Re: social security trustees' report released two months late

Rumpelstiltskin wrote:

( previous post snipped-follow thread )

I don't see why people collecting SS should get all the pain while
the thieves who stole so much of the money in the first place should
be shielded as much as possible from the pain they created. Screw
"the economy" If "the economy" just means rich people staying rich,
then I don't have much use for it. People can buy Volkswagen instead of Mercedes for a while, at least until everybody has a decent
standard of living, especially the people who paid insurance to that end all their working lives.

I agree that the people collecting Social Security should not be the ones to shoulder all the pain. In fact, I believe they should not shoulder ANY pain. And I would hardly characterize the irresponsible actions of politicians as 'stealing.' They were just doing what spineless politicians do: Trying to satisfy everyone without ever having to make any hard decisions. And the economy is not just rich people staying rich; it's about keeping Joe Sixpack working at a job that pays him a middle class salary. Joe Sixpack doesn't buy a Mercedes, but he doesn't even buy his Ford if he's unemployed. If you raise taxes so high, you're going to hurt not only businesses, but those working stiffs as well. And since the increase in taxes will NOT be going to provide services to people, such as building roads, etc., instead going to retire debt, the public will additionally suffer. The Public can take small amounts of belt-tightening, but not large doses.

You touched on something above that's one of my bugbears: taxes
in the USA. They're not as high as taxes many other places, but in
Europe one has National Health and better social programs. In the USA, I find it hard to see what the taxes are doing for the people.

The reactionaries have one valid point. Raising taxes never produced anything. Economic growth does that. In Europe, they have settled into a status quo and accepted essentially a second class economic status. They have relatively little productive industries and while their high taxes do indeed provide services for their citizenry, which we don't have, they do tend to create a burden which I believe, ultimately works against their welfare. Obviously, they don't think so, for they continue to levy the taxes. And obviously, the population doesn't care, because they continue to get the services. Odd.

Now, that doesn't mean that we can't find some middle ground. We still have the semblance of an economic plant, which we could still use if we'd get off this nonsense of the free market economy, which is the shortsighted mantra of the reactionaries. The one thing the U.S. has in its favor is that it still has the market for the consumer goods that are produced. We don't use that club to leverage our interests.

I would like to see the lobbying establishment killed off in the
USA. That institution seems to me a source of a great deal of
needless waste, and anti-democratic corruption.

A free society has to have access to Government. Unfortunately, access tends to generate influence peddling. We need more stringent laws to keep our politicians honest. After all, if the politicians weren't buying, the lobbyists would have no audience.

Eventually, we have to retire the public debt or devalue. I don't
know if the public debt can be retired at this point, it certainly
won't happen with the republicans in office, the way they've been
going starting with and including Reagan. On the other hand, it seems to me that most of the rest of the world is living the same
fantasy that debt doesn't really hurt.

I agree that we won't retire the debt with the Republicans in Office. But that is very likely to change soon.


( snip )

Cutting down SS means that people are going to suffer too. It's
not a question of "are" versus "are not", of course, it's a question of "who" and "how". I'm tired of SS being attacked as if it's the problem - it's not so much the problem as the victim, but there seems little concern expressed for taking a pound of flesh from the
sources that victimized SS. Any such responsibility gets swallowed up into the fog of musings about "the economy", which doesn't
seem to mean the welfare of people who paid into SS in good faith.

I'm not in favor of cutting Social Security. I'm just a realist and I understand the dilemma that we now have with regard to solving the problem, which will only get worse the longer we wait.

I don't think we should just slough off the "dusty old IOU's". I agree that something needs to be done for the future, but not nearly so much as is advertised by those who think of the money
already paid in to SS as "dusty old IOU's". I'm personally opposed
to raising the SS taxes, which leaves me with raising the retirement
age - not an attractive prospect to me, but not as bad as
alternatives.

Unfortunately, given my position, I am inclined, unfortunately, to agree with Jeff about that characterization. Those I.O.U.'s will never be paid. And that's the problem.

I guess we could, for a while, keep collecting money from people indefinitely with the promise it was going to help them out later, then continue to renege when it came time for them to get the benefits they'd been promised.

That's the Republican way.

Too bad for them, but it would

sustain "the economy" (in the new sense) a little longer until the wheels of progress got to the point they had to go so fast that the
materials could no longer sustain the acceleration, and everything
flew apart at once because its safety margin had been cut so
thin it could no longer be of any help.

Alice in Wonderland. Run faster and faster, just to stay in the same place.

That's the history of our politicians solutions to the problem. We will have a similar one which will only defer the problem for another few years.

It's a fairly recent problem, starting with Reagan. We did, true,
run up big debt for WWII, but that was for a vital reason. Now we're running up debt for no good reason.

Unfortunately, as much as I would like to blame Reactionary Ronnie, for this one I can't. It's simply a case of demographics, which became noticeable on his watch.

Things may have gone too far now. People talk about how the
deficit is not much compared to the GNP, but, oddly enough the
roller coaster shows no ability even to slow down the acceleration into heretofore unplumbed depths.. Hopefully, things
won't shatter into complete collapse until after I'm dead. Then,
après moi, la déluge.

Rumple, just wait until China gets tired of purchasing our debt.

Oh yeah, I've mentioned that myself, as have others. Sometimes
I look toward China and see a cat waiting at a mousehole for the most promising moment to pounce.

I don't consider it pouncing. It will strictly be a business decision.

That day is coming very soon. We are a nation living on credit. Our life styles are created NOT because we are a productive country, but because we now have the largest consumer debt ever. When we can no longer afford to pay the finance charges on the money our credit cards lend us, you'll see a very rapid decline in our standard of living. You see the handwriting on the wall now; the gap between rich and middle-class and poor widening frighteningly fast.

I may have run my personal finances stupidly, in a sense, by NOT
getting into debt. If I eventually had to pay my debts, but with devalued money, I'd in a sense have come out ahead. In another sense, though, I wouldn't come out ahead because I wouldn't have
had peace of mind while I was living in debt. Maybe some people
can cope with being constantly in debt, but I can't even cope with
TV commercials, or with the telephone ringing more than twice a day.

You're not going to be so lucky as to be able to pay your debts with devalued money. The moneyed class will never permit it.

Problem is, the only real 'saving' would take place if we continued to run surpluses and thus, exchange the 'dusty old IOU's' for real dollars, which could then have been invested to provide some real money growth. But SCOTUS took that option off the table when they appointed Bush president in 2000, and the voters further continued to insure that option would never see the table when they elected Bush in 2004.

Unfortunately, I must concur with Jeff's sarcastic pessimism.



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Obama
    ... I want to see income taxes on high incomes raised to pre- ... The middle class is more likely to spend the money in the economy as opposed to investing it, which IMHO, will not have the desired effect on growth as its proponents say. ... Saving the dollar is not an immediate concern in a list of priorities, and will come when we put our economic house in order, which obama has absolutely no clue as to how to achieve. ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: social security trustees report released two months late
    ... They were just doing what spineless politicians do: Trying to satisfy everyone without ever having to make any hard decisions. ... And the economy is not just rich people staying rich; it's about keeping Joe Sixpack working at a job that pays him a middle class salary. ... And since the increase in taxes will NOT be going to provide services to people, such as building roads, etc., instead going to retire debt, the public will additionally suffer. ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: Obama
    ... I want to see income taxes on high incomes raised to pre- ... The middle class is more likely to spend the money in the economy as ... and will come when we put our economic house in order, ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: OT: "Why You Should Be Screaming for Higher Taxes"
    ... During World War II, then under Truman, Eisenhower, and Kennedy, our upper marginal tax rates were between 88-92%. ... Do keep in mind that we are talking about higher taxes on the richest members of society, ... During a depression or recession, the point where taxes are increased marks the point when the economy begins its recovery: 1932 under Hoover, Roosevelt's second round of tax hikes in 1940, the first president Bush's tax hike, followed by the Clinton tax hike. ... If, at the same time, government spending declines, increased revenue will catch up with spending and the debt will be paid off. ...
    (rec.arts.mystery)
  • OT: "Why You Should Be Screaming for Higher Taxes"
    ... US economic growth has been strongest when our taxes have been high. ... During World War II, then under Truman, Eisenhower, and Kennedy, our upper marginal tax rates were between 88-92%. ... During a depression or recession, the point where taxes are increased marks the point when the economy begins its recovery: 1932 under Hoover, Roosevelt's second round of tax hikes in 1940, the first president Bush's tax hike, followed by the Clinton tax hike. ... If, at the same time, government spending declines, increased revenue will catch up with spending and the debt will be paid off. ...
    (rec.arts.mystery)
Loading