

Good post! I do have a couple comments though...

Secondly, and on a related note, people have made several references to our $1+ bullets, but it must be stated that although its nice to blame the govn't, and indeed there is a problem on their side, someone has to charge such a price for us to pay it. This is not only an example of the problems of a bloated and "spaced-out" government, but also a perfect showcase of what happens when private industry is brought into the matter. Increasingly the government is becoming a socialist institution, which if you think about it, is really what you want. No matter what level of benefits you expect from the government, you expect them to deliver those benefits for you, at the best possible value. Even if all you'd like is two policemen in every state, you want your government to provide them affordably, and not charge you whatever they think they can stiff you for them. This is intrinsically not a very capitalist notion, and runs much closer to socialist ideals. I'm not advocating big government here, just a government that serves the people. However, when the government tries to mesh with private enterprise, who, thanks to our nation's fervent support of capitalism, will try to milk every deal for every dime possible, we'll end up with a problem (In all honesty they do the same in communist countries, they just get more heartily punished if busted there). To keep things fair, it also should be mentioned that in reality private enterprise could probably do most jobs more efficiently than the government, as many failed communist nations have shown us in the past, however, its not in their interest to do so. So in conclusion, we want a socialist government to provide services with capitalistic efficiency. And hence you have your problem.

Capitalism doesn't cause $1.50 .223 ammo. Capitalism causes $.10 .223 ammo. The government's method for spending money causes the problem. Government projects are almost never designed to cut costs. They almost always increase them, because of way budgets are made. The more money you spend, the more money you get next year. Since everyone has a vested interest in their pet project, they all try to get as much money as possible, and if that means spending money that doesn't need to be spent to get more next year, so be it. A capitalist mercenary army wouldn't buy a $1.50 round of .223.

 

Socialism tends to drive prices UP. That's where the prices get inflated IMO, and for a couple of reasons. First, there isn't open market competition. In our case you've got these congressmen doing the spending. They are passing laws that benefit their constituents in an attempt to get re-elected, basically the ultimate you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours scheme. Second, socialism assumes the the govt needs to care for the people. This includes hiring people, because people are better off when they have jobs, right? Socialism (or the socialist ideal) is then the reason why you can see in CA 15 people standing around watching one guy fill a pothole, or why the railroad workers I used to know spent about 2 hours a day EVERY DAY in safety meetings. Capitalism in its pure form wrings every last bit out of a worker or a dollar. Third, at least in the private sector (not sure if socialist gov'ts pay taxes on the ammo they buy for instance), everything is taxed to the hilt to pay for the government's entitlements for the people. Seen what Europeans are paying for gas lately?

 

So yeah, if a company can charge 15 times what a bullet is worth, hooray for them. But the real problem in a capitalist system is the buyer, not the seller. Caveat emptor! In this situation our elected reps are the dumbass buyer, and we can't seem to figure out how to make them spend money wisely.

 

In all honesty though, and here's where I start ranting without evidence, I'm not entirely sure SS is as broken as GW is trying to make it sound. It seems like he's just trying to cover an extremely heavy spending policy by shuffling govn't money around, and freeing up even more dough so that a couple of years down the line we don't look back and go, 'hey, that bastard stiffed us good, where'd all our money go?'. This way, he can restructure the government a bit and hide a few of the holes that money is pouring out of. And I know some people are going to take issue with that last bit, but really its just what I'm seeing, and is of no consequence in the long run.

I don't buy this argument. I think it's more likely that Bush has a fundamental problem with social security and wants it changed for the long haul. Conservatives have never liked government entitlements, and although they were previously cowed into submission they really hate social security. That's why he keeps talking about an "ownership society". You want to see a "non-ownership" society go to Europe. The majority ride public transit, don't own a car, don't own a home, and when they're buried they rent a plot for 30 years, after which their corpse is removed and the plot is rented to someone else.

 

The thing that baffles me about W though is his stance on Medicare and that prescription benefit he passed. That seems directly at odds with the rest of his stance, but I think it had more to do with re-election than anything else, and it's one of the things that his administration has done that I have the biggest problem with.

[Guest livewire23]

Capitalism doesn't cause $1.50 .223 ammo. Capitalism causes $.10 .223 ammo. The government's method for spending money causes the problem. Government projects are almost never designed to cut costs. They almost always increase them' date=' because of way budgets are made. The more money you spend, the more money you get next year. Since everyone has a vested interest in their pet project, they all try to get as much money as possible, and if that means spending money that doesn't need to be spent to get more next year, so be it. A capitalist mercenary army wouldn't buy a $1.50 round of .223.

 

Socialism tends to drive prices UP. That's where the prices get inflated IMO, and for a couple of reasons. First, there isn't open market competition. In our case you've got these congressmen doing the spending. They are passing laws that benefit their constituents in an attempt to get re-elected, basically the ultimate you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours scheme. Second, socialism assumes the the govt needs to care for the people. This includes hiring people, because people are better off when they have jobs, right? Socialism (or the socialist ideal) is then the reason why you can see in CA 15 people standing around watching one guy fill a pothole, or why the railroad workers I used to know spent about 2 hours a day EVERY DAY in safety meetings. Capitalism in its pure form wrings every last bit out of a worker or a dollar. Third, at least in the private sector (not sure if socialist gov'ts pay taxes on the ammo they buy for instance), everything is taxed to the hilt to pay for the government's entitlements for the people. Seen what Europeans are paying for gas lately?[/quote']

 

Although it may not seem like it, I do agree with this statement. Because it is indeed true that thte government not only spends far too much on things that it uses, it spends WAY too much on stuff that it decided is worthless and scraps. As a budding Aerospace engineer I loosely follow the contracts and such that the air force, etc make on new aircraft, and it absolutely ridiculous how many billions of dollars they sink into aircraft whose design is going nowhere, and then scrap the whole project. But my point was that government has to work in a socialist manner, because unless we want to have 3 or 4 governments around in a free market competition, there just won't be any competition. And at that point you have a problem with integrating with the rest of the US, which works on a strong capitalist system.

 

So they then have several options, they could do everything themselves, which as you pointed out, is not going to be very efficient or cost-effective. They can dole everything out to the private sector and let them handle it, but then there's the chance that the private sector will gouge them, while cutting corners all over the place, and then again the public gets screwed (although this chance is minimized through competition). And of course there's the middle ground, where they do administrative stuff, and try to exercise insane amounts of control over what the contractors are allowed to do, while still sending the actual jobs off to the private sector. Sadly this has its disadvantages too, because by being so controlling they're removing a lot of what makes the private sector so efficient, plus they then incur additional costs and slowdowns from the all the buearocracy.

 

No, really I don't see any of the alternatives, either more government or less government, as improving the situation so much as to be the be all to end all. But I do think that every so often the government needs to look at itself and rebuild from the ground up. Because its like anything else, where over time all sorts of gunk collects and weighs it down, and eventually you have to tear it all down, put on some new primer, and repaint the whole thing. But that's just my opinion, the point of my post was to give people something to think about when they talk about the problems of government.

 

You want to see a "non-ownership" society go to Europe. The majority ride public transit, don't own a car, don't own a home, and when they're buried they rent a plot for 30 years, after which their corpse is removed and the plot is rented to someone else.

 

Did you see where I am posting from? Have you ever been here? It may surprise you... And I do think there is something to be said for public transit that actually works.

[JMortensen]

Did you see where I am posting from? Have you ever been here? It may surprise you... And I do think there is something to be said for public transit that actually works.

I thought the NL was a typo for NC or something. I'm going OT again to prove the point about govt spending (again). I have not been to Europe, but Seattle is probably the closest you're going to find in terms of public transportation in the US. New York might be close, but people still take lots of taxis there. Chicago might be in there too. Maybe Netherlanders do it better than Washingtonians:

 

The state of WA is going to get several hundred million dollars out of this new budget to upgrade the ferries that run across the Puget Sound. In addition to that money, a trip to visit my sister in law on the other side runs my wife and I $32 round trip. Then there are the insanely long lines to get on the ferries, especially peak hours. I once waited 2 1/2 hours for the Kingston/Edmonds ferry. It is consistently a money LOSER for the state despite the expensive rates and federal funding. In 2001, 70% of the ferry funding came from excise tax on automobiles http://www.baycrossings.com/Archives/2000/07_August/news.htm

 

We have a pretty extravagant bus system here, with articulated buses and routes all over the city. The bus costs $1.50 or so (can't remember exactly) to ride on a single particular route and runs fairly smoothly for the most part. Our bus system was called the best mass transit system in the US a couple years back by some Washington DC committee or other. Used to be funded by an excise tax on automobiles, now apparently is overbudget: http://transit.metrokc.gov/up/archives/may00/rr_legislature.html

 

We have the Sound Transit light rail system. It was originally budgeted at 2.5B and is currently running less mileage with less trains than originally anticipated at a cost of 4B. The mass transit proponents want to EXPAND the system by digging under the city. Can you say Big Dig??? http://www.globaltelematics.com/pitf/bundy-cop.htm I couldn't exactly find how the Sound Transit system is funded. I know voters approved it in 1996, but I don't know if it was a sales tax or a vehicle tax or what that actually provides the cash.

 

Then we have the monorail. This is the worst POS attempt at public transportation I've ever heard of, and I got a $400 dollar increase in my car registration in order to fund it. Even my wife's sociology professor doesn't like the monorail... that should REALLY tell you that it sucks balls. But since it is still in the planning stages I'm hoping to just move away before I have to pay too much into it.

 

So again, I'm not into paying for all of these public transportation services with my vehicle or gas taxes. Maybe some are willing to make that sacrifice, but my opinion is that these services should be run like businesses. I think that some of these services could be profitable, but some will never be. Unfortunately they will ALL continue to be an economic burden to the taxpayers of WA, because gov't doesn't run like a business and it's easier to shift the burden onto the taxpayer.

 

Sorry, but IME public transportation SUCKS.

[Michael]

First, back to the discussion on Bush’s fiscal policy. Personally, I find all sorts of threads of socialist concepts in W’s policy. In my view, he’s the least fiscally conservative president since Johnson. Even his tax cuts are rife with social engineering (example: costly extra cuts for families with children; meaning, that the government wants to subsidize reproduction).

 

We’re awash in ostensibly market-friendly legislation that’s actually concerned with a redistribution of wealth – in other words, principles essential to socialism. In Neoconservative ideology, the government has the right and the obligation to shape persons’ behavior, and one tool for accomplishing this is institutionalized financial penalties and rewards. Here’s an example: the home mortgage tax credit. The government says that home ownership is good, because it promotes stability and roots people into their communities. So, it offers a tax break – but not for the home purchase itself! Instead, it offers a tax break which promotes getting into debt. Pay off your mortgage, or buy a house for cash, and your deduction is zero. Why? Because the transfer of capital from cash to real estate isn’t necessarily what the government wants to reward per se; instead, it wants to reward people getting saddled with debt, since debtors are even more “rootedâ€. Plus, it’s a great boon for the banks and other lending institutions. Their profits benefit from more mortgages, encouraged by tax policy; another example of what might be termed corporate welfare.

 

Unfortunately, the welfare state is here to stay; it’s a cancer that can’t be excised from modern life. What was once emergency relief for the destitute and the deprived, is now lard for anyone with enough political muscle to define themselves as a “disadvantaged†or “deserving†group.

 

Like I mentioned in my previous post, if you spent 40 years working hard, only to “retire†to hunger and homelessness, society can and should lend a helping hand. This is the whole point of insurance. But how many people are genuinely in such dire need?

 

BTW, livewire23’s assessment of the U.S. federal government’s contracting process is 100% accurate.

 

Next, about public transportation… From fairly extensive travels in Europe, as well as to most of the major American cities that do have an underground subway-type public transportation system, I’d say that it’s less a matter of public transportation “working†in Europe and “not working†in America, than the simple fact that America is uniquely set up to function based on the automobile – and the rest of the world isn’t. For a mix of reasons – cultural, social, monetary, geographic, and maybe even accidental – mass transit just doesn’t work in America – and that would be the case even if the funding were efficiently spent. In most parts of western Europe, however, car ownership is a significant hassle and often more trouble than it’s worth. Hence, public transportation is unavoidable.

[zdmz]

I used to work for a health insurance company and spent a lot of time talking to the actuary. The actuary told me that IF the government did not loot the SS fund, and it was allowed to receive an interest rate of about 10% (not an unheard of rate) it would eventually grow to the point that it would be self sustaining and no one would have to contribute to it any more. The actuary also said the same thing of health insurance premiums.

I have mentioned this to a few people and they scoff at the idea but I think there is something to it.

[fredtam]

I used to work for a health insurance company and spent a lot of time talking to the actuary. The actuary told me that IF the government did not loot the SS fund' date=' and it was allowed to receive an interest rate of about 10% (not an unheard of rate) it would eventually grow to the point that it would be self sustaining and no one would have to contribute to it any more. The actuary also said the same thing of health insurance premiums.

I have mentioned this to a few people and they scoff at the idea but I think there is something to it.[/quote']

 

1. SS isn't being looted.

2. Where do you propose to get this intrest rate?

[Heavy Z]

SS reform is all but dead in Congress anyway.

 

I find it a ironic we worry that way out in 2042 we'll have to pay out $1 for every .74 cents we bring in for SS (and consider that reckless), while our current federal budget is spending $1 for every .68 cents brought in. Could you sustain your family until 2042 if you made $20k a year and borrowed another $10k a year to cover expenses?

 

1. SS isn't being looted.

Fred, are you referring to a different planet other than Earth, or is this an April fools joke?

 

Read this:

 

WINTER HAVEN, Fla., March 10 /PRNewswire/ -- "The first steps toward solving the Social Security problem must be an immediate halt to the ongoing daily spending of Social Security money on other programs, followed by a repayment of the $1.7 trillion that has already been 'borrowed' and spent," says economist Allen W. Smith, author of the book, "The Looting of Social Security: How The Government Is Draining America's Retirement Account." (Carroll & Graf, 2004).

 

Smith says that he is baffled and bewildered that President Bush continues to get by with spending approximately $400 million of Social Security money daily on other programs after having misused $509 billion in Social Security funds during his first term.

[wheelman]

I can't believe I read this entire thread!! I must be a masochist.. JK It has been very interesting and I want to respond to a couple things.

 

1. The government is banned from investing directly in the stock or bond markets and for a very good reason. Can you imagine the kind of influence the government could have on the direction the market takes or a single stock. Suppose a corrupt politician (not that there are any of those) wants to "help" a friend, what better way than to sell or buy a large chunk of stock in a given company, but be sure to let the friend know ahead of time. Or the government wants a contract from a company and uses large purchases of that company's stock as pressure or a reward. All kinds of implications here.

 

2. I think it was Jon who said Caveat Emptor in a earlier post about how government purchasing agents should be more savvy in their negotiations. This makes the government the buyer, but I say the government is also the seller with us as the customers and this is the crux of the problem. We have been sold several "bills of goods" by politicians over the years and now we're realizing we didn't get such a good deal. This will sound uncaring but I put the responsibility for retirement planning squarely on each and every individual in this country. We all have and have had for many decades the ability to educate ourselves regarding financial issues and it's no-ones fault but their own that they didn't take advantage of it. Every thinking person has the obligation to ask themselves if what their being told makes sense and many generations of our parents didn't do that. They blindly followed the "intelligent" representatives over the cliff.

 

3. To assume that the government always has our best interests in mind when it passes laws and writes regulations is very niave and short-sighted. Most politicians and beaurocrats are primarily interested in what benefits them the most when laws are passed and regulations are written, it's human nature. Before anyone gets their panties in a wad this obviously isn't always true but when it means retaining a job or being re-elected it is almost always true. This is why SS probably won't be reformed anytime soon, the politicians have to much to lose.

 

4. If I could opt out of SS and forfiet the money I'm "owed" I'd do it in a heart beat. The return that can be made off those funds between now and when I retire (I'm 40) would be many times what I'll receive from SS. One way to do that is be elected to a federal office, but I have to sell my soul to make that happen.

 

 

Wheelman