Politics: A new beginning

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
Why the richest quintile of the population is getting [SS] that disproportionately come from the working poor is beyond me.

Because they paid for it once? Sure, the payment in/out is a fiction, but there's been a payroll tax for ages with the claim that you'll get that money back when you retire. It's too late to raise the dead who got something for nothing in the 40s and 50s, but to do anything more than limit the growth of social security payments will outrage not only the generation now receiving benefits but the one now paying for them. Shit, I figure I won't see most of what I'm paying in now. I sure as hell won't support it if I don't see any of it at all.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
and he trusts me when I tell him about constitutional interpretation.)

you should realize that this ruins our ability to put much trust in your Father in law's thought generally

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
OK, conservatives -- you voted for him, and this is what he's doing: . . .

A couple of observations. Keep in mind Ty, that you and I are pretty much in agreement on this issue.

1. A debt level of 3.7% of GDP is actually pretty darn healthy. In fact, I believe it is just slightly higher than what is mandated for EU countries in order to participate in the Euro.

2. Projections that far out always not even close.

3. Do you know whether a static or dynamic methodology was used?

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Because they paid for it once?

Bullshit - and not even bullshit on the "technically, it is pay as you go" argument. If they were getting out what they paid in (adjusting for inflation, interest, etc.), the average SS recipient today would be getting about 17% of their current level of benefits.

Reduce SS payments by 80%+, though, and I'll be willing to accept the "I paid for it" whining as justified.

edited to add: Y'all may have noticed that just about nothing gets my blood boiling as much as transfer payments to the elderly. Maybe the wretched and shameful civil-rights violation masquerading most recently as the "defense of marriage act." Farm subsidies are up there, too, but running pretty far behind. When those AARP "I deserve complete medical benefits" ads come on I have been known to shriek aloud in rage at the screen and throw shoes.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
They didn't directly benefit him as a candidate. Stop being obtinate.

I doubt I could do that if I tried. What I mean to say is that (I'm given to understand that) we've got a Supreme Court decision right on point saying that "vote for X" is the same as "X's opponent, Y, is a child molester" is the same as "X supports position Z" is the same as "position Z --- for America's future" during the last n months of the campaign, where n is a known quantity. Once you're there, the distinction lies not in whether an ad saying "position Z --- for America's future" directly benefits candidate X. It's whether a particular legislative enactment is designed to limit corruption or the appearance of corruption of the political process. Or so says McConnell v. FEC.

Bilmore disclosure: I'm generally in favor of limits on timing and expenditure on issue ads because I espouse several political positions that cannot effectively be expressed to a slack-jawed reality TV viewer in a 30 second spot. YMM, of course, V.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
After my response to SAM, indicating exactly what I think represents the true state of current knowledge regarding global warming, you bounce back and just generally sarcastically call me an idiot. But, thank goodness, you're not arguing with me, and you say you know little about the subject, but the consensus scientists have spoken, and so who the F am I to disagree?

I'm changing my mind. I would have to be on something far stronger than Dramamine.

If you insist on responding to straw men instead of what's actually in my posts, get yourself some scotch and have some fun.

If you were to relate something about the science that someone other than you and BRC could follow, that might be interesting. But your summary rejections of the science make for pretty dull reading.

I don't recall calling you an idiot. You clearly are not an idiot.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
you should realize that this ruins our ability to put much trust in your Father in law's thought generally

Ty said stepfather, not father-in-law. I have it on good authority that Ty's father-in-law does not put much stock in Ty's con law, but that may be because he is Clarence Thomas.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
I doubt I could do that if I tried. What I mean to say is that (I'm given to understand that) we've got a Supreme Court decision right on point saying that "vote for X" is the same as "X's opponent, Y, is a child molester" is the same as "X supports position Z" is the same as "position Z --- for America's future" during the last n months of the campaign, where n is a known quantity. Once you're there, the distinction lies not in whether an ad saying "position Z --- for America's future" directly benefits candidate X. It's whether a particular legislative enactment is designed to limit corruption or the appearance of corruption of the political process. Or so says McConnell v. FEC.

Bilmore disclosure: I'm generally in favor of limits on timing and expenditure on issue ads because I espouse several political positions that cannot effectively be expressed to a slack-jawed reality TV viewer in a 30 second spot. YMM, of course, V.

That's all good and well, but I was not arguing illegality, only the lack of impropriety. I do not think there is anythin unseemly about this.

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by sgtclub
A debt level of 3.7% of GDP is actually pretty darn healthy. In fact, I believe it is just slightly higher than what is mandated for EU countries in order to participate in the Euro.

True enough, but:

3% of the US GDP is, in real terms, just so huge that the impact on the world economy (and possible feedback into our own) is a lot more dangerous, and

3% per annum isn't as alarming as the cumulative debt, which certainly isn't approaching Japan levels but is still pretty sizeable (and see "really big in real terms" stuff above).

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by sgtclub
A couple of observations. Keep in mind Ty, that you and I are pretty much in agreement on this issue.

1. A debt level of 3.7% of GDP is actually pretty darn healthy. In fact, I believe it is just slightly higher than what is mandated for EU countries in order to participate in the Euro.

2. Projections that far out always not even close.

3. Do you know whether a static or dynamic methodology was used?

re: 1, "debt level" and "annual deficit" are two quite different things. I think they were saying "annual deficit" not "overall gross debt."

But I didn't read the article.

Namaste.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
Bullshit - and not even bullshit on the "technically, it is pay as you go" argument. If they were getting out what they paid in (adjusting for inflation, interest, etc.), the average SS recipient today would be getting about 17% of their current level of benefits.

cite, please, because that doesn't accord with the estimated 2% rate of return that current participants are estimated to get (which is, concedely, below teh rate those now retiring are getting), unless you're talking nominal, not real, dollars.

ETA: and, cite (sizable pdf) , at page 19 (of the report) or 28 (of the pdf), table 3, which estimates teh rate of return for a person born in 1925 as 4.8%. That's good, but not outstanding. I expect that I'll get that return in my IRA, and that I'll put in somewhere south of 30% of what I ultimately take out (before taxes).

Overall, I don't have a problem with ending transfer payments to the elderly. But I wouldn't dress it up as a restriction on SS benefits. I'd simply say FDR fucked us all big-time, and to fix the mess, as a country we're going to stop SS taxes now, make up the revenue through a national sales tax, and pay off all retirees at their current benefit levels and cash out everyone else at a reduced rate over a 20 year period, paying into a new IRA. Or some such thing, which I'm only now thinking about, so it's probably a sucky idea.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
re: 1, "debt level" and "annual deficit" are two quite different things. I think they were saying "annual deficit" not "overall gross debt."

But I didn't read the article.

Namaste.

Agreed. But in any event, the more pertinent number would be the yearly debt service requirements as a percentage of gross tax revenues for the year and subsequent years.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Agreed. But in any event, the more pertinent number would be the yearly debt service requirements as a percentage of gross tax revenues for the year and subsequent years.

Oh please. I mean, that's obvious, but that's like 1 meeel-yun times more difficult to estimate than GDP and shit because the tax rate is arbitrary.

Nanasty.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Oh please. I mean, that's obvious, but that's like 1 meeel-yun times more difficult to estimate than GDP and shit because the tax rate is arbitrary.

Nanasty.

I hope your kidding.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
If you insist on responding to straw men instead of what's actually in my posts, get yourself some scotch and have some fun.

I may do that anyway, but I'll warn you first this time.

If you were to relate something about the science that someone other than you and BRC could follow, that might be interesting. But your summary rejections of the science make for pretty dull reading.

Ah, sorry, I misunderstood. I thought you were deriding me because I was wrong, not because you couldn't understand what I was talking about. Maybe I do too much shorthand on what I expect others to know.

You clearly are not an idiot.

Sweeping generalizations are seldom safe. Give me four hours . . .