Languish.org

This is not a question about who would get nominated or who you would vote for, but who do you think has a better chance to win with Obama if he was nominated.

Zero for both, because I just don't see either one ever running with Obama.  I don't see any Republican running with Obama, for that matter.

Assuming you mean running against Obama, Romney IMO.

Quote from: DGuller on September 08, 2011, 04:59:24 PM
Zero for both, because I just don't see either one ever running with Obama.  I don't see any Republican running with Obama, for that matter.

:rolleyes:

I would think Romney, but there's an outside chance that the narrative of Perry's magical stewardship of the Texas economy could gain traction with swing voters.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 08, 2011, 05:03:08 PM
I would think Romney, but there's an outside chance that the narrative of Perry's magical stewardship of the Texas economy could gain traction with swing voters.

My bet would be Romney too but that's why I split the vote for Americans and non-Americans as I wondering if that perception may be different "on the ground". It seems that so far the perception is similar.

I think Romney would be more palatable to independents, simply because they might not believe all the whacky things he says to court the Republican primary voters.  Ultimately, Perry will turn out to be Sarah Palin with a penis, and someone who can scare enough people into having some sense in the voting booth.

Quote from: DGuller on September 08, 2011, 05:09:14 PM
I think Romney would be more palatable to independents, simply because they might not believe all the whacky things he says to court the Republican primary voters.  Ultimately, Perry will turn out to be Sarah Palin with a penis, and someone who can scare enough people into having some sense in the voting booth.

Well, the people elected Bush junior. The question is if they have forgot by now.

Quote from: Martinus on September 08, 2011, 05:11:07 PM
Well, the people elected Bush junior. The question is if they have forgot by now.

Bush Jr. was elected when the country was at its high and feeling invincible, and wanted to test the limits of its invincibility.  The situation was entirely different in 2008, and will be much the same in 2012.

Bush Jr is a likable sort of guy with a sunny disposition; he ran on a platform of inclusiveness and "compassionate conservatism".

Perry is none of these things.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 08, 2011, 05:03:08 PM
I would think Romney, but there's an outside chance that the narrative of Perry's magical stewardship of the Texas economy could gain traction with swing voters.

This. Me starting to like Perry.
Is he anti-semite?

Quote from: Martinus on September 08, 2011, 05:11:07 PM

Quote from: DGuller on September 08, 2011, 05:09:14 PM
I think Romney would be more palatable to independents, simply because they might not believe all the whacky things he says to court the Republican primary voters.  Ultimately, Perry will turn out to be Sarah Palin with a penis, and someone who can scare enough people into having some sense in the voting booth.

Well, the people elected Bush junior. The question is if they have forgot by now.

Bush The Younger was the best President since Reagan.

Quote from: Siege on September 08, 2011, 06:49:15 PM
This. Me starting to like Perry.

...What in that post is pro-Perry?

Quote from: Martinus on September 08, 2011, 05:11:07 PM

Quote from: DGuller on September 08, 2011, 05:09:14 PM
I think Romney would be more palatable to independents, simply because they might not believe all the whacky things he says to court the Republican primary voters.  Ultimately, Perry will turn out to be Sarah Palin with a penis, and someone who can scare enough people into having some sense in the voting booth.

Bush Jr. is a socialist compared to Perry.

Well, the people elected Bush junior. The question is if they have forgot by now.

Personally I prefer Perry to Romney, given Romney's history of dog abuse and general weirdness.  I think they seem to balance each other out as general election candidates.

Quote from: Valmy on September 08, 2011, 06:50:40 PM

Quote from: Siege on September 08, 2011, 06:49:15 PM
This. Me starting to like Perry.

...What in that post is pro-Perry?

Why are you so liberal?
Don't you have any shame?

Quote from: Siege on September 08, 2011, 06:54:12 PM
Why are you so liberal?
Don't you have any shame?

Be less of a retard Seeb.  I was dissin Perry.

Yeah, Siegy is running his retarded schtick into the ground.

Quote from: Sheilbh on September 08, 2011, 06:53:36 PM
Personally I prefer Perry to Romney, given Romney's history of dog abuse and general weirdness.  I think they seem to balance each other out as general election candidates.

:huh:  You think Romney is the guy with the history of "general weirdness?"

Perry most reminds me of the "Duke of Bridgewater" from Huck Finn.  He is shrewd when it comes to conning people into believing that his idiotically simplistic solutions are based fundamental truths, but without a true conviction to his name.

Quote from: grumbler on September 08, 2011, 08:02:46 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on September 08, 2011, 06:53:36 PM
Personally I prefer Perry to Romney, given Romney's history of dog abuse and general weirdness.  I think they seem to balance each other out as general election candidates.

:huh:  You think Romney is the guy with the history of "general weirdness?"

Perry most reminds me of the "Duke of Bridgewater" from Huck Finn.  He is shrewd when it comes to conning people into believing that his idiotically simplistic solutions are based fundamental truths, but without a true conviction to his name.

:contract:  :yes:

romney would shake shelf's hand and call him best friend if it meant a vote. perry would put him up against the wall for being a sodomite. i don't think perry should be the choice for anyone but christian fundamentalists

Uhh..hyperbole?

Quote from: grumbler on September 08, 2011, 08:02:46 PM
Perry most reminds me of the "Duke of Bridgewater" from Huck Finn.  He is shrewd when it comes to conning people into believing that his idiotically simplistic solutions are based fundamental truths, but without a true conviction to his name.

It warms my heart to see people getting it.

Quote from: LaCroix on September 08, 2011, 08:17:43 PM
romney would shake shelf's hand and call him best friend if it meant a vote. perry would put him up against the wall for being a sodomite. i don't think perry should be the choice for anyone but christian fundamentalists

And, you know, that's Romney's problem.

I'm still very sad Huck didn't run :(

Quote from: Sheilbh on September 08, 2011, 08:40:52 PM

Quote from: LaCroix on September 08, 2011, 08:17:43 PM
romney would shake shelf's hand and call him best friend if it meant a vote. perry would put him up against the wall for being a sodomite. i don't think perry should be the choice for anyone but christian fundamentalists

And, you know, that's Romney's problem.

I'm still very sad Huck didn't run :(

He's to busy making money.

Quote from: Sheilbh on September 08, 2011, 08:40:52 PMAnd, you know, that's Romney's problem.

i like that about him. it means he's at least a little bit sensible, and wouldn't arrive in office with a detestable ideology (extreme left or right)

Quote from: Sheilbh on September 08, 2011, 06:53:36 PM
Personally I prefer Perry to Romney, given Romney's history of dog abuse and general weirdness.  I think they seem to balance each other out as general election candidates.

What's up with so many fags being fascinated with people who would put them in jail or in a death camp. You know that Perry was against Lawrence v. Texas?

Quote from: LaCroix on September 08, 2011, 08:49:19 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on September 08, 2011, 08:40:52 PMAnd, you know, that's Romney's problem.

i like that about him. it means he's at least a little bit sensible, and wouldn't arrive in office with a detestable ideology (extreme left or right)

Yeah, he strikes me as the most reasonable of the Republican front runners.

Romney's weaknesses- health care, flip floppiness, crypto-Christianity

Perry's weakness- scaring off the middle

Overall, I'd rate Romney's chances better. The public is bored with hearing about health care, so him being less outspoken on the issue won't cost much. The Republican base is going to show up to vote out Obama, so the energized base argument doesn't have much traction.

That being said, in the absence of major fuckup by Perry or something equally groundbreaking, I'm pretty sure GOPtards are going to nominate him over Romney.

At the moment Romney, but if Perry manages to survive the primary campaign my guess is that he'd have a decent chance in the general. For all the recurrent talk about GOP fundamentalism, they generally choose the guy most likely to win.

Speaking of Rick Perry, garbo, if you are reading this, have you donated to Stephen Colbert's "Rick PArry superpack"? I thought I saw your name scroll on the screen. :P

Edit: And to preempt your snarkiness, yes I am aware there may be more people named like you in the US, hence the question.

Colbert isn't funny.

What the flying fuck if Timmay makes a half as bad grammatic error as the thread title, Marty is the first to stomp on him.

"with" Obama?

English motherfucker, do you speak it?!

Quote from: Tamas on September 09, 2011, 07:55:11 AM
What the flying fuck if Timmay makes a half as bad grammatic error as the thread title, Marty is the first to stomp on him.

"with" Obama?

English motherfucker, do you speak it?!

:lol:  Agree.  It is always funny to see the 'tards jump on someone else for doing what they themselves do all the time, and Marti is 'Tard #1 in this regard.

Quote from: Martinus on September 09, 2011, 01:37:56 AMWhat's up with so many fags being fascinated with people who would put them in jail or in a death camp. You know that Perry was against Lawrence v. Texas?

And for that reason I wouldn't vote for him.  However I do actually think Perry's an interesting guy ideologically, I love his idea of ultra-federalism, including on gay issues.  I suppose I'd rather a guy who may dislike the gays but will be honest about it (and doesn't care what you do in New York) than a guy who will feign dislike/like of the gays depending on what he thinks the audience wants to hear. 

Romney's entire campaign is based on saying things as right-wing as most of the other candidates but winking at the DC elite and the press while he's doing it. 

Quote from: Sheilbh on September 09, 2011, 12:25:18 PM

Romney's entire campaign is based on saying things as right-wing as most of the other candidates but winking at the DC elite and the press while he's doing it.

That's how you win.


Although the GOP has had some success in the past running away from the middle and charging up their base where the Dems generally can't do that except in the safest districts.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 09, 2011, 12:27:54 PMThat's how you win.

Maybe.  But I think the definition of right-wing right now is significantly more insane than it was in, say, 2008 or 2000 and the Republican base are more angry and active than before.  It's like watching Scoop Jackson try to compete with McGovern on McGovern's terms - or perhaps George Romney feigning to be Goldwater.  Something on that scale is less a campaign strategy than an enormous character flaw.

Safe money is obviously on Romney at this point, but I don't honestly know how Perry would be viewed by swing voters in a general election.  So far it doesn't seem like he's done anything to significantly poison himself yet (despite the hopes of many Dems and pundits) and no character assassination attempts have 'stuck'.  We may have to see whether anyone on SNL can play him convincingly :D

On the flip side, I'm okay with him personally but I don't see anything particularly positive about him yet that will resonate with swing voters.

Romney, populist reasons.  Honestly, the "silent majority" tends to dislike the caricature of an American that Perry represents- similar to why Palin lost it for McCain even among people who had little to no intellectual or emotional investment in the issues she posted opinions on.

Quote from: Sheilbh on September 09, 2011, 12:35:02 PM
But I think the definition of right-wing right now is significantly more insane than it was in, say, 2008 or 2000 and the Republican base are more angry and active than before. 

What is the definition now & how does it differ from 2000 or 2008?

Quote from: derspiess on September 09, 2011, 01:47:49 PM
What is the definition now & how does it differ from 2000 or 2008?

You think the party's more or less the same as it was?

I'd argue the big shift could be that a large part of the Republican party's suporters seem to hate all that they associate with the 'establishment' (I think the Tea Party are like a right-wing 60s anti-war/radical movement).  This is after all the second very open Republican primary.  My understanding of the Republicans is that they tend to have those less than the Democrats and the party establishment historically coalesced around a candidate pretty quickly.

But to give a couple of specifics Romney was boasting about Romneycare as an example of his governing experience and a solution to the healthcare problem, indeed all candidates treated healthcare as a major issue and thought there was a problem that needed a solution, so they all had a policy.  In 2000 the primary was won by a compassionate conservative (especially on immigration) with a signature education policy promising a humble foreign policy.

Unless the Republicans nominate someone crazy, which is possible and could be Perry, the election will be a referendum on Obama. I think that if we get into 2012 and Perry hasn't done something stupid or started to be caricatured as extreme, his chances won't be much different than Romney's.

Perry is a complete douchebag. 

Quote from: Tamas on September 09, 2011, 07:55:11 AM
What the flying fuck if Timmay makes a half as bad grammatic error as the thread title, Marty is the first to stomp on him.

"with" Obama?

English motherfucker, do you speak it?!

Unlike Timmay I am not a native speaker. He is free to comment on my bad usage of Polish.

Just heard on CNN that Romney is beating up Perry for calling Social Security a Ponzi scheme.

Raises Perry a notch or two in my book.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 12, 2011, 12:18:25 PM
Just heard on CNN that Romney is beating up Perry for calling Social Security a Ponzi scheme.

Raises Perry a notch or two in my book.

Really?  Being slanderously factually incorrect raises someone a notch or two in your book?  Is it just me, or did Yi go Hansie on us in the last month or so?

Quote from: DGuller on September 12, 2011, 12:33:24 PM
Really?

Really!

QuoteBeing slanderously factually incorrect raises someone a notch or two in your book?

:hmm:  No.

QuoteIs it just me, or did Yi go Hansie on us in the last month or so?

Not just you.  Money has been calling me a Tea Bagger for much longer than a month, and Raz has been calling me a Kool Aid drinker for longer than that.  You're in exalted company.

Quote from: DGuller on September 12, 2011, 12:33:24 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 12, 2011, 12:18:25 PM
Just heard on CNN that Romney is beating up Perry for calling Social Security a Ponzi scheme.

Raises Perry a notch or two in my book.

Really?  Being slanderously factually incorrect raises someone a notch or two in your book?  Is it just me, or did Yi go Hansie on us in the last month or so?

I think Yi had the misfortune of being born wealthy and always has his eye out for the government or poor people taking his hard earned cash.

While the term "ponzi scheme" is a rather heated term, I don't see how it is 'factually inaccurate'.  Payments out of SS are funded by people making new current contributions, exactly like a ponzi scheme.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 12, 2011, 12:38:43 PM
Not just you.  Money has been calling me a Tea Bagger for much longer than a month, and Raz has been calling me a Kool Aid drinker for longer than that.  You're in exalted company.

The thing is, it seemed like you were getting more even-handed and were becoming a moderate Republican in the last few years.  However, in the last month or two, for whatever reason you rebounded to the right so hard that Hansie would probably think you're a nutcase.

Really, cheering people on for calling Social Security a Ponzi scheme, or saying that you could easily see a Democrat not reacting to 9/11, is just dedicated idiocy.  You can do better, much better.

Quote from: Barrister on September 12, 2011, 12:45:32 PM
While the term "ponzi scheme" is a rather heated term, I don't see how it is 'factually inaccurate'.  Payments out of SS are funded by people making new current contributions, exactly like a ponzi scheme.

Maybe you don't, but someone who AFAIK is educated in economics like Yi should.  There is more to Ponzi scheme than just paying from current contributors to past contributors.  One somewhat material difference between pay-as-you-go systems and Ponzi schemes is that pay-as-you-go systems do not require ever-increasing numbers of participants to sustain themselves.

Quote from: DGuller on September 12, 2011, 12:55:03 PM
Maybe you don't, but someone who AFAIK is educated in economics like Yi should.  There is more to Ponzi scheme than just paying from current contributors to past contributors.  One somewhat material difference between pay-as-you-go systems and Ponzi schemes is that pay-as-you-go systems do not require ever-increasing numbers of participants to sustain themselves.

A Ponzi scheme relies on payments from new members to pay inflated returns to previous members, and lures new members with the promise of the same inflated returns that previous members are recieving.  A Ponzi scheme doesn't necessarily have to lure ever-increasing numbers of participants (although it certainly helps prolong it).

One of the reasons I have such a beef with Social Security is that I read a very thought provoking article on the politics of Social Security a long time ago.  The article pointed out that there are two demographic humps in the US, the baby boomers and the children of baby boomers.  So politics dictates that you don't cut benefits while the boomers are stll alive, voting, and recieving benefits.  You cut benefits when the generation in between the two hits retirement age, when boomer children are the ones paying benefits and the boomers are dead.   That in-between generation includes me.  The athors of the article were proposing the creation of an advocacy group along the lines of AARP to protect the interests of my generation, but obviously that came to nothing.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 12, 2011, 01:11:24 PM

Quote from: DGuller on September 12, 2011, 12:55:03 PM
Maybe you don't, but someone who AFAIK is educated in economics like Yi should.  There is more to Ponzi scheme than just paying from current contributors to past contributors.  One somewhat material difference between pay-as-you-go systems and Ponzi schemes is that pay-as-you-go systems do not require ever-increasing numbers of participants to sustain themselves.

A Ponzi scheme relies on payments from new members to pay inflated returns to previous members, and lures new members with the promise of the same inflated returns that previous members are recieving.  A Ponzi scheme doesn't necessarily have to lure ever-increasing numbers of participants (although it certainly helps prolong it).

One of the reasons I have such a beef with Social Security is that I read a very thought provoking article on the politics of Social Security a long time ago.  The article pointed out that there are two demographic humps in the US, the baby boomers and the children of baby boomers.  So politics dictates that you don't cut benefits while the boomers are stll alive, voting, and recieving benefits.  You cut benefits when the generation in between the two hits retirement age, when boomer children are the ones paying benefits and the boomers are dead.   That in-between generation includes me.  The athors of the article were proposing the creation of an advocacy group along the lines of AARP to protect the interests of my generation, but obviously that came to nothing.

Oh, you read an article.  I see.

 :lol:

The reason you shouldn't cut the benefits of baby boomers isn't the politics it's the basic fairness.  They've been paying for 40-50 years on a basic assumption of what they'll get.  It's simply wrong for the state to be leading them along for all that time and then cut the benefits they'll receive right before retirement and it's unfair to do that before they have time to get an alternative.

Quote from: Sheilbh on September 12, 2011, 01:43:31 PM
The reason you shouldn't cut the benefits of baby boomers isn't the politics it's the basic fairness.  They've been paying for 40-50 years on a basic assumption of what they'll get.  It's simply wrong for the state to be leading them along for all that time and then cut the benefits they'll receive right before retirement and it's unfair to do that before they have time to get an alternative.

But that's where the "ponzi scheme" analogy works.  Sure, the boomers have assumed that after paying in for 30-40 years, but that money isn't sitting in a bank account - it was used to pay part retirees.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 12, 2011, 12:38:43 PM
Not just you.  Money has been calling me a Tea Bagger for much longer than a month, and Raz has been calling me a Kool Aid drinker for longer than that.  You're in exalted company.

I too shat on your head and I don't even get a mention.

We used to be so close Yi. WHAT HAPPENED???  :cry:

Quote from: Sheilbh on September 12, 2011, 01:43:31 PM
The reason you shouldn't cut the benefits of baby boomers isn't the politics it's the basic fairness.  They've been paying for 40-50 years on a basic assumption of what they'll get.  It's simply wrong for the state to be leading them along for all that time and then cut the benefits they'll receive right before retirement and it's unfair to do that before they have time to get an alternative.

Is making a small cut to their benefits any worse than me not seeing a penny of my contributions when I retire? 

I just want some way to opt out.  Keep the money I've paid into the system up to this point-- I won't expect any SocSec benefits when I reach retirement age-- and let me put the money I'm being taxed for SocSec into a private account. 

Quote from: Barrister on September 12, 2011, 01:47:06 PMBut that's where the "ponzi scheme" analogy works.  Sure, the boomers have assumed that after paying in for 30-40 years, but that money isn't sitting in a bank account - it was used to pay part retirees.

The UK's not got any system like social security, though we've got a contributory principle; over here the costs of pensions are mostly met out of government revenue.  There's no idea that you're paying into your pension when you're paying national insurance, you're paying a tax and you'll get a pension at the end of it.

But what you're saying doesn't change my opinion that the state's shouldn't cut the benefits of the boomers because they don't have time to set up private schemes that would safely cover the loss of what they'll expect to receive.  Any shortfall should be met by central funds and the scheme redesigned to be sustainable for other generations.

Historical Social Security tax rates (double it to include employer contribution).

1937-49 1.000
1950      1.500
1951-53 1.500
1954-56 2.000
1957-58 2.250
1959      2.500
1960-61 3.000
1962       3.125
1963-65  3.625
1966       3.850
1967       3.900
1968      3.800
1969-70 4.200
1971-72 4.600
1973      4.850
1974-77 4.950
1978      5.050
1979-80 5.080
1981      5.350
1982-83 5.400
1984 a   5.700
1986-87 5.700
1988-89 6.060
1990      6.200

As you can see Shelf boomers throughout their earning lifetimes paid a noticeably lower rate than the people they expect to support them in retirement.

You can say it would be unfair to cut benefits now, but how is it fairer to raise rates?

Zoupa: you didn't get a mention because you're a plain vanilla psycho stalker, whereas DGuller was talking specifically about the label of political nut.

That's not true. I usually like your posts or find them funny, when it's not about your right wing soap box.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 12, 2011, 02:01:05 PMYou can say it would be unfair to cut benefits now, but how is it fairer to raise rates?

Because cutting benefits now is effectively retroactive which is wrong whether it's applied to cutting benefits or raising (or cutting taxes). 

Quote from: Sheilbh on September 12, 2011, 02:04:18 PM
Because cutting benefits now is effectively retroactive which is wrong whether it's applied to cutting benefits or raising (or cutting taxes).

Wut?  It would not be fair to cut benefits and it would not be fair to raise tax rates? :huh:

Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 12, 2011, 02:06:27 PM
Wut?  It would not be fair to cut benefits and it would not be fair to raise tax rates? :huh:

Retroactively, yes.

Quote from: Sheilbh on September 12, 2011, 02:07:23 PM
Retroactively, yes.

Gotcha.

Well, by that logic it seems the earliest we could contemplate cutting benefits is 2059, when people who are currently 17 start retiring.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 12, 2011, 02:13:00 PMWell, by that logic it seems the earliest we could contemplate cutting benefits is 2059, when people who are currently 17 start retiring.

I think it's fine to re-design the system, which won't necessarily mean cutting benefits, for future generations and, in effect, phase in any reforms.  Younger people will know that they (and I think probably do know) they won't be getting social security as is and the younger they are means they can make plans to deal with that.

I think cutting benefits for people who've been expecting the system to work a certain way and paying in for their working lives is simply arbitrary and unfair.

Yi, you're skirting the number one fallacy about Social Security.  Per the automated recording I heard almost daily at my last job, "Social Security is not an individual retirement account.  The money you pay to Social Security today goes into the Social Security Trust Fund to pay benefits today."

The "shelf boomers" paid a lower rate because they were supporting the generation before them, which cost less to support.  It's a wealth redistribution mechanism, sure, but it has nothing to do with "inflated numbers."  The rates are higher because the cost of living is higher and there are more people to cover.  Today, today, today.  There's no promise of a return, which is kind of a necessary element of a ponzi scheme.

Quote from: derspiess on September 12, 2011, 01:56:21 PM
Is making a small cut to their benefits any worse than me not seeing a penny of my contributions when I retire? 

That's a false dilemma.  The only way for you to not at the very least get back the majority of your contributions is if criminally misinformed people like you elect policians that would "reform" Social Security away.

Quote from: DGuller on September 12, 2011, 02:25:34 PMThat's a false dilemma.  The only way for you to not at the very least get back the majority of your contributions is if criminally misinformed people like you elect policians that would "reform" Social Security away.

Yeah.  The idea that any developed Western economy will end up dropping state pension, in whatever form they're provided, is simply absurd.  We may not get what current retirees are getting, but we'll get something.

Actually, I too have a beef with social security, and that it's an expensive cultural artifact; it comes from a time when a blue-collar worker had a "shef life" that fell way short of his life expectancy.  In addition to relatively recent legislation about "age discrimination" in the workplace, there are some more flexible options for an older individual to continue earning income.  Disability will always be necessary, but social security retirement may be better invested in retraining opportunities for older individuals to transition into a field where there age won't be such an issue.  In one fell swoop, you've converted a net loss social welfare program into a potentially-net-gain workforce investment program.

Quote from: Sheilbh on September 12, 2011, 02:17:50 PM
I think it's fine to re-design the system, which won't necessarily mean cutting benefits, for future generations and, in effect, phase in any reforms.  Younger people will know that they (and I think probably do know) they won't be getting social security as is and the younger they are means they can make plans to deal with that.

I think cutting benefits for people who've been expecting the system to work a certain way and paying in for their working lives is simply arbitrary and unfair.

If younger people bury their heads in the sand and expect the same benefits as their grandparents then would cutting their benefits be unfair too?

Interesting little factoid I picked up from an Atlantic article by Michael Kinsley on what the boomers can give back to the US to make up for their selfishness: the average Social Security payout is 139K.  The average estate at death is 139K.  (They probably aren't exactly the same but they were pretty darn close.)  The average retiree has a private pension and private savings sufficient (if we accept Kinsley's info) to finance life in retirement.  Social Security is pure gravy.

Quote from: DontSayBanana on September 12, 2011, 02:22:54 PM
Yi, you're skirting the number one fallacy about Social Security.  Per the automated recording I heard almost daily at my last job, "Social Security is not an individual retirement account.  The money you pay to Social Security today goes into the Social Security Trust Fund to pay benefits today."

The "shelf boomers" paid a lower rate because they were supporting the generation before them, which cost less to support.  It's a wealth redistribution mechanism, sure, but it has nothing to do with "inflated numbers."  The rates are higher because the cost of living is higher and there are more people to cover.  Today, today, today.  There's no promise of a return, which is kind of a necessary element of a ponzi scheme.

If you pay money now in return for money later, there's a return, either explicit or implicit.

Quote from: DontSayBanana on September 12, 2011, 02:29:40 PM
Actually, I too have a beef with social security, and that it's an expensive cultural artifact; it comes from a time when a blue-collar worker had a "shef life" that fell way short of his life expectancy.

WTF does that even mean?

Quote from: DGuller on September 12, 2011, 02:25:34 PM
That's a false dilemma.  The only way for you to not at the very least get back the majority of your contributions is if criminally misinformed people like you elect policians that would "reform" Social Security away.

You can rest easy Speesh.  You'll get back at least half your contributions.  :lol:

Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 12, 2011, 02:32:53 PMIf younger people bury their heads in the sand and expect the same benefits as their grandparents then would cutting their benefits be unfair too?

We're assuming a change to social security benefits.  That'll happen with public debate, in Congress and the news media and should then be publicised by the state to different age groups. 

So, no.  It's no more unfair than changing the retirement age, as has happened in the US.  If someone assumes they can retire at 65, when in fact they can't retire until they're 67 that's not unfair that's stupid.  As long as the government's open and transparent then you can't force people to keep well-informed.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 12, 2011, 02:32:53 PM
Interesting little factoid I picked up from an Atlantic article by Michael Kinsley on what the boomers can give back to the US to make up for their selfishness: the average Social Security payout is 139K.  The average estate at death is 139K.  (They probably aren't exactly the same but they were pretty darn close.)  The average retiree has a private pension and private savings sufficient (if we accept Kinsley's info) to finance life in retirement.  Social Security is pure gravy.

:wacko:  Solid conclusion.  If one person has 278K and another person has 0K, then on average their assets are sufficient to finance life in retirement.

Quote from: DGuller on September 12, 2011, 02:43:01 PM
:wacko:  Solid conclusion.  If one person has 278K and another person has 0K, then on average their assets are sufficient to finance life in retirement.

What conclusion are you referring to?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 12, 2011, 02:44:34 PM

Quote from: DGuller on September 12, 2011, 02:43:01 PM
:wacko:  Solid conclusion.  If one person has 278K and another person has 0K, then on average their assets are sufficient to finance life in retirement.

What conclusion are you referring to?

The one saying that "Social Security is pure gravy."

Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 12, 2011, 02:34:12 PM

Quote from: DontSayBanana on September 12, 2011, 02:22:54 PM
Yi, you're skirting the number one fallacy about Social Security.  Per the automated recording I heard almost daily at my last job, "Social Security is not an individual retirement account.  The money you pay to Social Security today goes into the Social Security Trust Fund to pay benefits today."

The "shelf boomers" paid a lower rate because they were supporting the generation before them, which cost less to support.  It's a wealth redistribution mechanism, sure, but it has nothing to do with "inflated numbers."  The rates are higher because the cost of living is higher and there are more people to cover.  Today, today, today.  There's no promise of a return, which is kind of a necessary element of a ponzi scheme.

If you pay money now in return for money later, there's a return, either explicit or implicit.

No, you pay money now in return for not being prosecuted for tax evasion now or later.  The amount of the stipend allocated to the retiree is not linked to the amount in contributions previously paid by a retiree (except that the retiree has to have paid in something).  You're confusing retirement with temporary disability benefits.

Quote from: DGuller on September 12, 2011, 02:47:02 PM
The one saying that "Social Security is pure gravy."

To the average retiree it is.  To the significantly above average retiree it's who gives a shit.

Quote from: DontSayBanana on September 12, 2011, 02:48:25 PM
No, you pay money now in return for not being prosecuted for tax evasion now or later.  The amount of the stipend allocated to the retiree is not linked to the amount in contributions previously paid by a retiree (except that the retiree has to have paid in something).  You're confusing retirement with temporary disability benefits.

First of all, you don't seem to understand what an implicit return is.

Secondly, you're wrong in believing there's no connection between contributions and payouts.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 12, 2011, 02:49:28 PM

Quote from: DGuller on September 12, 2011, 02:47:02 PM
The one saying that "Social Security is pure gravy."

To the average retiree it is.  To the significantly above average retiree it's who gives a shit.

Evaluating the effect of insurance by looking at averages is quite daft.  On average, having insurance is throwing money away.

SSA is not insurance. Not really. You expect to get something out of it.

Yeah, what exactly is the insurable event in your analogy?  Reaching 65?

http://www.sec.gov/answers/ponzi.htm

Quote
A Ponzi scheme is an investment fraud that involves the payment of purported returns to existing investors from funds contributed by new investors.

So, is the SEC's definition too broad?



Edit: If you think SSA is a ponzi, better report it: http://www.sec.gov/complaint/select.shtml


:P

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 12, 2011, 03:10:06 PM
SSA is not insurance. Not really. You expect to get something out of it.

It is, which is why it's called social insurance.  So what if you expect to get something out of it, annuities are a form of insurance.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 12, 2011, 03:17:41 PM
Yeah, what exactly is the insurable event in your analogy?  Reaching 65?

More generally, the insurable event is not dying.  Annuity is an insurance policy against outliving your assets.  My statement wasn't an analogy either, Social Security is not like insurance, it is insurance.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 12, 2011, 03:22:09 PM
Edit: If you think SSA is a ponzi, better report it: http://www.sec.gov/complaint/select.shtml


:P

:D

Quote from: DGuller on September 12, 2011, 03:29:19 PM
More generally, the insurable event is not dying.  Annuity is an insurance policy against outliving your assets.

A type of insurance for which it is very germane to discuss your other assets and whether you will outlive them.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 12, 2011, 03:32:11 PM

Quote from: DGuller on September 12, 2011, 03:29:19 PM
More generally, the insurable event is not dying.  Annuity is an insurance policy against outliving your assets.

A type of insurance for which it is very germane to discuss your other assets and whether you will outlive them.

Who says they shouldn't be.  What I took issue with was discussing the assets on average terms. 

As I said, discussing insurance by use of averages is daft (and that was putting it mildly, on account of me not expecting non-insurance people to have an intuitive understanding of it).  It is daft because of two very fundamental reasons that cause insurance to exist in the first place.

The first fundamental reaon is that on an individual level, things are not average.  Every American does not experience $200 of loss from fire every year.  It's 1 out of 400 Americans who suffers an $80,000 loss from fire, and the 399 others suffer none. 

The second reason is that people do not have a linear utility function.  They prefer to lose $250 consistently every year rather than take a 0.25% chance of losing $80,000.  When you have non-linear functions, you cannot get an average output by putting in an average input, which is what you were doing in that $139K point you were making.

So, be happy that we're losing money, because if we suddenly had a rare event that fucked us over for life, that same shitty ROI would suddenly be an awesome return. Win.

Quote from: DGuller on September 12, 2011, 03:51:47 PM
Who says they shouldn't be.  What I took issue with was discussing the assets on average terms. 

As I said, discussing insurance by use of averages is daft (and that was putting it mildly, on account of me not expecting non-insurance people to have an intuitive understanding of it).  It is daft because of two very fundamental reasons that cause insurance to exist in the first place.

The first fundamental reaon is that on an individual level, things are not average.  Every American does not experience $200 of loss from fire every year.  It's 1 out of 400 Americans who suffers an $80,000 loss from fire, and the 399 others suffer none. 

The second reason is that people do not have a linear utility function.  They prefer to lose $250 consistently every year rather than take a 0.25% chance of losing $80,000.  When you have non-linear functions, you cannot get an average output by putting in an average input, which is what you were doing in that $139K point you were making.

The basic problem with this entire line of argumentation is that it supposes a false dichotomous choice: either everyone gets their current SS benefits or no one does.  I presented the information from Kinsley to rebut Shelf's claim that retirees are counting on it and (presumably) will be greatly inconvenienced if they lose it.  Or some fate much worse than inconvenience.  There is a large part of the retiree population for whom the loss of benefits would not even be noticeable.

We could means test SS to save the subsistence part of it while eliminating some of the enormous pressure on public finances.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 12, 2011, 03:57:49 PM
So, be happy that we're losing money, because if we suddenly had a rare event that fucked us over for life, that same shitty ROI would suddenly be an awesome return. Win.

Living too long isn't so rare these days.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 12, 2011, 04:01:23 PM
The basic problem with this entire line of argumentation is that it supposes a false dichotomous choice: either everyone gets their current SS benefits or no one does.  I presented the information from Kinsley to rebut Shelf's claim that retirees are counting on it and (presumably) will be greatly inconvenienced if they lose it.  Or some fate much worse than inconvenience.  There is a large part of the retiree population for whom the loss of benefits would not even be noticeable.

We could means test SS to save the subsistence part of it while eliminating some of the enormous pressure on public finances.

We could, but it's supposed to be something that everyone takes advantage of so there's no welfare stigma. That said, we're probably going to end up doing what you suggest with the first step away from that idea being the removal of the SSA tax cap.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 12, 2011, 04:01:23 PM
We could means test SS to save the subsistence part of it while eliminating some of the enormous pressure on public finances.

Re-distributive as it would be, I'd be okay with that if it's part of a greater overhaul.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 12, 2011, 04:01:23 PMThe basic problem with this entire line of argumentation is that it supposes a false dichotomous choice: either everyone gets their current SS benefits or no one does.  I presented the information from Kinsley to rebut Shelf's claim that retirees are counting on it and (presumably) will be greatly inconvenienced if they lose it.  Or some fate much worse than inconvenience.  There is a large part of the retiree population for whom the loss of benefits would not even be noticeable.

Social Security represents around 37% of total income for retirement age people, the next largest is earnings at 30%.  Then private pensions and assets at 19% and 13% respectively.  Having said that over two thirds of eligible people depend on Social Security for over 50% of their income.  That was the information from 2008 released in 2010, I imagine it's probably more Social Security-skewed because of the effect the financial crisis will have had on people's pension plans.

So I think your Kinsley factoid is just a factoid rather than a contribution when thinking about this.

Easy solution: remove social security, substitute the guaranteed income. :friedman:

Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 12, 2011, 04:01:23 PMWe could means test SS to save the subsistence part of it while eliminating some of the enormous pressure on public finances.

Social Security's an issue but the enormous pressure in your old people is the US's unsustainable inflation of healthcare costs and the effect that has on Medicare.  By comparison Social Security's manageable.

Quote from: Sheilbh on September 12, 2011, 04:10:17 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 12, 2011, 04:01:23 PMWe could means test SS to save the subsistence part of it while eliminating some of the enormous pressure on public finances.

Social Security's an issue but the enormous pressure in your old people is the US's unsustainable inflation of healthcare costs and the effect that has on Medicare.  By comparison Social Security's manageable.

They could just resign themselves to dying.  Why is that so hard?

Quote from: Ed Anger on September 09, 2011, 07:15:36 AM
Colbert isn't funny.

This.

Quote from: Ideologue on September 12, 2011, 04:12:25 PM

They could just resign themselves to dying.  Why is that so hard?

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwebpages.charter.net%2Fhuntn%2FAssets%2Fhumanhive.gif&hash=79f4ebd0200d590c147ccd7ee9448cb462706e9c)

You know what to do.

Colbert is funny for about five minutes at a time; beyond that, his schtick grows wan and tired.

Quote from: Ideologue on September 12, 2011, 04:15:37 PM
Colbert is funny for about five minutes at a time; beyond that, his schtick grows wan and tired.

I like him.  But I only see the clips that do well and bounce around the internet.  Don't actually watch his show.

Probably for a similar reason I quite Bill O'Reilly and kind of like Glenn Beck :ph34r:

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 12, 2011, 04:14:52 PM

Quote from: Ideologue on September 12, 2011, 04:12:25 PM

They could just resign themselves to dying.  Why is that so hard?

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwebpages.charter.net%2Fhuntn%2FAssets%2Fhumanhive.gif&hash=79f4ebd0200d590c147ccd7ee9448cb462706e9c)

You know what to do.

I voted for Death Panels.  Where are they?

Quote from: Sheilbh on September 12, 2011, 04:16:58 PM

Quote from: Ideologue on September 12, 2011, 04:15:37 PM
Colbert is funny for about five minutes at a time; beyond that, his schtick grows wan and tired.

I like him.  But I only see the clips that do well and bounce around the internet.  Don't actually watch his show.

Probably for a similar reason I quite Bill O'Reilly and kind of like Glenn Beck :ph34r:

I liked Beck's psychotic chalk board.

Quote from: Ideologue on September 12, 2011, 04:17:55 PM
I voted for Death Panels.  Where are they?

According to the admittedly biased Dr. Emanuel (he's pretty well-respected though) the death panels have had an effect and the costs are coming down in anticipation to Obamacare coming into full efect over the next few years.  But of course it's absurdly early to try and judge that.

Quote from: Ideologue on September 12, 2011, 04:15:37 PM
Colbert is funny for about five minutes at a time; beyond that, his schtick grows wan and tired.

:yes: I will always watch Stewart if I remember to.  I will only watch Colbert if I have time to kill.  It's not that he can't be funny, it's just that ironically he himself developed a bit of a personality cult.

Quote from: Sheilbh on September 12, 2011, 04:20:01 PM

Quote from: Ideologue on September 12, 2011, 04:17:55 PM
I voted for Death Panels.  Where are they?

According to the admittedly biased Dr. Emanuel (he's pretty well-respected though) the death panels have had an effect and the costs are coming down in anticipation to Obamacare coming into full efect over the next few years.  But of course it's absurdly early to try and judge that.

Ide is talking about proper death panels, where citizens can anonymously nominate people* to the extermination lists.



* i.e. "Euthanization Candidates"

Quote from: citizen k on September 12, 2011, 04:56:58 PM
Ide is talking about proper death panels, where citizens can anonymously nominate people to the extermination lists.

How many nominations do you get?  :shifty:

Quote from: DGuller on September 12, 2011, 04:58:35 PM

Quote from: citizen k on September 12, 2011, 04:56:58 PM
Ide is talking about proper death panels, where citizens can anonymously nominate people to the extermination lists.

How many nominations do you get?  :shifty:

There's no limit to cutting healthcare costs.

Quote from: Sheilbh on September 12, 2011, 04:08:37 PM
Social Security represents around 37% of total income for retirement age people, the next largest is earnings at 30%.  Then private pensions and assets at 19% and 13% respectively.  Having said that over two thirds of eligible people depend on Social Security for over 50% of their income.  That was the information from 2008 released in 2010, I imagine it's probably more Social Security-skewed because of the effect the financial crisis will have had on people's pension plans.

So I think your Kinsley factoid is just a factoid rather than a contribution when thinking about this.

That is certainly enlightening.  But by the same token I'm willing to wager that doesn't include non cash consumption, such as housing (in many cases).

Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 12, 2011, 05:26:21 PMThat is certainly enlightening.  But by the same token I'm willing to wager that doesn't include non cash consumption, such as housing (in many cases).

I don't think it does.  What does that mean, in your view?

LOL at the Dems in the process of losing Weiner's seat.

Quote from: Sheilbh on September 12, 2011, 05:34:07 PM
I don't think it does.  What does that mean, in your view?

That fewer people are reliant on Social Security for simple survival than your numbers would suggest.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 12, 2011, 05:52:17 PM
That fewer people are reliant on Social Security for simple survival than your numbers would suggest.

Is the goal of a state pension simple survival?

Quote from: Sheilbh on September 12, 2011, 05:57:13 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 12, 2011, 05:52:17 PM
That fewer people are reliant on Social Security for simple survival than your numbers would suggest.

Is the goal of a state pension simple survival?

Yes. A floor to protect the elderly from starving to death.

You all know what the number one problem with Social Security is?  Pundits and wannabe-intellectuals oversimplify it, especially you, Yi.  There are several different programs that have nothing to do with each other that fall under the blanket of the Social Security Administration.  You're all bickering about social security retirement when you also have two straight welfare programs (social security permanent disability, supplemental security income) and an insurance-basis program (temporary disability).

Something tells me that pundits oversimplifying SS is not, in fact, the number one problem.

Quote from: Sheilbh on September 12, 2011, 05:57:13 PM
Is the goal of a state pension simple survival?

The stated goal I think is "financial security" for retirees.  Which simple survival is an aspect of.

Quote from: Habbaku on September 12, 2011, 06:42:52 PM
Something tells me that pundits oversimplifying SS is not, in fact, the number one problem.

I figure it doesn't make the top five.

Quote from: DontSayBanana on September 12, 2011, 06:36:19 PM
You all know what the number one problem with Social Security is?  Pundits and wannabe-intellectuals oversimplify it, especially you, Yi.  There are several different programs that have nothing to do with each other that fall under the blanket of the Social Security Administration.  You're all bickering about social security retirement when you also have two straight welfare programs (social security permanent disability, supplemental security income) and an insurance-basis program (temporary disability).

Which could all be replaced with a guaranteed income.

What would we do with the tallied lifetime SSA contribution figures we all get every once in a while showing what we've paid in? People will want that money back if we just switch to some other system.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 12, 2011, 06:50:05 PMThe stated goal I think is "financial security" for retirees.  Which simple survival is an aspect of.

But not all, I'd say simple survival's the bare foundation of 'financial security'. 

Does housing form a part of 'financial security'?

QuoteWhat would we do with the tallied lifetime SSA contribution figures we all get every once in a while showing what we've paid in? People will want that money back if we just switch to some other system.

I don't think anyone can just switch their pension system.  Reform needs to be introduced gradually and phased in to protect people who've been contributing throughout their working lives and to fully inform people at the start of them.

That's one of the worries I have with our system.  We've got a pretty poor flat-rate state pension with a contributory element (but I think it's linked to how many years you've contributed, not how much) and then various universal elements that go to the elderly (like a winter fuel allowance, free prescriptions) and some that are means tested.  It's generally accepted that the state pension's going to be poor and not really designed to be lived on alone.

Because of that recent governments have been pushing private pensions.  I think you now have to opt in to company pension schemes and they've set up a low cost pension scheme for small employers or low-paid workers to join.  All of which is fine but I think that (that's the simple version) that it's all got rather confusing and that most people just don't know.  All anyone my age knows is that you should join a pension scheme as soon as possible.

Sadly a lot of my friends (recent graduates) aren't getting 'employed' for their work.  They're basically told to set themselves up as 'self-emloyed' consultants for their respective companies who then don't have to offer them employment benefits or holidays, or, always, the minimum wage.  Add that to the general employment and housing situation for people my age and it's not a good time.  Whenever I talk about it with friends we're not sure if our generation's getting fucked or it'll just mean that we'll have very sharp elbows.

On the other hand better us than a 40 year old with family.

omg.

The Tea Bagger debate is a mug slingingfest, LOVZ IT!  :mmm:

Paul and Bachmann are going after Perry, and Perry hasn't performed well under pressure!  :w00t:

No hostages taken.

I'll be interesting to see a good poll after this one.

Quote from: Sheilbh on September 12, 2011, 07:06:52 PM


Sadly a lot of my friends (recent graduates) aren't getting 'employed' for their work.  They're basically told to set themselves up as 'self-emloyed' consultants for their respective companies who then don't have to offer them employment benefits or holidays, or, always, the minimum wage.  Add that to the general employment and housing situation for people my age and it's not a good time.  Whenever I talk about it with friends we're not sure if our generation's getting fucked or it'll just mean that we'll have very sharp elbows.

On the other hand better us than a 40 year old with family.

There have been shitty times before, the early 1980s sticks in my memory..........and often the worst burdens are placed on the young and inexperienced. I don't like these "jobs" that don't pay though; at least in the 80s we were free to lounge on the beach, fornicate and drink beer (though only a very self-indulgent minority did all three at once)  :hmm:

Quote from: Sheilbh on September 12, 2011, 07:06:52 PM

Sadly a lot of my friends (recent graduates) aren't getting 'employed' for their work.  They're basically told to set themselves up as 'self-emloyed' consultants for their respective companies who then don't have to offer them employment benefits or holidays, or, always, the minimum wage.  Add that to the general employment and housing situation for people my age and it's not a good time.  Whenever I talk about it with friends we're not sure if our generation's getting fucked or it'll just mean that we'll have very sharp elbows.

On the other hand better us than a 40 year old with family.

Incorrect.  There is no class of people more important than a class to which I happen to belong.

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on September 12, 2011, 11:48:05 PM
There have been shitty times before, the early 1980s sticks in my memory..........and often the worst burdens are placed on the young and inexperienced. I don't like these "jobs" that don't pay though; at least in the 80s we were free to lounge on the beach, fornicate and drink beer (though only a very self-indulgent minority did all three at once)  :hmm:

So which did you forgo in the 80s?  I know I can strike "drink beer" from the list...

Quote from: Barrister on September 12, 2011, 11:58:52 PM

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on September 12, 2011, 11:48:05 PM
There have been shitty times before, the early 1980s sticks in my memory..........and often the worst burdens are placed on the young and inexperienced. I don't like these "jobs" that don't pay though; at least in the 80s we were free to lounge on the beach, fornicate and drink beer (though only a very self-indulgent minority did all three at once)  :hmm:

So which did you forgo in the 80s?  I know I can strike "drink beer" from the list...

Why, none of them of course  :lol:

It's just that doing all three at the same time strikes me as excessively hedonistic.

Upon reflection, I've got to say the person with the best chance of winning with Obama is Joe Biden.  :hmm:

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on September 12, 2011, 11:48:05 PMThere have been shitty times before, the early 1980s sticks in my memory..........and often the worst burdens are placed on the young and inexperienced. I don't like these "jobs" that don't pay though; at least in the 80s we were free to lounge on the beach, fornicate and drink beer (though only a very self-indulgent minority did all three at once)  :hmm:

Oh, of course.  It's the combination of factors that seems bad.  We won't get the pensions, won't have the houses, a lot of people have to do unpaid internships for months to get any work, those who get jobs often have to sign on as 'temporary consultants' and the hiring recession's just going on and on and there doesn't look like there'll be any recovery coming any time soon.

Quote from: Ideologue on September 12, 2011, 06:51:50 PM
Which could all be replaced with a guaranteed income.

Agreed.  I'm not sure if I mentioned earlier, but my personal beef with the social security umbrella is that the largest component is net-loss social welfare that could just as easily be replaced with net-gain workforce retraining (much shorter term of collection, taxes resume once the payee has re-entered the workforce).

Quote from: DontSayBanana on September 13, 2011, 09:42:58 AM

Quote from: Ideologue on September 12, 2011, 06:51:50 PM
Which could all be replaced with a guaranteed income.

Agreed.  I'm not sure if I mentioned earlier, but my personal beef with the social security umbrella is that the largest component is net-loss social welfare that could just as easily be replaced with net-gain workforce retraining (much shorter term of collection, taxes resume once the payee has re-entered the workforce).

Do you ever have any idea of what you're trying to say?  I sure don't.  How about explaining the points you're trying to make, instead of trying to sound too clever for comprehension?

Quote from: DGuller on September 13, 2011, 09:54:01 AM
Do you ever have any idea of what you're trying to say?  I sure don't.  How about explaining the points you're trying to make, instead of trying to sound too clever for comprehension?

Learn to fucking read.  Instead of bleeding out SSTF money to retirees for the remainders of their lives, we invest in career reeducation; not only do the beneficiaries stop collecting much sooner, they resume paying into Social Security once they're settled into more appropriate employment.  What the hell is so difficult to comprehend about that?

Lots of people don't want to work; we shouldn't reward it just because they're old.

Quote from: DontSayBanana on September 13, 2011, 10:01:06 AM

Quote from: DGuller on September 13, 2011, 09:54:01 AM
Do you ever have any idea of what you're trying to say?  I sure don't.  How about explaining the points you're trying to make, instead of trying to sound too clever for comprehension?

Learn to fucking read.  Instead of bleeding out SSTF money to retirees for the remainders of their lives, we invest in career reeducation; not only do the beneficiaries stop collecting much sooner, they resume paying into Social Security once they're settled into more appropriate employment.  What the hell is so difficult to comprehend about that?

Lots of people don't want to work; we shouldn't reward it just because they're old.

So you're saying that Social Security should be converted from being mainly a pension program to being a job education program?

I thought you said it was insurance.  :P

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 13, 2011, 10:48:07 AM
I thought you said it was insurance.  :P

:huh: Pension is insurance.

Quote from: DGuller on September 13, 2011, 10:16:11 AM
So you're saying that Social Security should be converted from being mainly a pension program to being a job education program?

Mainly, yes.  Disability shouldn't be axed, but individual retirement accounts have made social security redundant and should be pressed as a primary source of income for those intent on retiring.

Quote from: DontSayBanana on September 13, 2011, 11:11:11 AM

Quote from: DGuller on September 13, 2011, 10:16:11 AM
So you're saying that Social Security should be converted from being mainly a pension program to being a job education program?

Mainly, yes.  Disability shouldn't be axed, but individual retirement accounts have made social security redundant and should be pressed as a primary source of income for those intent on retiring.

It kinda already is that way.

Shelf: another thought about your 2/3, 50% data point: women who've never worked.  Women who've never worked won't have any income/assets of their own but often have a husband who does.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 13, 2011, 11:20:06 AM
Shelf: another thought about your 2/3, 50% data point: women who've never worked.  Women who've never worked won't have any income/assets of their own but often have a husband who does.

Do women who've never worked get social security?  In the UK they don't get a full state pension.

Quote from: Sheilbh on September 13, 2011, 11:30:47 AM
Do women who've never worked get social security?  In the UK they don't get a full state pension.

I think so.  Not absolutely sure.

Quote from: Sheilbh on September 13, 2011, 11:30:47 AM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 13, 2011, 11:20:06 AM
Shelf: another thought about your 2/3, 50% data point: women who've never worked.  Women who've never worked won't have any income/assets of their own but often have a husband who does.

Do women who've never worked get social security?  In the UK they don't get a full state pension.

Yes she gets her own. I'm not sure but I think that if the husband dies, the widow gets to keep either her own or her husband's SSA, whichever is higher. I remember a conversation with my grandmother about that some years ago. Maybe my grandma worked for a year or two at some point, I dunno.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 13, 2011, 11:32:26 AM
I think so.  Not absolutely sure.

They get 50% of your rate after the full retirement age.  If they've got their own work record then they get that whichever is higher.  There are other rules in case of widows/widowers and divorces after 10 years of marriage.

Done some looking into the married couple thing.  Social Security is more than 50% of income for around 51% of married couples, but 73% of unmarried beneficiaries - I imagine that's especially the case because of the relatively high number of unmarried, often widowed, women in the age group.  Interestingly Social Security is more than 90% of income for 34% of beneficiaries, including 21% of married couples and 43% of unmarried beneficiaries.

Edit: Interestingly as a % of earnings in the over 65s earnings are at the highest level since the early 60s, asset income's around the same level (but grew a lot in the early 90s it's declined and flatlined since then).  I'm surprised that Social Security's been more or less flatlining since the 70s, with a recent dip and other pensions (whether public or private) has flatlined for 20 years or so.

As I say I imagine the next time the SSA release this research - based on 2010 figures, due in 2012 - it'll show more dependence on Social Security and earnings given the havoc wreaked on pension plans in the last couple of years.

Quote from: DontSayBanana on September 13, 2011, 11:11:11 AM

Quote from: DGuller on September 13, 2011, 10:16:11 AM
So you're saying that Social Security should be converted from being mainly a pension program to being a job education program?

Mainly, yes.  Disability shouldn't be axed, but individual retirement accounts have made social security redundant and should be pressed as a primary source of income for those intent on retiring.

That misses the original intention of Social Security being a guarantee of some income in retirement.  Yes, many people might have individual retirement accounts, but there is no guarantee with those.  You could lose them or piss them away.  Social Security is always there. 

I was also confused because you called retirement benefits "net-loss social welfare".  Retirement benefits may have some welfare component to them, but typically care is being taken to differentiate them from welfare payments.

The investing news community seems highly in favor of calling it a ponzi, apparently. There is one thing I'd like to know more about. In this piece:

http://www.thestreet.com/story/11245193/1/addressing-social-securitys-ponzi-scheme.html

There is this nugget of info:

Quote
President Roosevelt argued before the passage of the Social Security Act that it was a forced savings program, effectively insurance. This was challenged in the courts on constitutional grounds, at which point President Roosevelt's lawyers changed their tune and told the truth: It's just a tax-and-benefit program. No savings, no accounts. Roosevelt won the constitutional argument in the courts.

Anybody know what case this is and what the conclusion was?

Roosevelt was sure a genius at spinning stuff politically to get things passed.  Lend-Lease...yep the Brits are going to give us back our Lees and Grants any day now...and presenting SS as a savings account program.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 13, 2011, 12:03:59 PM
The investing news community seems highly in favor of calling it a ponzi, apparently. There is one thing I'd like to know more about. In this piece:

http://www.thestreet.com/story/11245193/1/addressing-social-securitys-ponzi-scheme.html

Investors and business owners can be some of the dumbest people around when it comes to macroeconomics.  You only need to watch a couple of hours of CNBC to come to that conclusion.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 13, 2011, 12:03:59 PMAnybody know what case this is and what the conclusion was?

I've not read this page fully, but could it be one of these:
http://www.ssa.gov/history/court.html

Quote from: DontSayBanana on September 13, 2011, 09:42:58 AM

Quote from: Ideologue on September 12, 2011, 06:51:50 PM
Which could all be replaced with a guaranteed income.

Agreed.  I'm not sure if I mentioned earlier, but my personal beef with the social security umbrella is that the largest component is net-loss social welfare that could just as easily be replaced with net-gain workforce retraining (much shorter term of collection, taxes resume once the payee has re-entered the workforce).

Well, in fairness, a guaranteed income would be a net loss on a much larger scale (although it would obviate minimum wages, welfare, and SS benefits). :unsure:

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 13, 2011, 12:03:59 PM
The investing news community seems highly in favor of calling it a ponzi, apparently. There is one thing I'd like to know more about. In this piece:

http://www.thestreet.com/story/11245193/1/addressing-social-securitys-ponzi-scheme.html

There is this nugget of info:

I am under impressed with the investment communities ability to detect a ponzi scheme after the Madoff affair.  At least a ponzi scheme they aren't actively running.

SS isn't a ponzi and I'm getting tired of hearing it compared to one.  It may appear to have some similarities to a ponzi scheme, but Social Security can be maintained indefinitely, though that will most likely require raising taxes.  Ponzi schemes by their very nature cannot be maintained indefinitely since they have no real (or maybe realistic is the better term) sustainable income streams, and have made earlier promises of returns to investors that must be maintained... the SSA can always adjust payouts if they must.

Quote from: Caliga on September 13, 2011, 06:53:32 PM
SS isn't a ponzi and I'm getting tired of hearing it compared to one.  It may appear to have some similarities to a ponzi scheme, but Social Security can be maintained indefinitely, though that will most likely require raising taxes.  Ponzi schemes by their very nature cannot be maintained indefinitely since they have no real (or maybe realistic is the better term) sustainable income streams, and have made earlier promises of returns to investors that must be maintained... the SSA can always adjust payouts if they must.

There's also a minor detail of intent to defraud.

Goes without saying. :)

Really, if Social Security is a ponzi, then all insurance programs are ponzi schemes.

Quote from: Caliga on September 13, 2011, 07:00:25 PM
Goes without saying. :)

Really, if Social Security is a ponzi, then all insurance programs are ponzi schemes.

No they're not.  Insurance companies maintain reserves to pay off expected losses.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 13, 2011, 07:09:36 PM
No they're not.

Ah, so we're in agreement, then. :)

Quote from: Caliga on September 13, 2011, 07:46:45 PM
Ah, so we're in agreement, then. :)

Except for the parts where we're not.  :)

Quote from: Sheilbh on September 13, 2011, 11:50:40 AM
Done some looking into the married couple thing.  Social Security is more than 50% of income for around 51% of married couples, but 73% of unmarried beneficiaries - I imagine that's especially the case because of the relatively high number of unmarried, often widowed, women in the age group. 

I would assume that the difference is simply that for the married couples, often one of them is still working.  Of course, even unmarried beneficiaries may still be working, but if we assume that, say, half of all beneficiaries still work and that the percentage is the same for married and single beneficiaries, then among married beneficiares, in 75% of case, at least one of the 2 still work, and only in 25% of the cases do neither work.  I don't know the percentage of beneficiaries who still work (I used 50% for the example, but I don't think it's that high), but no matter the percentage, unless it's far higher for single than for married beneficiaries, the percentage of married beneficiaires in which at least one still works is going to be higher.

Quote from: Caliga on September 13, 2011, 06:53:32 PM
SS isn't a ponzi and I'm getting tired of hearing it compared to one.  It may appear to have some similarities to a ponzi scheme, but Social Security can be maintained indefinitely, though that will most likely require raising taxes.  Ponzi schemes by their very nature cannot be maintained indefinitely since they have no real (or maybe realistic is the better term) sustainable income streams, and have made earlier promises of returns to investors that must be maintained... the SSA can always adjust payouts if they must.

While you're correct, you are ignoring the fact that there is little political will to raise taxes and even less to reduce SS payments.  The political reality makes it more similar to a ponzi scheme than it is in theory.

I think the current political reality makes government as a whole more like a ponzi scheme that has reached its inevitable end.  No ability to raise revenue or borrowing and the only cuts should come from the "other guy's" programs.  I don't see anything particular about SS in that regard.

Quote from: frunk on September 14, 2011, 09:16:27 AM
I think the current political reality makes government as a whole more like a ponzi scheme that has reached its inevitable end.  No ability to raise revenue or borrowing and the only cuts should come from the "other guy's" programs.  I don't see anything particular about SS in that regard.

SS has long been the "3rd rail" of American politics.  Republicans can propose cuts in funding for the arts and some social programs, and Democrats can propose cuts to military spending (as long no military bases or defense plants in their state/district are affected), but anyone who proposed cutting SS benefits might as well resign their office and retire from politics right then.  And probably should hire a bodyguard.

Quote from: dps on September 14, 2011, 09:20:33 AM
SS has long been the "3rd rail" of American politics.  Republicans can propose cuts in funding for the arts and some social programs, and Democrats can propose cuts to military spending (as long no military bases or defense plants in their state/district are affected), but anyone who proposed cutting SS benefits might as well resign their office and retire from politics right then.  And probably should hire a bodyguard.

Republicans have been spineless when it comes to SS reform, and Dems pretend like there are no problems with it whatsoever.  Both have been equally annoying.

Quote from: dps on September 14, 2011, 09:20:33 AM
SS has long been the "3rd rail" of American politics.  Republicans can propose cuts in funding for the arts and some social programs, and Democrats can propose cuts to military spending (as long no military bases or defense plants in their state/district are affected), but anyone who proposed cutting SS benefits might as well resign their office and retire from politics right then.  And probably should hire a bodyguard.

I agree.  A similar type of deadlock to the historical SS one has been extended to the government budget as a whole, with equally good results.

Quote from: derspiess on September 14, 2011, 09:32:07 AM
Republicans have been spineless when it comes to SS reform, and Dems pretend like there are no problems with it whatsoever.  Both have been equally annoying.

Not really.  The Republicans tried to reform it to personal accounts in 2005.  They couldn't, people don't want it and I imagine are now far more suspicious of the idea given the state of the stock market over the past few years.  Republicans would be better not fixating on that one idea but looking at other reform options.

So too would Democrats, of course.

Quote from: Sheilbh on September 14, 2011, 12:15:24 PM
The Republicans tried to reform it to personal accounts in 2005.

What a horrible solution that was.  The government would be under all kinds of political pressure to bail out the losers and it would be an even more expensive disaster than it is now.  Best to just adjust payouts and the age of eligibility to reflect the money paid in

Quote from: Valmy on September 14, 2011, 12:19:50 PMWhat a horrible solution that was.  The government would be under all kinds of political pressure to bail out the losers and it would be an even more expensive disaster than it is now.  Best to just adjust payouts and the age of eligibility to reflect the money paid in

To be fair Tip O'Neill and Reagan made a deal on this in the 80s.  I think Reagan got tax reform - though it wasn't great - and O'Neill protected Social Security and then increase the full retirement age incrementally.  That age increase is still going on now I think.

It's worth remembering that I think most people still retire at the first point they can, even though it means they don't get the full benefits they would at full retirement age.  Similarly lots of people, especially those in blue collar jobs, still die at very much a below average age.  When we talk about pensions I think we're all relatively middle class doing the sorts of jobs we kind of enjoy and could do into our 70s and we're more or less all of the socio-economic background that will live longer.  It's easier for us to talk about working for several years more and have a private pension plan than it is for, say an African-America (far lower life-expectancy) working a low-paid job.

I think the French have made that worry central to their system.  I think they've got two social security systems one for blue collar workers who pay less (due to the ceilings being lower) and can retire earlier with a smaller pension and a scheme for 'management' who pay more, get a better pension but retire later.  Admittedly they're still too generous.

Quote from: frunk on September 14, 2011, 09:16:27 AM
I think the current political reality makes government as a whole more like a ponzi scheme that has reached its inevitable end. 

I might change "political" to "demographic" in that sentence--for the case of SSA anyway.

I don't think that Soc Sec is too hard to keep solvent. As it is now it can continue until the 2030s. Though that may require more and more funds from the Federal Govt, which has been using Soc Sec funds for a long while now. I've seen figures of $3 trillion that the Feds owe Soc Sec. So it would be fine, I imagine, if the Feds hadn't been using the money. But it's a program that I feel does work, and everyone US here has been contributing a lot to it for a few years to several or more decades. Plus the current retirees who depend on it. So it isn't going to go away, or be let crash becuase for one I don't think it's in the trouble some claim, and secondly it's too important to most everyone. It needs adjustments/changes so that it can continue without straining the Federal budget in years to come.

Quote from: Sheilbh on September 14, 2011, 12:15:24 PM
Not really.  The Republicans tried to reform it to personal accounts in 2005.  They couldn't, people don't want it and I imagine are now far more suspicious of the idea given the state of the stock market over the past few years.  Republicans would be better not fixating on that one idea but looking at other reform options.

The GOP made a very half-assed attempt, and then pussed out.  Few Republicans in Congress had the balls to support it, and Bush (who had championed the issue since his 2000 campaign) decided it wasn't worth the political capital to make any real push for it.

"Tried" is an overstatement.

Quote from: Valmy on September 14, 2011, 12:19:50 PM
What a horrible solution that was.  The government would be under all kinds of political pressure to bail out the losers and it would be an even more expensive disaster than it is now.  Best to just adjust payouts and the age of eligibility to reflect the money paid in

IIRC, the proposal was a pilot program of sorts that allowed people to choose to put 1% into private account.  Anyway I'd put more faith in Wall Street than a bloated federal government & politicians to help me grow my retirement savings.  Some Lockean Liberal you are...

Quote from: derspiess on September 14, 2011, 06:15:59 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on September 14, 2011, 12:15:24 PM
Not really.  The Republicans tried to reform it to personal accounts in 2005.  They couldn't, people don't want it and I imagine are now far more suspicious of the idea given the state of the stock market over the past few years.  Republicans would be better not fixating on that one idea but looking at other reform options.

The GOP made a very half-assed attempt, and then pussed out.  Few Republicans in Congress had the balls to support it, and Bush (who had championed the issue since his 2000 campaign) decided it wasn't worth the political capital to make any real push for it.

"Tried" is an overstatement.

Bush pushed it very hard, the problem was that the Congressional Republicans saw it was a really bad idea.  The gay married amendment is an example of a very half-assed attempt.

Quote from: derspiess on September 14, 2011, 06:19:14 PM

Quote from: Valmy on September 14, 2011, 12:19:50 PM
What a horrible solution that was.  The government would be under all kinds of political pressure to bail out the losers and it would be an even more expensive disaster than it is now.  Best to just adjust payouts and the age of eligibility to reflect the money paid in

IIRC, the proposal was a pilot program of sorts that allowed people to choose to put 1% into private account.  Anyway I'd put more faith in Wall Street than a bloated federal government & politicians to help me grow my retirement savings.  Some Lockean Liberal you are...

So did Madoff's victims.

Quote from: Razgovory on September 14, 2011, 06:24:27 PM
So did Madoff's victims.

Good point.  Maybe as part of the privatization of Social Security we should pass a law that only high net worth indviduals can invest in hedge funds.  Like the one we already have.

The problem with privatization is not the moral hazard, which can be managed in a number of ways, but the funding hole it generates.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 14, 2011, 06:27:33 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on September 14, 2011, 06:24:27 PM
So did Madoff's victims.

Good point.  Maybe as part of the privatization of Social Security we should pass a law that only high net worth indviduals can invest in hedge funds.  Like the one we already have.

The problem with privatization is not the moral hazard, which can be managed in a number of ways, but the funding hole it generates.

What are the many ways we can avoid the moral hazard?

Quote from: Razgovory on September 14, 2011, 06:31:28 PM
What are the many ways we can avoid the moral hazard?

Mandate a maximum level of risk in the portfolio.

Mandate a minimum amount or percentage going into an annuity.

A dedicated tax that finances a bare bones form of Social Security for people who crapped away all their savings in stupid day trades.

A finite list of pre-approved, diversified investment funds. Like a 401k.

Hell, you could require that 100% go into CDs and still come out ahead.

Quote from: derspiess on September 14, 2011, 06:15:59 PM
The GOP made a very half-assed attempt, and then pussed out.  Few Republicans in Congress had the balls to support it, and Bush (who had championed the issue since his 2000 campaign) decided it wasn't worth the political capital to make any real push for it.

"Tried" is an overstatement.

It was the centrepiece of his State of the Union, he did ran around the country doing town halls on the subject, he even did a press conference on it.  Bush really, really pushed it.  The Republicans in Congress backed out, perhaps, because after his SOTU only 17% thought Social Security was in crisis and only 40% supported partial privatisation (with 55% opposed).  Congress may not have tried in a big way but Bush and he was beat and people don't want it.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 14, 2011, 06:27:33 PM
Good point.  Maybe as part of the privatization of Social Security we should pass a law that only high net worth indviduals can invest in hedge funds.  Like the one we already have.

The problem with privatization is not the moral hazard, which can be managed in a number of ways, but the funding hole it generates.

The problem with privatization is that it turns on its head the very idea of having SS in the first place.  The point of SS is to guarantee, in a way that only government can, some level of income in retirement for everyone.  It's supposed to be sn insurance policy, not a return-maximizing investment vehicle.  The point of insurance is to minimize the downside, not to maximize the upside.

Quote from: derspiess on September 14, 2011, 06:19:14 PM

Quote from: Valmy on September 14, 2011, 12:19:50 PM
What a horrible solution that was.  The government would be under all kinds of political pressure to bail out the losers and it would be an even more expensive disaster than it is now.  Best to just adjust payouts and the age of eligibility to reflect the money paid in

IIRC, the proposal was a pilot program of sorts that allowed people to choose to put 1% into private account.  Anyway I'd put more faith in Wall Street than a bloated federal government & politicians to help me grow my retirement savings.  Some Lockean Liberal you are...

Um you would put faith in the federal government to control billions of dollars that could artificially control and swing markets and expect them to use it for the interests of the people and not for political purposes?  Oh and we would almost certainly have to bail out the losers?  Yeah that is real fucking Lockian.  Besides having massive government run investment schemes sounds more like socialism to me.  Public capital management?  Holy shit that would be a trainwreck.  And you think this is a free market solution?  LOL.

Besides look at how the stock market has gone the past few years, we would be lurching from political crisis to political crisis.

If the Government wants to run a pension scheme it needs to be run in the way governments run shit.  They fucking suck at running businesses and making investments and all that.  I mean they are unable to make even the most basic and commonsense reforms to sociall security because they are too scared of the political fallout.  Just think if capitol for important donors was at stake.

I also put more faith in business than government to generate wealth and I would recomend to anybody to invest in a pension fund and not rely on SS continuing to exist at all.  But that and wanting a disastrous reform are not the same thing.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 14, 2011, 06:38:32 PM
A dedicated tax that finances a bare bones form of Social Security for people who crapped away all their savings in stupid day trades.

And that's not moral hazard?

Quote from: Valmy on September 15, 2011, 08:56:42 AM
Um you would put faith in the federal government to control billions of dollars that could artificially control and swing markets and expect them to use it for the interests of the people and not for political purposes? 

No.  I think the idea is for individuals to make that decision.

QuoteOh and we would almost certainly have to bail out the losers? 

I wouldn't favor that.  I almost never favor that in any circumstance.  If you know you're going to get bailed out some way, you'll take less calculated risks.

QuoteYeah that is real fucking Lockian.

Thanks :hug:

Quote
Besides having massive government run investment schemes sounds more like socialism to me.  Public capital management?  Holy shit that would be a trainwreck.  And you think this is a free market solution?  LOL.

Did I say any of that?

QuoteBesides look at how the stock market has gone the past few years, we would be lurching from political crisis to political crisis.

I still have to think my 401k is going to give me a much better return over the long haul than what I'm paying into Social Security.

QuoteIf the Government wants to run a pension scheme it needs to be run in the way governments run shit.  They fucking suck at running businesses and making investments and all that.  I mean they are unable to make even the most basic and commonsense reforms to sociall security because they are too scared of the political fallout.  Just think if capitol for important donors was at stake.

Agree.

QuoteI also put more faith in business than government to generate wealth and I would recomend to anybody to invest in a pension fund and not rely on SS continuing to exist at all.  But that and wanting a disastrous reform are not the same thing.

All well & good, but how happy are you with seeing 6.2% (which is temporarily 4.2% but will go back up) of your paycheck go out the window, with you likely to only get pennies on the dollar back when you reach retirement age?  Wouldn't it be nice to control how some of that gets invested?

Quote from: derspiess on September 15, 2011, 10:51:47 AM
All well & good, but how happy are you with seeing 6.2% (which is temporarily 4.2% but will go back up) of your paycheck go out the window, with you likely to only get pennies on the dollar back when you reach retirement age?  Wouldn't it be nice to control how some of that gets invested?

I am not particularly happy.  It is a necessary evil of living in a democracy where that thing has almost universal support (and why wouldn't it?).  I just want to see it not increase and instead we reduce payments and/or increase the age of eligibility.

My issue is I do not trust the politicians to just let it float.  If a good number of people lose their money they would have no choice but to swoop in and bail them out.  Further I have my doubts that it would have really been up to the investor.  The State would have considered it its interest to have more and more control over what you could do with the savings account and eventually it would be a tool of patronage and corruption....you know for our own good.

Quote from: derspiess on September 15, 2011, 10:51:47 AM
All well & good, but how happy are you with seeing 6.2% (which is temporarily 4.2% but will go back up) of your paycheck go out the window, with you likely to only get pennies on the dollar back when you reach retirement age?

Pennies on the dollar?  Isn't that a little, what's the word, utterly dishonest?  If we do nothing, at some point Social Security will pay 75% of the promised obligations to perpetuity.  It's not ideal to do a quarter-default on the promised obligations, but to say that you'll be getting pennies on the dollar because of it is nothing else than flat out lying.

Quote from: DGuller on September 15, 2011, 11:12:28 AM
Pennies on the dollar?  Isn't that a little, what's the word, utterly dishonest?  If we do nothing, at some point Social Security will pay 75% of the promised obligations to perpetuity.  It's not ideal to do a quarter-default on the promised obligations, but to say that you'll be getting pennies on the dollar because of it is nothing else than flat out lying.

I don't trust that figure.

Quote from: derspiess on September 15, 2011, 11:24:32 AM

Quote from: DGuller on September 15, 2011, 11:12:28 AM
Pennies on the dollar?  Isn't that a little, what's the word, utterly dishonest?  If we do nothing, at some point Social Security will pay 75% of the promised obligations to perpetuity.  It's not ideal to do a quarter-default on the promised obligations, but to say that you'll be getting pennies on the dollar because of it is nothing else than flat out lying.

I don't trust that figure.

Oh, OK then.  As long as you don't trust the official figures calculated by the experts, you are free to use your own figures as facts.

Quote from: DGuller on September 15, 2011, 11:49:39 AM

Quote from: derspiess on September 15, 2011, 11:24:32 AM

Quote from: DGuller on September 15, 2011, 11:12:28 AM
Pennies on the dollar?  Isn't that a little, what's the word, utterly dishonest?  If we do nothing, at some point Social Security will pay 75% of the promised obligations to perpetuity.  It's not ideal to do a quarter-default on the promised obligations, but to say that you'll be getting pennies on the dollar because of it is nothing else than flat out lying.

I don't trust that figure.

Oh, OK then.  As long as you don't trust the official figures calculated by the experts, you are free to use your own figures as facts.

You didn't mention any source, so am I supposed to just take your word for it?

I'm sure that derspeiss could do better investing that money than giving it to the government, but "pennies on the dollar" doesn't sound at all correct.

Quote from: Barrister on September 15, 2011, 02:04:13 PM
I'm sure that derspeiss could do better investing that money than giving it to the government, but "pennies on the dollar" doesn't sound at all correct.

I think he is predicting the collapse of the SSA.  I am not expecting anything myself that is why I invest alot in my private pension.

Do you guys seriously think that the US is going to return to pre-Roosevelt provision for the elderly over the next 30-40 years?

Quote from: Sheilbh on September 15, 2011, 02:26:55 PM
Do you guys seriously think that the US is going to return to pre-Roosevelt provision for the elderly over the next 30-40 years?

What? No fucking way. Nor the post-Roosevelt provision either.

We have IRAs and 401ks now--the greatest thing the federal government has done for the US Citizen since the abolition of slavery. So, while we may continue to get diminishing returns from our SSA compared to our forefathers, we'll still be light years better off than they were.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 15, 2011, 03:19:49 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on September 15, 2011, 02:26:55 PM
Do you guys seriously think that the US is going to return to pre-Roosevelt provision for the elderly over the next 30-40 years?

What? No fucking way. Nor the post-Roosevelt provision either.

We have IRAs and 401ks now--the greatest thing the federal government has done for the US Citizen since the abolition of slavery. So, while we may continue to get diminishing returns from our SSA compared to our forefathers, we'll still be light years better off than they were.

Need I remind you of the ATOM BOMB? :yeahright:

Quote from: Ideologue on September 15, 2011, 03:38:57 PM

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 15, 2011, 03:19:49 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on September 15, 2011, 02:26:55 PM
Do you guys seriously think that the US is going to return to pre-Roosevelt provision for the elderly over the next 30-40 years?

What? No fucking way. Nor the post-Roosevelt provision either.

We have IRAs and 401ks now--the greatest thing the federal government has done for the US Citizen since the abolition of slavery. So, while we may continue to get diminishing returns from our SSA compared to our forefathers, we'll still be light years better off than they were.

Need I remind you of the ATOM BOMB? :yeahright:

That was, of course, done for the good of all humanity--not just US citizens.   :goodboy:

Quote from: DGuller on September 15, 2011, 08:35:18 AM
The problem with privatization is that it turns on its head the very idea of having SS in the first place.  The point of SS is to guarantee, in a way that only government can, some level of income in retirement for everyone.  It's supposed to be sn insurance policy, not a return-maximizing investment vehicle.  The point of insurance is to minimize the downside, not to maximize the upside.

We've been over this before.  Insurance companies can guarantee, in a way that only government and financial institutions can, some level of income in retirement for everyone through annuities.

Quote from: DGuller on September 15, 2011, 09:12:37 AM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 14, 2011, 06:38:32 PM
A dedicated tax that finances a bare bones form of Social Security for people who crapped away all their savings in stupid day trades.

And that's not moral hazard?

I said moral hazard could be managed.  I didn't say it could be eliminated.  Well, actually it could if we wanted to be brutally indifferent.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 15, 2011, 03:42:40 PM

Quote from: Ideologue on September 15, 2011, 03:38:57 PM

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 15, 2011, 03:19:49 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on September 15, 2011, 02:26:55 PM
Do you guys seriously think that the US is going to return to pre-Roosevelt provision for the elderly over the next 30-40 years?

What? No fucking way. Nor the post-Roosevelt provision either.

We have IRAs and 401ks now--the greatest thing the federal government has done for the US Citizen since the abolition of slavery. So, while we may continue to get diminishing returns from our SSA compared to our forefathers, we'll still be light years better off than they were.

Need I remind you of the ATOM BOMB? :yeahright:

That was, of course, done for the good of all humanity--not just US citizens.   :goodboy:

You answer wisely. :)

Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 15, 2011, 05:36:46 PM

We've been over this before.  Insurance companies can guarantee, in a way that only government and financial institutions can, some level of income in retirement for everyone through annuities.

They can't truly guarantee it.  Life insurance companies can go belly up en masse (and almost did a couple of years ago if not for TARP).  There are some state guarantee provisions, but they are highly unlikely to be of much use if the shit truly hits the fan.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 15, 2011, 05:38:17 PM
I said moral hazard could be managed.  I didn't say it could be eliminated.  Well, actually it could if we wanted to be brutally indifferent.

We could also keep it eliminated by just keeping the system as is.  :)

Quote from: DGuller on September 15, 2011, 06:18:41 PM
They can't truly guarantee it.  Life insurance companies can go belly up en masse (and almost did a couple of years ago if not for TARP).  There are some state guarantee provisions, but they are highly unlikely to be of much use if the shit truly hits the fan.

OK, we'll treat the near mass extinction of insurance companies as another "never mind" moment I suppose.

The US federal government also can't truly guarantee it either.

Quote from: DGuller on September 15, 2011, 06:20:14 PM
We could also keep it eliminated by just keeping the system as is.  :)

I just came up with another option: we could eliminate the system we have now and manage the moral hazard.  :)

Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 15, 2011, 06:26:36 PM
OK, we'll treat the near mass extinction of insurance companies as another "never mind" moment I suppose.

The US federal government also can't truly guarantee it either.

The degree of uncertainty has to be lower for the government than for for-profit enterprises, though.

Quote from: DGuller on September 15, 2011, 07:35:34 PM
The degree of uncertainty has to be lower for the government than for for-profit enterprises, though.

Are there no AAA insurance companies?  There must be.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 15, 2011, 06:27:47 PM

Quote from: DGuller on September 15, 2011, 06:20:14 PM
We could also keep it eliminated by just keeping the system as is.  :)

I just came up with another option: we could eliminate the system we have now and manage the moral hazard.  :)

That's like saying that we can blow up the levee and manage the flooding problem.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 15, 2011, 07:37:11 PM

Quote from: DGuller on September 15, 2011, 07:35:34 PM
The degree of uncertainty has to be lower for the government than for for-profit enterprises, though.

Are there no AAA insurance companies?  There must be.

:lol:

Quote from: DGuller on September 15, 2011, 07:37:29 PM
That's like saying that we can blow up the levee and manage the flooding problem.

Except for the words "we," "can," and "manage" I don't see the similarity.

Quote from: DGuller on September 15, 2011, 07:38:21 PM
:lol:

:lol:

Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 15, 2011, 07:40:00 PM

Quote from: DGuller on September 15, 2011, 07:38:21 PM
:lol:

:lol:

:lol:

Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 15, 2011, 07:37:11 PM
Are there no AAA insurance companies?  There must be.

I had AAA insurance. It was rather expensive so I switched to Geico.

Quote from: Habbaku on September 15, 2011, 07:40:47 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 15, 2011, 07:40:00 PM

Quote from: DGuller on September 15, 2011, 07:38:21 PM
:lol:

:lol:

:lol:

:lmfao:

I don't get it.

Quote from: Ideologue on September 15, 2011, 07:52:44 PM

Quote from: Habbaku on September 15, 2011, 07:40:47 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 15, 2011, 07:40:00 PM

Quote from: DGuller on September 15, 2011, 07:38:21 PM
:lol:

:lol:

:lol:

:lmfao:

I don't get it.

The meme of copying people's smilies, or the joke about one of the credit agencies downgrading the US government's rating?

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 15, 2011, 08:03:56 PM
The meme of copying people's smilies, or the joke about one of the credit agencies downgrading the US government's rating?

What joke?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 15, 2011, 08:06:31 PM
What joke?

Quote from: Admiral YiAre there no AAA insurance companies?  There must be.

I didn't intend that as a joke, and don't see how it's funny.

Quote from: Martinus on September 12, 2011, 11:49:07 AM
Unlike Timmay I am not a native speaker. He is free to comment on my bad usage of Polish.

Tim is Mexican.  Spanish is his first language.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 15, 2011, 08:16:31 PM
I didn't intend that as a joke, and don't see how it's funny.

Oh.  I honestly thought it was. :unsure:

To answer your question, I can't tell off the top of my head whether any life insurance company has AAA rating.  I recall AIG had it three years ago, but I'm not sure if it still does.

Quote from: DGuller on September 15, 2011, 09:36:54 PM
To answer your question, I can't tell off the top of my head whether any life insurance company has AAA rating.  I recall AIG had it three years ago, but I'm not sure if it still does.

Does it matter what the rating is anyways?