President Barack Hussein Obama and Willard Mitt Romney debate tonight. I don't mind if Jim Lehrer asks President Obama whether he endorses Vice-President Joe Biden's famous declaration that health care reform is "a big "f---ing deal."
But I really hope Lehrer will ask Romney if he endorses this statement by his running mate, Rep. Paul Ryan, that Social Security is a collectivist system that we must abolish:
Social Security right now is a collectivist system. It is a welfare transfer system.... And so what we have coming now at the beginning of this century is a fight.... [A]ll they have to do is to stop us from succeeding. Autopilot will get them to where they want to go. It will bring more government, more collectivism, more centralized government if we do not succeed in switching these programs and reforming these programs from what some people call a defined-benefit system to a defined-contribution system--and I am talking about health-care programs as well--from a third-party socialist-based system to an individually-prefunded individually-directed system. We can do this. We are on offense on a lot of these issues... [Rep. Paul Ryan, speech to Ayn Rand Atlas Society, 2005, quoted by Brad DeLong, September 29, 2012].
Take that, you geezerly moochers! As Brad DeLong summarizes Ryan's policy views, "In Paul Ryan's eyes, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Unemployment Insurance, SNAP, etc. are all socialist, collectivist systems that must cease to exist in anything like their present form."
Mr. Romney (and Mr. Romney's backers), do you agree?
Bonus Question: Paul Ryan says the math behind the Romney-Ryan tax plan is just too complicated to explain. Ezra Klein says it's simple arithmetic (and it doesn't add up). Can you explain your math, Mr. Romney? (You may use a calculator.)
SS should be optional for those smart enough to handle their own finances and save for retirement. I don't need the gov't to be my babysitter.
and let your poor grandchildren become sex slaves for the man-camps in the Bakken?
Social security is a national defense imperative: the republic's future is a mutual responsibility for a representative democracy by definition.
Anyone who believes that Romney/Ryan will cut the size of government is delusional.
Looks like the docs at the psych ward let Larry have internet time again.
DB, SS isn't a retirement plan. It's a safety net. Insurance. You're not paying into your OWN plan, you're paying in to THE GROUP plan, of which you are a member. Hard to grasp for rugged individualists who think they're not part of the social fabric, I know. But it's a concept that you might want to at least try to grasp.
Exactly why I should be able to opt out. It is nothing more than redistribution of my income. I don't need the insurance and I could put the money to better use. Some people do, and that is very apparent, but I am not one of them.
Again, DB, it's not about you. It's about US. All of us. Want to build your own roads? Put out your own fires? Be your own cop? Like that.
What does SS have to do with any of that? I pay property taxes and income taxes to support infrastructure and public services. I volunteer for some of those same services.....and now you want to tell me I must give even more so that in old age people can use my money to survive? Like I said, just another way to take from those who have and give to those who don't. Either way, I'll be surprised if SS is even around when I retire, but I won't need it so I'll just donate every monthly check to the party willing to get rid of it.
"I pay property taxes and income taxes to support infrastructure and public services. I volunteer for some of those same services.....and now you want to tell me I must give even more so that in old age people can use my money to survive?"
Yes. Exactly. Good recap. And yes, you can do anything you want with your checks, if and when when you ever receive them. That's the deal in a nutshell.
A certain segment of people lived in squalor before social security. Even in Madison I'm told a few people lived in makeshift shacks before the poor farm opened and they were thrilled to be able to go there. SS has improved people's quality of life for sure. Even now unless you're quite wealthy and/or as a couple have nursing home insurance, if a spouse lives there very long their life savings is gone. Fifty grand a year or more it doesn't take long even for people who were thrifty and responsible. They use some formula along with the social security payments so the remaining spouse can financially survive.
"I must give even more so that in old age people can use my money to survive?"
Those old people paid into the retirement plan Fleming. What is you solution, a death panel to determine those who become a burden?
unless your marriage was nullified in the post-DOMA era:
http://www.aclumontana.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7:aclu-appeals-domestic-partnership-case&catid=3:rightnews&Itemid=39
Exactly John No one is "smart enough" ( to use DBs words) to be able to plan for all the contingencies that might befall their family. Only the truly wealthy are protected without a safety net. The other choice would be to return to the poor farms and workhouses of yesteryear.
Well at least you all are willing to admit you want to take care of the old and frail on the backs of the wealthy. I didn't realize our constitution guaranteed a pleasant retirement for all.
How is it on the backs of the wealthy? Prior to ACA, the wealthy paid zero in FICA on unearned income and carried interest. Capital gains will still contribute zero as well as being taxed at half the rate working people pay in income.
Trite fallacy is no substitute for actual knowledge and familiarity with the budget and the economy.
No argument, Sibby. At least not with me. I'm just quoting DB and agreeing with him. People currently collecting paid into Social Security to support those who were currently drawing on it in their earning time, who likewise paid into it before that.
It's a pay-it-forward thingy.
Here is a link for you DB. I want to help you to become informed.
http://www.nasi.org/learn/socialsecurity/who-pays
I've got no argument with Sibby here either, I guess I had missed that rare gem of a comment. Or course there is a structural problem with pay as you go plans when population and economic growth rates decline. That is the crux of the issue, not that the elderly are freeloaders.
Yup, it needs tweaking from time to time as generation sizes, dollar values and mortality rates fluctuate. Agreed.
But DB perhaps has at least a start on a good attitude.
He's so well off, he says he won't be needing his payouts and would just give the money away.
Now if we can perhaps just persuade him as to his choice of beneficiary.
There is a lot more to Social Security than just retirement income. There are a lot of folks who are disabled that rely on it to pay the monthly bills. DB may like to think that he has his retirement all squared away , but is everyone in his family in the same boat and do they all have disability insurance. Social Security helps to take a lot of financial pressure off of a lot of families . Bill is right though it is always in need of tweaking
Wow, everyone agrees with Sibby. Yeah DB you're messed up cause they paid in to it. So what if all your investments go belly up? Would you like us to pull you out on the ice like the Eskimos? Or would you prefer lethal injection? If you can't take care of yourself ... We ain't your babysitter.
Denver is systematically being shut down. Debate coup: CIA agent rushes to the President's ear with message...while Willard is speaking.
"People currently collecting paid into Social Security to support those who were currently drawing on it in their earning time, who likewise paid into it before that."
That is a ponzi scheme. I thought those were suppose to be illegal Bill.
Social Security: a ponzie scheme based on the Marxist application to age where the elderly are the oppressed and the young are the oppressors.
Oh brother. I figured it was too good to be true.
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/09/09/is-social-security-a-ponzi-scheme/social-security-as-a-ponzi-its-a-bad-metaphor
Excerpt for the Sibbatolah:
"Ponzi schemes like the ones run by Charles Ponzi and Bernard Madoff can work only if their operators keep investors in the dark about the source of their alleged magical returns. No more scrupulously honest organization exists than the Social Security Administration. Not only does the administration mail citizens reports detailing their expected contributions and receipts from Social Security, but it also publishes annual reports indicating future shortfalls and sternly calling for action to deal with them.
Some critics of Social Security seem to equate it with a Ponzi scheme because the growth of payouts depends on growth of the number of future taxpayers, in the case of Social Security, or future investors, in the case of classic Ponzi schemes. By this definition, Social Security is a Ponzi scheme — and so are the private investment accounts that many conservatives propose as an alternative to Social Security. Whether the intermediary is the government or private money managers, in both cases the income of retirees will depend on money generated by the economic activity of succeeding generations in the work force. The main difference is that private investments are riskier than promises by the federal government of the United States to pay benefits to seniors who have paid payroll taxes all their lives."
here is an interesting link for you Sibby.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/09/27/1020503/-Making-Social-Security-solvent-without-cutting-benefits-or-raising-the-retirement-age
Sibby, you're old enough to be eligible: no?
Good luck on being smart enough to handle your own retirement. If you plan to invest in the stock market you need to remember that it's rigged for the wealthy. If you plan to save enough for retirement (at least one million dollars), you're going to have to live a long time and work a high-paying job. If you plan to live low to the ground - inflation eventually sets in. And, finally, that's assuming that you are never physically or mentally incapacitated by accident or illness (which is exactly what SS disability is for). Most people before SS lived with their children and/or in abject poverty. SS gave them, not luxury or fancy, but basic food and shelter, which is pretty much all it gives today. It's the safety net that allows people to know that, should s**t happen, they will not be left on the ice floe to starve.
Here are some poll numbers to illustrate how Sibby and DB's fellow Americans feel about SS. (Hint: it's not at all like they do... big surprise.)
http://www.pollingreport.com/social.htm
DB, even though you are smarter and better than everyone else, you still have obligations to your fellow man. Until you and John Galt build that force-field-hidden community in the Rockies or on some island, you're part of the community.
My uncle is 98 and still living (and driving) on his own. Nobody then was planning for 30 plus years of retirement. In years to come we're gonna have a lot more long-living retirees to support. Does anyone remember Logan's Run???
I'm delighted to hear of your uncle, Mr. Hess. Does he have a computer and use the internets and stuff?
DB = Libertarian or Julie Gross (NE)
[CAH: Libertarian, maybe: the unrealistic and immature view of the social contract reflects such a political leaning. Julie Gross, no... not unless DB orchestrated that fake namer's campaign. See—isn't this all much easier when we use our real names?]
"Sibby, you're old enough to be eligible: no?"
Only when he dresses up like Benjamin Franklin or Thomas Jefferson and delivers a speech on the Davison County courthouse lawn on the Fourth of July.
(Another "collectivist trap" for "rugged individualists" like DB: public universities like Dakota State University that subsidize tuition for their residents.)
"Not only does the administration mail citizens reports detailing their expected contributions and receipts from Social Security"
So now Fleming agrees that Social Security is a retirement plan, not insurance. Flip-flop Fleming.
Barry, interesting link, excerpt:
"Because the earnings of workers in the highest income groups have grown faster than average earnings in recent decades, the share of all earnings from jobs covered by the Social Security program that were below the taxable maximum has fallen from about 91 percent in 1983 to about 83 percent in 2009."
But what about the middle class. The ceiling has been raised on them and represents a tax increase. So much for Obama's rhetoric on middle class taxes. The link uses a Mrxist based argument that avoids the impact of fewer workers versus more retirees. The ponzi scheme is not sustainable. And the Agenda 21 population reduction plan will not help, unless the population reduction is implemented through Obamacare's death panels.
"DB, even though you are smarter and better than everyone else, you still have obligations to your fellow man. Until you and John Galt build that force-field-hidden community in the Rockies or on some island, you're part of the community."
Smarter, of course, better....not applicable. My obligations are to myself and my family. My obligations to my fellow man are to allow them to fail and succeed as they so choose. They can take the risks in hopes of great rewards, but they also may suffer and even greater defeat. We call that .......life.
"(Another "collectivist trap" for "rugged individualists" like DB: public universities like Dakota State University that subsidize tuition for their residents.)"
bahahahaha....you are slipping.
SS is nothing more than a ponzi scheme. You may pay in, but many take out much more than what they paid in. You can thank me later for taking care of your elders.
"Good luck on being smart enough to handle your own retirement. If you plan to invest in the stock market you need to remember that it's rigged for the wealthy. If you plan to save enough for retirement (at least one million dollars), you're going to have to live a long time and work a high-paying job."
Plenty smart enough. "Rigged for the wealthy".....I wonder how I did so well when I was a lot poorer. I guess my 350% return in two years on Apple was a fluke. hmmmmm.....I guess brains do go a long ways. A million? That won't even be close to enough to survive on when I get to retirement age. I'm shooting for no less than 5 million. That is why I got educated. You have a common response for someone who knows nothing about playing the markets. I could lose all my market investments and still be fine. It's called diversification. However, if that happens, we are all screwed b/c our economy will be non-existent, along with our gov't.
from what halfway house are you commenting, DB?
"We call that... life."
Thomas Hobbes called it solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.