Senators eye Social Security reforms as some in House GOP consider cuts

[Hoodat]

Why?  Is it so earth-shattering to expect you to pay the same generally applicable income taxes we're all subject to?

Why is it so earth-shattering to expect you to understand the tradeoff of forgoing future social security payments?

[Kamaji]

Why is it so earth-shattering to expect you to understand the tradeoff of forgoing future social security payments?

I do understand it, but it's irrelevant to the question of social security for the simple reason that social security was never intended to be, and was never enacted as, a private retirement annuity or savings account for you personally.

It was, and is, an income tax on wages.  Nothing more, nothing less.

[Hoodat]

I do understand it, but it's irrelevant to the question of social security for the simple reason that social security was never intended to be, and was never enacted as, a private retirement annuity or savings account for you personally.

It was, and is, an income tax on wages.  Nothing more, nothing less.

I understand that clearly.  Which is why I wish to do away with it.  As I have stated many times, it does more to guarantee cyclical poverty in this country than anything else.  It is the greatest evil ever perpetrated upon the American people.

[catfish1957]

I understand that clearly.  Which is why I wish to do away with it.  As I have stated many times, it does more to guarantee cyclical poverty in this country than anything else.  It is the greatest evil ever perpetrated upon the American people.

An elderly person relying on SS only after an average salary is destined to be improverished.

Greatest evil indeed.

[Kamaji]

I understand that clearly.  Which is why I wish to do away with it.  As I have stated many times, it does more to guarantee cyclical poverty in this country than anything else.  It is the greatest evil ever perpetrated upon the American people.

Again, you're conflating the general income tax with the welfare program that goes under a similar name. 

[Hoodat]

Again, you're conflating the general income tax with the welfare program that goes under a similar name.

Uh, no.

[Kamaji]

An elderly person relying on SS only after an average salary is destined to be improverished.

Greatest evil indeed.

maybe so, but their receipt of social security won't be the cause of their impoverishment.

[Kamaji]

Uh, no.

Uh, yes, you are.

[Bigun]

The central question remains; "what kind of government do we really want?" Personally, I don't need a nanny!

[Kamaji]

The central question remains; "what kind of government do we really want?" Personally, I don't need a nanny!

Really?  So, no police force?  Who needs a nanny to protect one's self from local bullies, right?  No army, either.  Who needs a nanny to protect one's self from foreign bullies, either?  And no civil courts, either.  Who needs a nanny to protect one's self from those who would breach their contractual obligations to one?  And who needs medical licensing boards, right?  We can all tell a charlatan snake-oil salesman from a real doctor, right, especially when it comes to things like open heart surgery.

[Bigun]

Really?  So, no police force?  Who needs a nanny to protect one's self from local bullies, right?  No army, either.  Who needs a nanny to protect one's self from foreign bullies, either?  And no civil courts, either.  Who needs a nanny to protect one's self from those who would breach their contractual obligations to one?  And who needs medical licensing boards, right?  We can all tell a charlatan snake-oil salesman from a real doctor, right, especially when it comes to things like open heart surgery.

I think the founders did a damned good job of sorting out what the fedgov was responsible for doing.  We should have stuck to that.

And BTW; voluntarily consenting to certain alliances does not mean I need a nanny.

[catfish1957]

maybe so, but their receipt of social security won't be the cause of their impoverishment.

Hate to sound cavalier but  the poor gullible folks who were led to believe that the Social Security they were getting the wasn't the "Security" aspects they were expecting excuses the government of that culpability?

Those same folks who would have been given a choice, or even at worse had gotten a pseudo-annuity payment based on government being fiscally ran sound?  Our discussion right now would be quite different.

Our government raped our most vulnerable....   the financially underprivileged and financially undereducated.

[Kamaji]

I think the founders did a damned good job of sorting out what the fedgov was responsible for doing.  We should have stuck to that.

So, you do want a nanny, as long as that nanny has been pre-approved by a certain group of people.  Ok.  As my crim-law professor used to say:  "now that we've established that you're a prostitute, let's re-discuss your price."

[Kamaji]

Hate to sound cavalier but  the poor gullible folks who were led to believe that the Social Security they were getting the wasn't the "Security" aspects they were expecting excuses the government of that culpability?

Those same folks who would have been given a choice, or even at worse had gotten a pseudo-annuity payment based on government being fiscally ran sound?  Our discussion right now would be quite different.

Our government raped our most vulnerable....   the financially underprivileged and financially undereducated.

Maybe so, but that just means the program needs to be retooled to accomplish the original objective.

[Bigun]

So, you do want a nanny, as long as that nanny has been pre-approved by a certain group of people.  Ok.  As my crim-law professor used to say:  "now that we've established that you're a prostitute, let's re-discuss your price."

Voluntarily consenting to certain alliances does not mean I need a nanny.

[DefiantMassRINO]

Lib Tax Theory:  How much is enough? = MORE!

[Bigun]

Our government raped our most vulnerable....   the financially underprivileged and financially undereducated.

And why are those people financially undereducated? Could it be that it's because we foolishly allowed the gooberment to "educate" them?

[Hoodat]

And why are those people financially undereducated? Could it be that it's because we foolishly allowed the gooberment to "educate" them?

If a child is raised in a Christian school, he learns to love Christianity.
If a child is raised in a Jewish school, he learns to love Judaism.
If a child is raised in an Islamic school, he learns to love Islam.

If a child is raised in a government school, he learns to love government.

[Smokin Joe]

Let's say you have five different drug kingpins selling cocaine in Santa Fe.  They pay their suppliers $30k per kilo and then sell 8-balls at $250.  Now let's say one kingpin finds a new supplier who is selling keys for $20k, a 33% savings.  Do you really think that kingpin will continue selling 8-balls for $250, or do you think maybe, just maybe he might drop the price to $200 in order to bring in more business?

This same principle applies with wages.  The shift in the curve results in a new equilibrium affecting both parties.

Reality?
Unless the competition is getting cheap blow, he's gonna make bank.
Will those 'savings' be passed down the line? Probably not, because that is a highly competitive 'business' where undercutting others' prices to expand your market share can get your ass killed.
Turf, and all that.

Like I said, theory works great, in theory.

[Smokin Joe]

If a child is raised in a Christian school, he learns to love Christianity.
If a child is raised in a Jewish school, he learns to love Judaism.
If a child is raised in an Islamic school, he learns to love Islam.

If a child is raised in a government school, he learns to love government.

Or hate it, in any form.

[roamer_1]

The weight of uncle nanny coming off would result in an upward shift in the supply curve, thus driving up price.

You've failed to consider former Uncle Nanny workers entering the job market in their hundreds of thousands, driving the value of employees down in a glut of prospective workers.

I think that makes a liquid market, not a driven one. One destined to expand rather than increase in value (which happens when employees are  hard to find and in demand).

[roamer_1]

I think the founders did a damned good job of sorting out what the fedgov was responsible for doing.  We should have stuck to that.

And BTW; voluntarily consenting to certain alliances does not mean I need a nanny.

That's right - And there is an argument there too - If federal SS goes away, does it simply get handed back to the states as thing do when Fed gets caught outside of its domain...

There is no guarantee that retirement would go to the private sector, that the liabilities would not be lifted, but merely shifted.

[berdie]

I understand that clearly.  Which is why I wish to do away with it.  As I have stated many times, it does more to guarantee cyclical poverty in this country than anything else.  It is the greatest evil ever perpetrated upon the American people.

So what would be your solutions? I have many people in my sphere  that have worked  hard all their lives at low wages..because that it is all they could do. But provided valuable service.  They couldn't build up a retirement fund. They were trying to get by. Not everyone can invest in a 401K/IRA.

And speaking of 401/IRA or investments...I can't help but wonder if the Feds won't come after those as well. What will you say then?

[roamer_1]

So what would be your solutions? I have many people in my sphere  that have worked  hard all their lives at low wages..because that it is all they could do. But provided valuable service.  They couldn't build up a retirement fund. They were trying to get by. Not everyone can invest in a 401K/IRA.

And speaking of 401/IRA or investments...I can't help but wonder if the Feds won't come after those as well. What will you say then?

To begin with, the responsibility lies in the family - the native contract between generations. Those without family to care for them are next cared for by the church, and failing that, the county. That is how it has traditionally been handled.

And taking the responsibility away from the children may be a convenience to them, but as in all things, inevitably erodes their liberty.

Bounty is not what's on the table, but what's around the table. There is nowhere an elder would be more welcome and more loved than at the head of that table.

[Bigun]

To begin with, the responsibility lies in the family - the native contract between generations. Those without family to care for them are next cared for by the church, and failing that, the county. That is how it has traditionally been handled.

And taking the responsibility away from the children may be a convenience to them, but as in all things, inevitably erodes their liberty.

Bounty is not what's on the table, but what's around the table. There is nowhere an elder would be more welcome and more loved than at the head of that table.

Best I've seen here in a LONG time in fact!