Economics Thread
- Thread starter sturg33
- Start date
chop2chip
Well-known member
It’s incredible that this news got no pull today, meanwhile every outlet was running wall to wall coverage of the Philadelphia Eagles non-visit.
This country is so stupid.
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
I dunno. I mean, yes, this country is stupid, but I don't know if this is "news," exactly. This story comes and goes as reliably as the sun, and it's always the same. It can be discussed in good faith or bad, but the story is always the same.
Conservatives want to privatize, cut benefits or abolish SS, which is politically unpopular. Democrats want to shore it up, which necessitates a tax increase, the politics of which is likewise tough.
For the wealthiest country on earth, this is an eminently fixable problem, demographic challenges or no.
What's going to eventually help social security is the decreasing birth rate. They'll up the retirement age 2 years and hold off on the issue with the hopes that an economic revival, buoyed by good old fashion capitalism, will get us back on track.
However, privatizing the system would be best and allow the workers to have more control over our future
However, privatizing the system would be best and allow the workers to have more control over our future
57Brave
Well-known member
Privatizing is quite the opposite of SS and a ridiculous idea for anyone outside of the donor class or their minions.
I play in retirement homes and see people there where the only secure source of income is SS.
Imagine allowing the Trump University Board of Directors getting their hands onSS. Or one of those elderly with dishonest children investing their money in the latest Madoff scheme
One more note, SS covers families where the main source of income has died, ala Paul Ryan.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
It is called a safety net for a reason
I play in retirement homes and see people there where the only secure source of income is SS.
Imagine allowing the Trump University Board of Directors getting their hands onSS. Or one of those elderly with dishonest children investing their money in the latest Madoff scheme
One more note, SS covers families where the main source of income has died, ala Paul Ryan.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
It is called a safety net for a reason
sturg33
I
The issue is too complex for voters, and they aim to keep it that way so that 57 can confidentially post how the Republicans hate poor people.
It is very sad that our government has decided that it is ok to rob from future generations who have yet to be born
57Brave
Well-known member
you're too young to remember Bush43 declaring his mandate to privatize SS -- in effect, the government did not decide .
You can look all that up -- historical data ---
not complex one bit.
Safety net vs the Trumps and Madoffs of the world
More historical data you might find interesting is why there was a need for SS in the first place.
Interesting stuff - perhaps a bit too emotional but, interesting never the less
.....................
Remind me again how many candidates are running on privatization and those that were how they are faring
You can look all that up -- historical data ---
not complex one bit.
Safety net vs the Trumps and Madoffs of the world
More historical data you might find interesting is why there was a need for SS in the first place.
Interesting stuff - perhaps a bit too emotional but, interesting never the less
.....................
Remind me again how many candidates are running on privatization and those that were how they are faring
Last edited:
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
The experience of the Bush years should have been cautionary. He made SS privitization the centerpiece of his 2004 post-election agenda. It bricked. Within a couple of years the markets tanked, with the Dow going from 14400 to 6600 in about 18 months. Imagine what would have happened to near-retirees who had their money in the market. Sorry Grandpa, back to work.
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
It really isn't.
sturg33
I
It involves math so....
57Brave
Well-known member
math being only one part of the equation.
something about eggs and baskets
And, as in baseball, analytics (math) tell a portion of the story, but not the whole picture
SS is the Charlie Culberson of the social contract.
What analytic could have predicted he would win 2 walkoff games in week?
Some scout somewhere was not surprised
Well, that is SS
something about eggs and baskets
And, as in baseball, analytics (math) tell a portion of the story, but not the whole picture
SS is the Charlie Culberson of the social contract.
What analytic could have predicted he would win 2 walkoff games in week?
Some scout somewhere was not surprised
Well, that is SS
57Brave
Well-known member
But it does dictate what will be the thing - to be done and what our leaders are tasked with making happen.
and who says it isn't the right thing to do ?
You, Tikiboi ?
Again, who is running on privatizing SS ?
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
I'm not saying it's inconceivable to do some kind of limited privatization...on an opt-in basis, maybe, for younger workers. Not my pref at all, but maybe there's something there.
But the doomsday talk with an eye to essentially ending the program is ridiculous. You want the SSA to pay full benefits after 2034? Raise the income cap on contributions, consider tweaking the qualification age.
But the doomsday talk with an eye to essentially ending the program is ridiculous. You want the SSA to pay full benefits after 2034? Raise the income cap on contributions, consider tweaking the qualification age.
sturg33
I
I think this proves my point
sturg33
I
Math doesn't care about popularity. The program as constructed is not tenable long term. That is not politics. It's math.
It's conceivable that nobody will ever do anything about it... And it's extremely likely that that will be very painful inaction
The issue is technology is going to continue to cut manual labor down. And life expectancy is going up. So I do think the age requirement needs to go up.
57Brave
Well-known member
Speaking as one about ready to cash in -- it already has in a sense.
Many, no most, are working into their 70's to afford health care
While receiving SS.
Question:
How effective of an employee is a person after 65 ?
With deteriorating health, stamina and cognizance == is that really an across the board option ?
Many, no most, are working into their 70's to afford health care
While receiving SS.
Question:
How effective of an employee is a person after 65 ?
With deteriorating health, stamina and cognizance == is that really an across the board option ?