DJ Nozem <djn@thisaddressdoesnotexist.com> wrote in
news:erbb115k0k6nid43g3udfdsblusojbbmgt@4ax.com:

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 14:47:18 +0000 (UTC), Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:

DJ Nozem <djn@thisaddressdoesnotexist.com> wrote in
news:uck811hp1f78uajm8uau83ih4v32k2h44d@4ax.com:

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 04:23:43 +0000 (UTC), Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:

DJ Nozem <djn@thisaddressdoesnotexist.com> wrote in
news:1mo711p0tbjmlm5rg3v410l5851ek8mdnm@4ax.com:

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 20:26:08 +0000 (UTC), Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:

DJ Nozem <djn@thisaddressdoesnotexist.com> wrote in
news:dnu611lq9ru37la0bllgaf4ghngunlj52k@4ax.com:

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 16:36:15 +0000 (UTC), Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:

DJ Nozem <djn@thisaddressdoesnotexist.com> wrote in
news:bgr611lb5mcbl1d6of5ugaqpdna4d91o4k@4ax.com:

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 13:52:23 +0000 (UTC), Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:

"Michelle Malkin" <hypatiab7@comcast.net> wrote in
news:U42dnVMHro6bZY_fRVn-2w@comcast.com:

http://www.democracymeansyou.com/articles/article.php?ID=288

"For every complex problem there is a simple solution which is
*wrong*."

The solution to gay marriage is a good one. So is the solution
to social security (though that's not a real problem). Two out
of six, not bad...

<piggyback> That would be seven. Learn to count, man! </pb>

Social Security is a problem.

Well, if you're a raving anti-government libertarian, I suppose
that you would think social security is a problem in and by
itself, yes. But the program has no qualms.

Yes it does. Even the DemoKKKrats

Smearing your opponents as racists is the in thing to do among
Republicans these days, it seems.

admit that it will start paying out
more than it takes in by 2018.

That means that it takes more money in than it pays out 'til 2018.
A pretty unique feature in Bush' 'balanced' budget. When will the
reconstruction of Iraq start paying for itself, like the neocons
promised? 2300?
2018 is a fake date, by the way, 'cause a lot of money's stacked
in bonds.

Federal treasury bonds. The money isn't "stacked" anywhere, it's
just another obligation on the Treasury.

Yeah, just like the obligations the US has to other nations. How do
you call defaulting on them? Bankruptcy, I guess.

Keep trying, you might eventually learn some economics.

Heh. As if you know any.

I know the difference between a trade deficit and a budget deficit.

That money is earmarked, so it's not 'money the government
lends to itself', like winger central will instruct you to
mindlessly spout. It's money it borrows from people who work hard
and play by the rules.

IOW, more deficit spending.

It's the Republicans doing the deficit spending, in case you haven't
noticed. Last time a Democrat was in office, the US had a budget
surplus.

He had a Republican Congress, as you Democrats are more than happy to
point out when his inaction as Commander in Chief is mentioned.

Clinton learned from his early passive behaviour as CiC. Anyway, just
goes to show that when the Republicans get full control of the
Government, they suddenly lose all of their hawkishness on deficit
spending.

In case you hadn't noticed, there's a war on. We're not just bombing
some helpless Balkan state or tossing a few missiles out to make it look
good.

This means that the program will remain solvent _at least_ until
the 2040s.

At which time it goes bust all at once.

BZZZZT Wrong! The influx will still suffice to pay about 75% of
benefits.

Sorry, but only being able to pay 75% of your current obligations is
still bankruptcy.

Fair enough. But the State can make up for the remainder from the
general taxes.

Leaving that much less for discretionary spending.

And their "solution" sucks. One out of
six.

Raise the cap, the easiest thing imaginable.

To a raving pro-government socialist, tax hikes are always easy.
Too bad, the economy doesn't cooperate. Taxing Peter to pay Paul
is running out of Peters.

Oh, the poor little people who earn over $100,000 per year getting
their taxes raised by the big bad government. Who will save them
from starvation?

That's right, tax the small businessman so that he can't afford to
hire more workers.

Most people in the $100-$150,000 range are middle-management, I'd
guess.

Doesn't change the fact that fewer small businesses would be able to
hire as many workers. And don't forget that being self-employed means
you get hit directly with *twice* the burden instead of your employer
getting hit with half of it.

That doesn't mean that much because the employer pays half/you pay
half just means that your employer will give you a lower salary. (I'm
assuming that the average 'small business owner' doesn't have
employees making over $90,000).

You won't be getting a raise out of it. Duh.

Of course a tax increase can affect hiring policy, but interest rate
hikes will mean that they can't borrow money as easily, which means
they can't expand as easily, and if they have an adjustable interest
it will go up, which also means that fewer small businesses would be
able to hire as many workers as today. So the thing Bush is proposing
will also hurt them.

Not if the market-driven economic policy causes enough growth.

Believe it or not, there are ways to estimate the economic setback
of the measure and adjust it accordingly, to balance things.

And guess what? That's what they're doing when they propose these
changes to the system.

These changes would have massive short-term economic setbacks.

So would raising the payroll tax.

It would be interesting to see a calculation of the differences.

Meaning that you don't have the numbers now.

And it's not
as if the small raise required will do much damage on the short
term. Not nearly as much as the interest rate hikes the FED will
have to make to buffer Bush' trillion dollar reform.
We won't need to keep on raising the cap, because all that is
needed (if anything really is needed) is a cushion for the
boomers.

The rich people (I
believe the cap is around $90,000) who invest the extra money
will get the benefits later on and the program stays solvent for
decades longer at least.

Social Security is a lousy "investment" for anybody making that
much money. Just about anything short of throwing the money in the
furnace pays a better return. So it's not fair. Personal accounts
would at least pay for themselves.

Private accounts don't provide security. They provide risk.
Besides, all the evidence until now shows that a State solution is
more effective.

Hypocrisy becomes you and all the Democratic politicians with their
private market investments.

I don't have private market investments FYI. Having them besides
your social security savings is a good idea, but you have to
recognise the risk.

There are such things as low-risk investments. Even the stock market
carries very little risk of long-term losses.

It will always happen to some people, so it's not security.

You don't want security, you want perfection.

(not that the Bush 'plan' will be real privatisation, from the
vague descriptions he's offered so far. It has all the marks of
big government)

So it's fair, too, unlike means-testing or cutting benefits
across the board, which would rob people of what was sold to
them as an investment.

If they "bought" that they're even dumber than the libruls.

It's about legal security. When the state gives promises, it has
to live up to them. You would of course do away with the rule of
law on account that anyone who believes the government's promises
is stupid and naive anyway, so screw 'em, but I think that's a bad
idea.

Nice strawman you got there.

How is what you're saying different from "the suckers shouldn't have
believed what the government promised them"?

Social Security was not sold as an investment in the first place.

The adjustments for the payroll taxes designed by the Greenspan
commission in the early '80s were sold as an investment to cushion the
retirement of the boomers. Read yr history.

Hogwash. Greenspan knows better than that.

It
isn't an investment, it's a pay-as-you-go system. The government
didn't *promise* anybody anything.

It's insurance. The entire system _is_ a promise. Pay payroll taxes
now, get retirement benefits later.

It's a promise that can't be kept in the present form. Sorry, sonny,
Daddy made a promise that he can't keep.

And anybody who thinks the government can or
will keep a promise like that probably thinks Clinton wasn't a lying
weasel, too.

Like I said, your entire attitude is "screw the suckers".

And you Democrats claim to be "reality based".

Legal
certainty is a linchpin in the modern economic order, doing away
with it is another step down the road to the third world.