Universal Healthcare? Can it work? I'm doubtful...

[DblBarrelJ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Instead the money is going to the war, corporate welfare and tax cuts.

[/ QUOTE ]

Corporate welfare is a basic corporate right. Thank God the people in Washington see it my way.

I'd like to see you make your case against some of the poor CEO's out there who can barely afford to run their business. You've got what you need - that's all you care about.

That's why selfish people like you will always be a tiny, marginalized minority. People who care about poor corporations are better than you.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT!!

Also, lets not forget these poor, starving CEO's are providing many more jobs for Americans than One Outer is.

[manbearpig]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


What about the part where they take the money that we pay into it and use it as a petty cash drawer for all the extra spending we decide to do instead of, well, you know, doing what they are supposed to do with it which is invest it so that it remains solvent and provides a return?

Is that part pathetic?

[/ QUOTE ]

I like where you're going with this, but we have to take a more functional view. Essentially what they're doing is borrowing from social security to do more discretionary spending today. Which, in my view at least, is fine provided that the spending will have a good ROI in the long term and we can replenish social security. Things like education, health care, infrastructure and environmental protection are things this money should be going toward.



[/ QUOTE ]

Why should SS money be going to anything but SS? Last time I checked I pay a hell of lot more in taxes than just SS tax. THAT money should be going to things like education, health care, infrastructure, etc.

To be clear, I wish the federal govt had no control over any of those things but that seems a long shot at this point.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This part is just so pathetic I cant even bear to read the rest.

"Social Security - I can't believe anyone would tout social security as a success story. Without significant reform, this entire system will be completely insolvent and stop functioning within our lifetime. <font color="red"> Actually the
"reforms" needed are quite minor, and are responses primarily to increases in longevity beyond those that ever could have been anticipated. Since when does a government program have to be static and predict everything that will happen in the future to be succesful? If business were held to that standard we'd still be riding horses. </font> Not only that, but social security offers PATHETIC returns as a retirement plan for most people based on what they put into the system. <font color="red"> What do you consider pathetic? If 6-7% return (a married worker with a non-working spouseI is pathetic, you beat it.</font> It's simply a redistribution of wealth. <font color="red">Yes its a minor redistribution of wealth. Do you even know in which direction? </font> A poor one at that."

[/ QUOTE ]

What about the part where they take the money that we pay into it and use it as a petty cash drawer for all the extra spending we decide to do instead of, well, you know, doing what they are supposed to do with it which is invest it so that it remains solvent and provides a return?

Is that part pathetic?

[/ QUOTE ]

since thats not what "they" do, it is an irrelevant question

[ConstantineX]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This part is just so pathetic I cant even bear to read the rest.

"Social Security - I can't believe anyone would tout social security as a success story. Without significant reform, this entire system will be completely insolvent and stop functioning within our lifetime. <font color="red"> Actually the
"reforms" needed are quite minor, and are responses primarily to increases in longevity beyond those that ever could have been anticipated. Since when does a government program have to be static and predict everything that will happen in the future to be succesful? If business were held to that standard we'd still be riding horses. </font> Not only that, but social security offers PATHETIC returns as a retirement plan for most people based on what they put into the system. <font color="red"> What do you consider pathetic? If 6-7% return (a married worker with a non-working spouseI is pathetic, you beat it.</font> It's simply a redistribution of wealth. <font color="red">Yes its a minor redistribution of wealth. Do you even know in which direction? </font> A poor one at that."

[/ QUOTE ]

What about the part where they take the money that we pay into it and use it as a petty cash drawer for all the extra spending we decide to do instead of, well, you know, doing what they are supposed to do with it which is invest it so that it remains solvent and provides a return?

Is that part pathetic?

[/ QUOTE ]

since thats not what "they" do, it is an irrelevant question

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought I read somewhere that Social Security had a -2% to -3% real rate of return.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This part is just so pathetic I cant even bear to read the rest.

"Social Security - I can't believe anyone would tout social security as a success story. Without significant reform, this entire system will be completely insolvent and stop functioning within our lifetime. <font color="red"> Actually the
"reforms" needed are quite minor, and are responses primarily to increases in longevity beyond those that ever could have been anticipated. Since when does a government program have to be static and predict everything that will happen in the future to be succesful? If business were held to that standard we'd still be riding horses. </font> Not only that, but social security offers PATHETIC returns as a retirement plan for most people based on what they put into the system. <font color="red"> What do you consider pathetic? If 6-7% return (a married worker with a non-working spouseI is pathetic, you beat it.</font> It's simply a redistribution of wealth. <font color="red">Yes its a minor redistribution of wealth. Do you even know in which direction? </font> A poor one at that."

[/ QUOTE ]

What about the part where they take the money that we pay into it and use it as a petty cash drawer for all the extra spending we decide to do instead of, well, you know, doing what they are supposed to do with it which is invest it so that it remains solvent and provides a return?

Is that part pathetic?

[/ QUOTE ]

I like where you're going with this, but we have to take a more functional view. Essentially what they're doing is borrowing from social security to do more discretionary spending today. Which, in my view at least, is fine provided that the spending will have a good ROI in the long term and we can replenish social security. Things like education, health care, infrastructure and environmental protection are things this money should be going toward.

Instead the money is going to the war, corporate welfare and tax cuts. None of these offers any return on investment. That is the problem in my view. I think there are two different courses of action to correct this. First, we need to bite the bullet and pay more in taxes so that they can leave social security alone. This is stupid because I don't want to pay more for corporate welfare and the war, and nobody else does. Or they can spend the money differently. On things that matter. This is what we should be doing.

Copernicus, QFT on the SS post. Isn't the system solvent without any changes until like 2046 or something? Lol at people who think social security doesn't work or that it has fundamental problems.

[/ QUOTE ]

Youve almost connected the dots completely full circle. Yes, you are correct that the SS surplus is borrowed, and it is used to fund (here come the dots)......spending.

We can debate endlessly what is "good spending" and what is "Bad spending", but the spending is going to be done whether the Treasuries that fund it are going to be sold to the Social Security system or to Switzerland. Attack spending at its source, because SS has nothing to do with it.

2046 is one of the 3 projections, the pessimistic projection is earlier (2025? I forget right now) and the opitimistic projection is no changes are needed.

To move it to indefinite solvency on the intermediate assumptions takes increasing full benefit retirement age in a similar manner to the last increase and something like a .25% tax increase.

Increases in retirement age are coming with the baby boomers anyway. The economy needs them to continue working and they will be compensated well for staying on the job, or at least phasing into retirement slowly.

[manbearpig]

[ QUOTE ]

Youve almost connected the dots completely full circle. Yes, you are correct that the SS surplus is borrowed, and it is used to fund (here come the dots)......spending.

We can debate endlessly what is "good spending" and what is "Bad spending", but the spending is going to be done whether the Treasuries that fund it are going to be sold to the Social Security system or to Switzerland. Attack spending at its source, because SS has nothing to do with it.



[/ QUOTE ]

I actually completely agree with you here. I am just of the thought that the less places the Fed can go to create cash the better. The more we take away their piggy bank the more the excess spending will be highlighted and then changed.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Youve almost connected the dots completely full circle. Yes, you are correct that the SS surplus is borrowed, and it is used to fund (here come the dots)......spending.

We can debate endlessly what is "good spending" and what is "Bad spending", but the spending is going to be done whether the Treasuries that fund it are going to be sold to the Social Security system or to Switzerland. Attack spending at its source, because SS has nothing to do with it.



[/ QUOTE ]

I actually completely agree with you here. I am just of the thought that the less places the Fed can go to create cash the better. The more we take away their piggy bank the more the excess spending will be highlighted and then changed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its like boycotting oil from some country, but having to buy it somewhere else. The boyott is meaningless because it just shifts buyers who would otherwise have bought from your supplier to the supplier you boycotted. There is a virtually limitless market of borrowers, eliminating SS as a market would only have one effect, and thats a negative one overall. Without SS in there bidding for a given Treasury issue, interest rates go up, costing FUTURE generations more. If spending is going to happen on borrowed money, shifting the cost to future generations anyway, a marginal change in interest rate surely isnt going to deter the spending.