So what do you haters think....?????

[Decker]

One interesting aspect of that is when we have a candidate who refuses to accept PAC money, is for term limits, and will not accept contributions from any special interest group, they can't win public office. I was just reading about such a candidate in Missouri running for Congress in the Republican primary against Roy Blunt, a notorious GOP PAC-infested incumbent.

Problem is, the candidate is transgendered and county Republican officials contend that with her "background" (which includes being a Navy vet) she won't be elected.

Transgendered and running for political office in the Show Me state...great.

We need to eliminate the PACs and all other private forms of influence--I'll try to forget that the Sup. Ct. ruled that money spent on elections = free speech--and have all federal elections subject to public funding only. Let the ideas clash and rule the day.

 

[clemson357]

I answered that. But here's the gov. rationale why everyone gets it:

Almost all workers pay in and almost all workers get a benefit. That leaves the insurance aspect of SS intact. That's why SS is not means tested. It's not a handout but an earned benefit.

On the larger question of why no opt out, that's why I gave you that list of things that taxes pay for. The moral of that story is that we are individuals and a society all at once. One cannot pick and choose how one's tax dollars are spent b/c of disagreement. If that were so, I'd pay only 1/2 my income taxes to reduce defense spending. The old need help so they get help. The SS system retains a contribution in and benefit out arrangement to preserve dignity in work...even for the ditch diggers who couldn't possibly fund their own retirement through personal savings.

It's Society's retirement safety net...NOT a wealth creating vehicle subject to loss.

And yet that still doesn't explain why paying social security is mandatory for someone with a good 401k.

The bottom line is that social security is the governments way of ensuring that people don't become insolvent when they are old and place the burden of their health care on society. Yet social security is a burden on society, and it is a unwarrented governmental intrusion for the vast majority of adults who are capable of planning their own retirement.

Social Security should be mandatory for anyone who doesn't put a certain amount per year into a 401k. The government should not be taking money out of my paycheck for a retirement plan that is substantially less profitable than your average investment. This is even assuming the fact that I will actually recieve SS, which many well educated scholars say is impossible.

 

[RCfootball87]

Let me clarify something, mainly for Decker: I agree that MOST people are not compitent or capable of handling their own retirement planning. However, I believe that there's got to be a better solution than mandating that the government distribute the money. I don't know what this solution is, but I suppose that with all the Ivy League grads in our Senate and House, we should be able to come up with something......

 

[maniclion]

 

[BigDyl]

True Story

 

[BigDyl]

 

[Decker]

And yet that still doesn't explain why paying social security is mandatory for someone with a good 401k....

Only employers can start a 401k plan; an employee cannot. Only about 37% of private employers have a 401k plan. It's not the answer.

As I've said regarding opting out of SS, there are Sup. Court cases that state quite clearly that individual citizens cannot pick and choose the taxes they wish to pay.

As a society we have decided that SS is in our best interest. As a member of this society you cannot opt out of the deal simply b/c you think you could do better on the rate of return for your own personal gain. The payroll tax money you pay for SS is not your money. It is The People's money. You view SS as an "unwarranted gov. intrusion" only The People of the US disagree. Like it or not, you have to play ball.

You are still thinking in terms of wealth creation. No doubt a 401k plan is a tax deferred shelter designed to create wealth. SS is more in line with insurance b/c of its design and its irrelevance to the vagaries/performance of the stock market or like indices. You are comparing apples (401k) w/ oranges (SS).

 

[SuppAddict]

social security tax is bs
why do i have to pay so much when i won't see any of that money?
we have to support people who have kids and can't afford them (welfare), healthcare (medicare) and we have to support retired people with social security now

 

[ALBOB]

As I've said regarding opting out of SS, there are Sup. Court cases that state quite clearly that individual citizens cannot pick and choose the taxes they wish to pay.

I've heard this a number of times and it still confuses me. Maybe you can put it into terms I can understand. If all of our taxes were lumped into a single Federal tax I'd understand, but they're not. There's a Federal Income Tax and then there the Social Security whitholding. They're witheld seperately. It wouldn't be as though I weren't making my contribution to all the other social programs and the cost of running the government, that comes from my income tax $$$. If I were independently wealthy and had already made arrangements for my golden years and didn't want to contribute to the SS fund, why should I have to? Yes, I understand that "shit happens" and my nest egg may get scrambled. That's the chance I'd be willing to take. But I firmly believe that should be MY choice, not the government's. Please explain.

 

[clemson357]

As a society we have decided that SS is in our best interest.

Yep, and as a society we have decided that George W Bush should be president. That doesn't mean I can't point out that mandatory social security is a stupid idea, and a unneccessary government intrusion IMO, just like it doesn't mean you can't think Bush is an idiot.

 

[Decker]

I've heard this a number of times and it still confuses me. Maybe you can put it into terms I can understand. If all of our taxes were lumped into a single Federal tax I'd understand, but they're not. There's a Federal Income Tax and then there the Social Security whitholding. They're witheld seperately. It wouldn't be as though I weren't making my contribution to all the other social programs and the cost of running the government, that comes from my income tax $$$. If I were independently wealthy and had already made arrangements for my golden years and didn't want to contribute to the SS fund, why should I have to? Yes, I understand that "shit happens" and my nest egg may get scrambled. That's the chance I'd be willing to take. But I firmly believe that should be MY choice, not the government's. Please explain.

In the beginning, the creation of SS was subjected to heated debate. The conservatives of the day (circa 1935) wanted a pay-as-you-go system so that the program would not turn into a drag on Fed. income tax. So the payroll tax was created. Fast forward to the 1960s. The war in Viet Nam was going badly yet LBJ was still expanding it. To conceal the true costs of the war, LBJ unified the federal budget to include SS income and borrowing. The program is a separate program but the accounting was screwed with.

Prior to SS 35-40% of our elderly lived in poverty. As a country, we decided that was unacceptable and created SS. Al you cannot pay your payroll tax simply b/c you don't care for SS or believe that you can do better with private investments. There're multiple court decisions saying so.

The payroll tax you pay today pays today's benefits for seniors. The monies in the trust fund are invested in gov. bonds not subject to loss on the market and supported by the "full faith and credit" of the US gov.--ultra safe.

When you get old and retire, the workforce at that time will fund your SS benefits. It's a transgenerational agreement that binds our collective work and well-being.

Sorry if that's a bit verbose.

 

[Dale Mabry]

I just ate a chicken salad, it was pretty good.

 

[Decker]

Yep, and as a society we have decided that George W Bush should be president. That doesn't mean I can't point out that mandatory social security is a stupid idea, and a unneccessary government intrusion IMO, just like it doesn't mean you can't think Bush is an idiot.

I get your point. But what do you do w/ the 13 million old people that need SS to stay out of poverty? Do you pull SS from them just so you can see a bump in your take-home pay?

Instead of going after the elderly to save a buck we should attack the corrupt defense spending or congressional earmarks that eat up the national budget. Then we can get a decent sized and responsible tax cut from those savings while still caring for our elderly.

 

[Decker]

I just ate a chicken salad, it was pretty good.

Was it really mayonnaisey?

 

[clemson357]

I get your point. But what do you do w/ the 13 million old people that need SS to stay out of poverty? Do you pull SS from them just so you can see a bump in your take-home pay?

Instead of going after the elderly to save a buck we should attack the corrupt defense spending or congressional earmarks that eat up the national budget. Then we can get a decent sized and responsible tax cut from those savings while still caring for our elderly.

There is a difference between criticizing the idea of SS and wanting to end it. Obviously it would be completely unfair to just stop paying people who have paid into it their entire lives. You could keep paying them, and just say SS is over, but the money has to come from somewhere. The money would have to come from taxes, so essentially that is just saying that the people paying now still have to pay but will recieve no benefit. It is just a cycle that the government can't get out of, making it all the more a shitty idea IMO.

I don't think we should be cutting defense spending right now. Didn't Clinton make huge cuts in defense spending? And then right after he left office....

Anyway, I saw this thing on the news about an art program the government thought deserves tax payer support. The artists were painting religious figures covered in feces. Maybe we should start with programs like that. Admittedly it isn't a lot of money individually, but I am sure collectively there are tons of programs like that which add up to a sizable chunk of change.

 

[clemson357]

and on top of that, I am for downsizing the government all-together. It has grown enormous, bigger than anyone ever could have imagined. The problem is that the government decides how big the government will get, kind of a conflict of interest if you ask me.

 

[ALBOB]

In the beginning, the creation of SS was subjected to heated debate. The conservatives of the day (circa 1935) wanted a pay-as-you-go system so that the program would not turn into a drag on Fed. income tax. So the payroll tax was created. Fast forward to the 1960s. The war in Viet Nam was going badly yet LBJ was still expanding it. To conceal the true costs of the war, LBJ unified the federal budget to include SS income and borrowing. The program is a separate program but the accounting was screwed with.

Prior to SS 35-40% of our elderly lived in poverty. As a country, we decided that was unacceptable and created SS. Al you cannot pay your payroll tax simply b/c you don't care for SS or believe that you can do better with private investments. There're multiple court decisions saying so.

The payroll tax you pay today pays today's benefits for seniors. The monies in the trust fund are invested in gov. bonds not subject to loss on the market and supported by the "full faith and credit" of the US gov.--ultra safe.

When you get old and retire, the workforce at that time will fund your SS benefits. It's a transgenerational agreement that binds our collective work and well-being.

Sorry if that's a bit verbose.

Verbose? YOU? Wow, I never would have noticed.

Anyway. OK, you reminded me of the multigenerational nature of the program. I'd forgotten that aspect. That fully answers most of my question.

I'm still fuzzy on one aspect though. When you were citing LBJ's maneuvering, did you say they're two seperate witholdings that, in reality, go into the same pot? (I'm converting to layman's terms obviously.)

 

[Dale Mabry]

Was it really mayonnaisey?

A chicken salad, as in a salad with chicken on it. Although you now hAve me hungry for chicken salad.

 

[clemson357]

mayonnaise must be the nastiest substance that people eat. I won't even put mayo in my tuna, I use mustard.

 

[kbm8795]

I don't think we should be cutting defense spending right now. Didn't Clinton make huge cuts in defense spending? And then right after he left office....

When the defense budget is $457 billion and equals almost the total amount of money spent on the military by almost every other nation on earth combined, it might be considered a bit paranoid and extreme. If we cut the WASTE from the defense budget we might get a lot more bang for the buck.

Anyway, I saw this thing on the news about an art program the government thought deserves tax payer support. The artists were painting religious figures covered in feces. Maybe we should start with programs like that. Admittedly it isn't a lot of money individually, but I am sure collectively there are tons of programs like that which add up to a sizable chunk of change.

Well, of course conservatives would immediately advocate some form of artistic censorship as a means to 'save" money. . .which they then funnel into "faith-based" initiatives to impose abstinence-education programs by the 700 Club and the Moonies. Let's see - the government can't finance art which "conservatives" don't like, but can finance con-artist religious cults which financially support Republicans.

 

[clemson357]

When the defense budget is $457 billion and equals almost the total amount of money spent on the military by almost every other nation on earth combined, it might be considered a bit paranoid and extreme. If we cut the WASTE from the defense budget we might get a lot more bang for the buck.

Well, of course conservatives would immediately advocate some form of artistic censorship as a means to 'save" money. . .which they then funnel into "faith-based" initiatives to impose abstinence-education programs by the 700 Club and the Moonies. Let's see - the government can't finance art which "conservatives" don't like, but can finance con-artist religious cults which financially support Republicans.

You sir, are an idiot.

Why don't you explain to all of us how not funding something equates to censorship?

And it would make sense to me that our military is the most expensive, seeing as it is the most advanced. If you don't want to be a world superpower, there are plenty of other countries that share your view. Of course, they don't have our economy either, now do they?

 

[ALBOB]

Well, of course conservatives would immediately advocate some form of artistic censorship as a means to 'save" money. . .which they then funnel into "faith-based" initiatives to impose abstinence-education programs by the 700 Club and the Moonies. Let's see - the government can't finance art which "conservatives" don't like, but can finance con-artist religious cults which financially support Republicans.

Oh crap, we're gonna get off topic here.

I think you might be oversimplifying it just a bit. No flame intended, just moderation. Government funding of art programs has been controversial for a very long time. The works cited were a hot button issue that had nothing to do with the orignal argument. And, it is by no means censorship. It was never proposed to be outlawed. The only proposal was to stop funding for programs that fell WAY outside of the government's pervue, such as art. The logic: "if the art is any good, it will support itself. If it's not, it will go away." Sounds like simple supply and demand capitolism to me. Something that usually works.................until the government tries to fix it.

Now, you're ripping of the faith based initiatives seems a bit unfair also. The programs, as originally envisioned, would put the power/resources of communitites to work to help themselves. This would relieve the government of some of this burden, thus costing the taxpayers less. Seems like a good plan to save government money. Not sure where the 700 Club or Moonies come into the picture, but I'm sure you were just exagerrating for effect, right?

 

[clemson357]

It seems like you could also justify abstinence education in the same was SS was justified here, that is to say that even if you don't agree with it, it is cheaper than the alternative of just paying for the babies of insolvent teenagers.

 

[Decker]

...And it would make sense to me that our military is the most expensive, seeing as it is the most advanced. If you don't want to be a world superpower, there are plenty of other countries that share your view. Of course, they don't have our economy either, now do they?

If the US military is so advanced how come we can't even secure Iraq--a country the size of california? Clinton didn't gut the military though he did cut some funding. The waste from corruption in the defense budget is legendary...much of the money is for overcharges, inferior products/services, or outright theft by private defense contractors.

I gotta get back to that other thread w/ the guidos.

 

[Decker]

Verbose? YOU? Wow, I never would have noticed.

Anyway. OK, you reminded me of the multigenerational nature of the program. I'd forgotten that aspect. That fully answers most of my question.

I'm still fuzzy on one aspect though. When you were citing LBJ's maneuvering, did you say they're two seperate witholdings that, in reality, go into the same pot? (I'm converting to layman's terms obviously.)

Al if you ever saw Rainman and the scene where there's an idiot savant talking about the history of the pony express--well, I'm like that minus the savant part. SS was originally off the federal budgetary books and subjet to its own accounting. LBJ did away w/ that. Now the budget is "unified" so that more unscrupulous politicians can plunder any reserves in the SS trust.

 

[kbm8795]

You sir, are an idiot.

Is that the best you can do? I suggest you carefully examine your own analytical credentials before you start attempting to make personalized remarks. Is it possible for a wingnut to engage in conversation without having to hide behind crap?

Why don't you explain to all of us how not funding something equates to censorship?

Government support of religious institutions is not constitutional. Funding for artistic development is cultural and encourages free expression, even if conservatives believe that expression outside the Party is in itself evil and should be curtailed.

And it would make sense to me that our military is the most expensive, seeing as it is the most advanced. If you don't want to be a world superpower, there are plenty of other countries that share your view. Of course, they don't have our economy either, now do they?

The military is expensive because we overspend on contracts - which way too often have the ante upped on them before the goods are delivered. Then we have to offer bonuses for patriotic Republicans to actually serve in the field. One of the reasons Dear Leader has tried to use more private contractors is to curtail some mismanagement of funds in the Pentagon - of course, Halliburton hasn't proven itself to be a better taxpayer investment.

 

[kbm8795]

Oh crap, we're gonna get off topic here.

I think you might be oversimplifying it just a bit. No flame intended, just moderation. Government funding of art programs has been controversial for a very long time. The works cited were a hot button issue that had nothing to do with the orignal argument. And, it is by no means censorship. It was never proposed to be outlawed. The only proposal was to stop funding for programs that fell WAY outside of the government's pervue, such as art. The logic: "if the art is any good, it will support itself. If it's not, it will go away." Sounds like simple supply and demand capitolism to me. Something that usually works.................until the government tries to fix it.

Now, you're ripping of the faith based initiatives seems a bit unfair also. The programs, as originally envisioned, would put the power/resources of communitites to work to help themselves. This would relieve the government of some of this burden, thus costing the taxpayers less. Seems like a good plan to save government money. Not sure where the 700 Club or Moonies come into the picture, but I'm sure you were just exagerrating for effect, right?

No, the programs put the power of specific, government-approved religious "community" programs to work to proselytize to others. Republicans have already passed legislation allowing these same taxpayer supported "initiatives" exemption from federal non-discrimination employment laws, meaning they only have to hire people of their own "faith" while on the federal dole. Essentially that is government endorsement of religion, since churches which the current government doesn't agree with can't get funding. The Moonies can... naturally. . .but the United Church of Christ isn't getting any. . .

 

[kbm8795]

It seems like you could also justify abstinence education in the same was SS was justified here, that is to say that even if you don't agree with it, it is cheaper than the alternative of just paying for the babies of insolvent teenagers.

Since I am obviously much older than you, I can recall how every town of any significant size had several orphanages and a "baby" facility where unwed mothers were "sent" to wait out their pregnancy and have the child taken away from them. Obviously, abstinence-only plans didn't work very well, even in the heavily censored married-television-couples-sleep-in-separate-twin-beds days of American culture.

 

[clemson357]

Government support of religious institutions is not constitutional. Funding for artistic development is cultural and encourages free expression, even if conservatives believe that expression outside the Party is in itself evil and should be curtailed.

And yet that has nothing to do with explaining how not funding something equates to censorship...

 

[DOMS]

If the US military is so advanced how come we can't even secure Iraq--a country the size of california?

Because, thanks to some bleeding hearts, we have the most powerful army in the world...that's now touchy-feely. We should have simply gone over there are started killing until they couldn't fight back, then smoke 'em if you got 'em, and went home.

Now we have to worry about hurting people's feelings during a war...