The Democrat Thread

[Balta1701]

However, I don't want to replace or reduce the ability I have to invest my own discretionary income because private investment is too risky.

Again, why is subsidizing this an efficient use of taxpayer dollars?

[StrangeSox]

gawker has a pretty depressing series "Unemployment Stories" right now

 

http://gawker.com/5936244/unemployment-sto...-the-underclass

[StrangeSox]

The point I was making is that I don't see any significant difference between losing my money in a bank over the social security system going to s***. Even when banks fail, the gov't finds other banks to buy the failed banks, and you don't lose your money. Of course, Balta brings up the guy with more than $250k in the bank...as if this person isn't sophisticated enough to invest their money in other vehicles.

 

However, if what you're ultimately saying is that we need to raise the social security tax because lower income folks are unable to save enough money, that is quite a different issue than saying should we increase the social security tax because private investment is too risky.

 

I would be willing to chip in more to support lower income folks.

 

However, I don't want to replace or reduce the ability I have to invest my own discretionary income because private investment is too risky.

 

SS isn't a personal savings account managed by the government. The payroll taxes you pay every two weeks (or w/e) turn around and go right back out to current benefits recipients. If you wanted to privatize the system as personal savings accounts in a for-profit bank for some reason (where it'd be public risk backing up the accounts), you'd be fundamentally changing the system and would need some way to cover current beneficiaries. You'd also need those accounts to have a mandatory COL interest rate and not the 0.1% you'd get now in a typical savings account.

 

It's not only about lower-income people who can't save enough because they don't have much if any discretionary income after living expenses. It's also that, with any investment, there are going to be winners and losers. People who did save and invest but still didn't end up with all that much, like those who have managed to sack away and average of $120k by retirement, are still going to be living a pretty meager retirement. Or people who lost most of their retirement accounts when the companies they worked for went under. As a society, we have more than enough wealth for this to not be the case, to provide for a modest retirement for every American.

 

If we want to increase SS benefits, it'd mean increasing payroll taxes in one form or another, which means you'd have slightly less discretionary income to invest as you see fit, but you'd also see higher SS benefits yourself as well. The current payroll tax, which is capped at ~$105k and applies only to wage income, is a regressive tax anyway.

 

I think this article from The Atlantic does a much better job of explaining the case than I ever could:

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archiv...uble-it/266095/

 

Doubling Social Security's individual payout would cost about $650 billion annually for the approximately 53 million Americans who receive benefits. Here's how to pay for it.

 

Step 1. Lift Social Security's payroll cap that favors the wealthy.

 

Currently Social Security only taxes wages up to $106,800 a year, and any income earned above that is not taxed. The net result is that poor, middle class, and even moderately upper middle class Americans are taxed 12.4 percent (split between employee and employer) on 100 percent of their income, but the wealthy pay a much lower percentage. Millionaire bankers effectively pay a paltry 1.2 percent.

 

Making all income levels pay the same percentage -- which is how Medicare works -- is popular with Americans according to opinion polls, and would raise about $377 billion toward the $650 billion needed to double the Social Security payout. As a candidate in 2008, Barack Obama stated that he supported raising the cap on the Social Security tax to help fund the program.

 

Step 2. Cut out the business deduction for employees' retirement plans.

 

With all Americans receiving Social Security Plus, employer-based pensions would be redundant, so businesses no longer would need the substantial federal deductions they currently receive for providing employees' retirement plans. These deductions total a substantial $126 billion annually.

 

These two steps alone would provide three-fourths of the revenue needed to double Social Security's payout.

 

This is really the core of the philosophy:

In short, Social Security Plus would provide a stable, secure retirement for every American and contribute greatly toward a solid foundation from which to build a strong and vibrant 21st century economy. All Americans should have retirement benefits they can count on, not the crumbling casino of retirement overseen by the same Wall Street bankers and financial managers who drove the U.S. economy off the cliff.

Edited February 7, 2013 by StrangeSox

[iamshack]

SS isn't a personal savings account managed by the government. The payroll taxes you pay every two weeks (or w/e) turn around and go right back out to current benefits recipients. If you wanted to privatize the system as personal savings accounts in a for-profit bank for some reason (where it'd be public risk backing up the accounts), you'd be fundamentally changing the system and would need some way to cover current beneficiaries. You'd also need those accounts to have a mandatory COL interest rate and not the 0.1% you'd get now in a typical savings account.

 

It's not only about lower-income people who can't save enough because they don't have much if any discretionary income after living expenses. It's also that, with any investment, there are going to be winners and losers. People who did save and invest but still didn't end up with all that much, like those who have managed to sack away and average of $120k by retirement, are still going to be living a pretty meager retirement. Or people who lost most of their retirement accounts when the companies they worked for went under. As a society, we have more than enough wealth for this to not be the case, to provide for a modest retirement for every American.

 

If we want to increase SS benefits, it'd mean increasing payroll taxes in one form or another, which means you'd have slightly less discretionary income to invest as you see fit, but you'd also see higher SS benefits yourself as well. The current payroll tax, which is capped at ~$105k and applies only to wage income, is a regressive tax anyway.

 

I think this article from The Atlantic does a much better job of explaining the case than I ever could:

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archiv...uble-it/266095/

 

 

 

This is really the core of the philosophy:

I'm not trying to argue the technical nuances of how the money is handled so much as the fact that there is just as much risk involved in having the government manage a social retirement program versus having individuals save the money in the same type of conservative methods themselves.

 

Now this discussion started off with you and Balta framing this issue as one in which we couldn't trust the banks or Wall Street or anyone in the financial arena because of the recent economic collapse. Now you're seemingly shifting the debate to it being an issue of the wealthy needing to contribute more to the Nation's social retirement piggy bank to assure that the lower income folks are able to count on at the very least, a modest retirement. I don't necessarily have an issue with that.

 

What I do have an issue with is labeling the entire private financial sector as broken or corrupt because of what happened with the whole housing bubble. We need to continue to invest in our markets, and this includes brokerage accounts for personal investing as well as 401k accounts and pensions. This is a significant part of our economy.

[Jenksismyhero]

And really this argument just comes down to SS/Balta wanting people with lower incomes to live the lifestyles of those with higher incomes. I'd like a definition for "modest retirement" because I have a feeling everyone would view that differently. "Bob and Sue Banker get to take a country wide trip in their RV during retirement. NOT FAIR. Everyone should be able to do that. RV's for everyone!"

 

Also, that SS Plus plan talks about cutting the deduction for employee retirement plans. That's just screwing the middle class with employers that provide matches to employee plans. Employers would stop offering them, and people would have even less savings/retirement income and become even more dependent on SS. And in 20 years you'll argue that SS Plus isn't enough to provide a "modest retirement" and we're back to square one. (I am 100% behind the idea of taxing the wealthy more, however)

 

Why don't we START with the idea that everyone is responsible for themselves? If NEED be, society can help out those that have experienced a rough life.

[iamshack]

And really this argument just comes down to SS/Balta wanting people with lower incomes to live the lifestyles of those with higher incomes. I'd like a definition for "modest retirement" because I have a feeling everyone would view that differently. "Bob and Sue Banker get to take a country wide trip in their RV during retirement. NOT FAIR. Everyone should be able to do that. RV's for everyone!"

 

Also, that SS Plus plan talks about cutting the deduction for employee retirement plans. That's just screwing the middle class with employers that provide matches to employee plans. Employers would stop offering them, and people would have even less savings/retirement income and become even more dependent on SS. And in 20 years you'll argue that SS Plus isn't enough to provide a "modest retirement" and we're back to square one. (I am 100% behind the idea of taxing the wealthy more, however)

 

Why don't we START with the idea that everyone is responsible for themselves? If NEED be, society can help out those that have experienced a rough life.

I read that to be talking more about the pension funds some companies have, not the 401k matching programs, but I could be wrong.

[Balta1701]

And really this argument just comes down to SS/Balta wanting people with lower incomes to live the lifestyles of those with higher incomes. I'd like a definition for "modest retirement" because I have a feeling everyone would view that differently. "Bob and Sue Banker get to take a country wide trip in their RV during retirement. NOT FAIR. Everyone should be able to do that. RV's for everyone!"

 

Also, that SS Plus plan talks about cutting the deduction for employee retirement plans. That's just screwing the middle class with employers that provide matches to employee plans. Employers would stop offering them, and people would have even less savings/retirement income and become even more dependent on SS. And in 20 years you'll argue that SS Plus isn't enough to provide a "modest retirement" and we're back to square one. (I am 100% behind the idea of taxing the wealthy more, however)

 

Why don't we START with the idea that everyone is responsible for themselves? If NEED be, society can help out those that have experienced a rough life.

One where people can afford basic necessities and do not have to choose between health care costs, food, and housing.

 

The RV might be the laughable example. It's the health care costs that really matter.

[StrangeSox]

You could also argue over the definition of "middle class" and whether that includes individuals earning over $105k or twice the national median and right at the top 10% of income and at what point raising the cap would actually meaningfully affect someone's discretionary income. e.g. someone making $110k who now has to pay 5% payroll tax on that $5k above the cap isn't really going to be impacted much.

 

One article I posted argued for an expansion of SS by 20%, another argued for "doubling" it. To double it, yeah, you'd have to take away the tax breaks that currently go towards subsidizing retirement accounts and direct that money to SS instead. To get a 20% expansion, though, you don't necessarily have to do that.

[StrangeSox]

I didn't realize there was so much crazy opposition to "smart" meters (see the comments section)

 

http://naperville.patch.com/articles/naper...member-arrested

[iamshack]

I didn't realize there was so much crazy opposition to "smart" meters (see the comments section)

 

http://naperville.patch.com/articles/naper...member-arrested

Oh man, you have no idea...from everything to invasions of privacy to giving them cancer, these people will say anything.

[StrangeSox]

Agenda 21!!!!

[bmags]

I think it's fairly clear what the Obama scandal will be. This shuffling over providing justification or info on the killing of a US citizen by the state without due process is telling to me. This is horses***. Congress needs to demand a process for this.

[Balta1701]

I think it's fairly clear what the Obama scandal will be. This shuffling over providing justification or info on the killing of a US citizen by the state without due process is telling to me. This is horses***. Congress needs to demand a process for this.

They won't.

 

These people are evildoers.

 

When push comes to shove, Congress will not act to defend people who are accused of being bad. Prison reform is the same way. Once a person has done something bad, or is accused of having done so, this country will not act for their protection in any way.

 

It does not matter who they are. That's the standard now. If the President accused me of being a terrorist, that's it, Congress will not intervene to prevent me from being sodomized with a broom or murdered by a flying machine of death.

[StrangeSox]

No, Germany isn't ahead of us in solar technology because they have a lot more sun than we do.

 

 

[iamshack]

No, Germany isn't ahead of us in solar technology because they have a lot more sun than we do.

 

The German gov't has invested a s***load of money into their solar industry...they've made a big commitment...and it is admirable...but I don't know if it will end up being an incredibly efficient use of resources.

[StrangeSox]

It's more about the baffling stupidity of the Fox morning show.

 

edit: Yeah, that's exactly why Germany is ahead of us. But earlier in the segment, they criticized Obama for making investments in solar. They crammed an awful lot of dumb into such a short segment.

Edited February 8, 2013 by StrangeSox

[BigSqwert]

Julian Assange on Bill Maher tonight.

[Balta1701]

Julian Assange on Bill Maher tonight.

Is he still trapped in the Ecuadorian embassy?

[BigSqwert]

Is he still trapped in the Ecuadorian embassy?

I honestly have no clue.

[StrangeSox]

I'm loving the story about Ron Paul calling on the United Nations to confiscate the domain names owned by his supporters.

[Jake]

I'm loving the story about Ron Paul calling on the United Nations to confiscate the domain names owned by his supporters.

 

So many layers of hypocrisy in that one

[farmteam]

I didn't realize there was so much crazy opposition to "smart" meters (see the comments section)

 

http://naperville.patch.com/articles/naper...member-arrested

Surely this is another episode of suburbanites creating their own drama, much like "Patty's husband is running for the School Board, can you believe the nerve? Everyone knows he had an affair with the nanny when the kids were little."

[StrangeSox]

Some of it appears to be "radiowaves give you teh cancer!," some of it is "Agenda 21! UN is taking over!" paranoia and probably with heavy overlaps.

[farmteam]

Some of it appears to be "radiowaves give you teh cancer!," some of it is "Agenda 21! UN is taking over!" paranoia and probably with heavy overlaps.

I just like how some people in the comments said they wanted to sue in Federal Court (and I think the group these two women are a part of already is suing). So, you're saying you're scared of the Big Government of your locality, and are thus trying to seek help through the federal government? Say whaaat.

[StrangeSox]

Previewing his speech for The Weekly Standard’s Stephen F. Hayes, Rubio said he would make the case that the national debt “has a direct impact on unemployment” and that it is hurting job growth:

“The debt has a direct impact on unemployment. Every dollar that is being lent to the government is a dollar that is not being invested in our economy,” he says. “The immediate danger of the debt, and the one that speaks to people in the real world, is the fact that the debt is contributing to the fact that they don’t have a good job.”

 

This is so completely wrong.