Politics As Usual

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Sidd lambasted me yesterday on SS because, in his world. reform of SS only includes the benefits side of the equation.

No, I lambasted you for your utter ignorance in suggesting that SS contributes to the current Bush deficit, or that reforming SS would have any effect on the current structural deficit.

Now, let's hear your brilliant idea for changing the non-benefits side of the equation. Are you proposing further increases in SS payroll taxes? That, after all, is the Republican Way -- increase payroll taxes and pretend that they aren't really taxes so that Reaganites can falsely claim that he cut taxes for the poor and middle class.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Where else would the pork reside than in non-military discretionary spending?

Right -- couldn't possibly be any pork in military spending. Lord knows, no congressman has ever gotten a useless base built in his district or fucked up a perfectly decent military project by insisting that some component be built in his state.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Reagan... cut taxes for the poor and middle class.

I know the guys who were air traffic controllers in '81 were generally paying less taxes by '82.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Yeah, just imagine how well off we'd all be if Social Security money had been invested in the stock market back in 99, when the idea started getting tossed around.


(Nasdaq fifteen thousand!!! Nasdaq fifteen thousand!!! Nasdaq fifte......oh, shit.)

market timing never works. But, even on a quick gov't schedule it wouldn't have started until the most recent bottom of the market in 2001.

But are you saying that you think that each dollar you pay in SS taxes will actually give you a better return in 2040 (or whenever you retire) than each dollar you put in the market today?

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
market timing never works. But, even on a quick gov't schedule it wouldn't have started until the most recent bottom of the market in 2001.

But are you saying that you think that each dollar you pay in SS taxes will actually give you a better return in 2040 (or whenever you retire) than each dollar you put in the market today?

Persons investing in the equities market experience on average steady growth in the value of their investments. Like that chart showing a dollar invested in 1900 yadda yadda --- in the extreme long view, it's a long uphill climb. But that doesn't mean growth is seen within every 10 year span. The problem is, there are downturns on the micro scale, and it's not so much a matter of "is there more money in 2040" as it's a matter of "pretty sad about all the folks who retired between 2018 and 2022, isn't it?" If all the folks reaching retirement age in a particular year see the last 10 years of their retirement savings wiped out, that's pretty disruptive. A lot of downside against the upside.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Persons investing in the equities market experience on average steady growth in the value of their investments. Like that chart showing a dollar invested in 1900 yadda yadda --- in the extreme long view, it's a long uphill climb. But that doesn't mean growth is seen within every 10 year span. The problem is, there are downturns on the micro scale, and it's not so much a matter of "is there more money in 2040" as it's a matter of "pretty sad about all the folks who retired between 2018 and 2022, isn't it?" If all the folks reaching retirement age in a particular year see the last 10 years of their retirement savings wiped out, that's pretty disruptive. A lot of downside against the upside.

I'm sure that those people will understand that, on average, people will get more out of the system as a whole if it is invested in the stock market. They will be OK with giving up something for the common good.

Wait, this "giving up something for the common good" is reminding me of someone's sig line . . .

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Persons investing in the equities market experience on average steady growth in the value of their investments. Like that chart showing a dollar invested in 1900 yadda yadda --- in the extreme long view, it's a long uphill climb. But that doesn't mean growth is seen within every 10 year span. The problem is, there are downturns on the micro scale, and it's not so much a matter of "is there more money in 2040" as it's a matter of "pretty sad about all the folks who retired between 2018 and 2022, isn't it?" If all the folks reaching retirement age in a particular year see the last 10 years of their retirement savings wiped out, that's pretty disruptive. A lot of downside against the upside.

Also, part of the rationale for Social Security is that people will not prudently save for their retirement. Because many such people become public charges, it makes sense to do something about them ex ante.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
But are you saying that you think that each dollar you pay in SS taxes will actually give you a better return in 2040 (or whenever you retire) than each dollar you put in the market today?

Why does that question matter? It's not like the government is taken SS funds and investing them inefficiently in the market. It's an intergenerational transfer payment.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Also, part of the rationale for Social Security is that people will not prudently save for their retirement. Because many such people become public charges, it makes sense to do something about them ex ante.

2.

you can't let the $$ go to the people. the ones who screw up we'll have to pay for otherwise.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

I sure hope we never see this guy on the evening news...

Justice Dept. releases terrorism suspect - to Syria

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
But are you saying that you think that each dollar you pay in SS taxes will actually give you a better return in 2040 (or whenever you retire) than each dollar you put in the market today?

No, but that begs the question.

Do you allow people to control their own "SS" funds? As others have pointed out, that creates the danger that people will screw up ("gee, Iomega has been rising like a rocket ship for months... I'd better jump on.")

Or do you have the feds put the money in the market (as proposed in 99)? Hoo-boy. How do the feds choose which companies and industries to invest in? What happens when the feds want to prosecute a company for criminal conduct, when the feds themselves are a major shareholder?

And in either instance, consider the effect of dumping all SS receipts into the stock market every year. Talk about bubbles.....

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
I sure hope we never see this guy on the evening news...

Justice Dept. releases terrorism suspect - to Syria

Me too. considering we let him go because to try him would require giving him access to sources and thus jeopardize snitches, justice probably had no choice. If you do see him again, remember all the arguments you made about how these guys "rights" are very important. It was those "rights" that made it better to let him go. Penske proposed beheading, but I don't think Bush will sign off on that before the election.

[SlaveNoMore]

ltl/fb
Wait, this "giving up something for the common good" is reminding me of someone's sig line . . .

Funny, the words I can only recall are "We're going to take things away from you ..."

By chance, was Hillary quoting V.I. Lenin or Robert Mugabe?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Why does that question matter? It's not like the government is taken SS funds and investing them inefficiently in the market. It's an intergenerational transfer payment.

It's investing in t-bills at a very low rate of return, albeit with the low risk of non-repayment that all investors face. But it could potentially do better by investing in the private sector.

Let's ask club what he means by privatizing SS. All I'm saying is that whatever goal you want to accomplish through SS, you could probably do more efficiently if you contracted out. Unless that goal is intergenerational transfers of wealth, and even the admin for that could be privatized.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Hank Chinaski

If you do see him again, remember all the arguments you made about how these guys "rights" are very important. It was those "rights" that made it better to let him go.

I'm sorry - I can't remember making those arguments. Could you provide a cite, please?

eta: I thought the secret military tribunals and classified criminal trials were supposed to take care of that. Furthermore, the rights that were in dispute were the minimal level of due process rights to justify continued long-term detention that had nothing to do with release of information.

Penske proposed beheading, but I don't think Bush will sign off on that before the election.

[cheap shot at Bush deleted]