Social Security

[GSLeloo]

Am I the only one who had no idea they had taken 150 billion out of social security for Iraq? Also am I the only one who sees that as a BAD thing?

[Edaarin]

Social Security is in serious need of reworking.

Might as well get used to having no money now.

[Killer Kitten]

Well, you know, we have to liberate the Iraqui people. I'm sure that most of us won't mind living under a bridge eating dog food in our old age to bring freedom to these people who love us Americans so much.

Isn't a big chunk out of every paycheck and a 'tough shit we're outta money' when we want some of our payments back a small price to pay to bring the world one step closer to freedom? Being lied to and having our retirement squandered by our leaders is absolutely AOK when the cause is such a just one.

How dare anybody raise even a single question about any monies taken from any source to be used in this holy cause? Anybody who objects to contributing their retirement money to the war must hate our troops and want to strand them in the desert, never to return home.

Why, if you're any kind of a good American, you'll do the right thing here. You'll stand behind the President that God himself has appointed to lead us and support this just and holy cause. Then you'll cheerfully work and pay taxes until you retire at about age 75. And a truly good American will drop dead the day after he or she retires, so as not to be a drain on that Social Security money that is needed to keep America safe from terrorism and secure freedom for oppressed people living in oil rich nations.

[Brattt8525]

They have been taking from SS for years for many things, we weren't going to see it anyway so...

[Sean of the Thread]

Originally posted by Killer Kitten
Well, you know, we have to liberate the Iraqui people. I'm sure that most of us won't mind living under a bridge eating dog food in our old age to bring freedom to these people who love us Americans so much.

Isn't a big chunk out of every paycheck and a 'tough shit we're outta money' when we want some of our payments back a small price to pay to bring the world one step closer to freedom? Being lied to and having our retirement squandered by our leaders is absolutely AOK when the cause is such a just one.

How dare anybody raise even a single question about any monies taken from any source to be used in this holy cause? Anybody who objects to contributing their retirement money to the war must hate our troops and want to strand them in the desert, never to return home.

Why, if you're any kind of a good American, you'll do the right thing here. You'll stand behind the President that God himself has appointed to lead us and support this just and holy cause. Then you'll cheerfully work and pay taxes until you retire at about age 75. And a truly good American will drop dead the day after he or she retires, so as not to be a drain on that Social Security money that is needed to keep America safe from terrorism and secure freedom for oppressed people living in oil rich nations.

SS has been getting dipped in almost since it's conception. Anyways if you don't fuking like it STFU and move to Mexico.

[Jazuela]

Xyelin, I think you're missing the point. The primary purpose of Social Security was to provide a supplemental income for the years after the working population retired. When it was formed, the average lifespan was shorter - so a monthly check "for the rest of your life" wasn't enough to break the proverbial bank, since the rest of your life wasn't all that long.

At the time, they were -able- to dip into the funds for other social services without putting a multi-billion-dollar dent into the federal budget. At the time, most women were stay-at-home moms who didn't contribute to the fund and didn't get anything back from it, unless/until their husbands died.

Now, we have both men and women contributing to the fund, and both are living longer, extending the duration of their social security check payouts. So instead of finding a way to maintain the fund efficiently, the government has decided to send a rather generous chunk of that fund to another country. That is money that "We the People" have paid, with the promise that it would be returned to us once we retired or became disabled and unable to work.

I wouldn't feel too bad if we ran out of money because the people who paid into it dried it up pre-maturely. I DO feel angry, and rightly so, that we're running out of money, and the government is GIVING it away. They're giving away OUR money. Not the government's money. It's not the government's money. It's the money that working people have paid out of their own paychecks to secure their own personal financial futures once they retire.

It's like if you had a bank account, and went to withdraw your rent money, and the bank officer said, "Oh sorry, we don't have it for you, we just took that out of your account and sent it to some guy in Rwanda. He says thanks by the way - right after he killed your cousin for invading his country."

It's the same thing. It's the exact same thing. If you don't like that people are upset about this, maybe YOU should move to Mexico, where people aren't allowed to complain quite so loudly.

[Back]

Originally posted by Xyelin
SS has been getting dipped in almost since it's conception. Anyways if you don't fuking like it STFU and move to Mexico.

So if the government does something you disagree with, STFU or leave... glad the settlers of America didn’t follow that philosophy.

[Killer Kitten]

The whole 'STFU and move to <insert country> if you're against anything Our President does' mentality is very troubling. The most American thing in the world is our freedom to question our elected officials. As Americans we have a sacred duty to not blindly accept what we are told or follow like sheep when we are herded along.

Every paycheck stub shows a 'before' and 'after' amount. The 'before' is how much you made, the 'after' is how much you get once your obligations to our government, in the form of taxes, have been withheld from your earnings.

There is a section for Federal Income Tax withheld. The monies taken from each taxpayer under that section are what is to be used to fund things like the war in Iraq.

Social Security is a separate withholding altogether. The monies taken from your check for Social Security are supposed to be used to fund things like food, shelter and clothing for those American citizens who are unable to work due to age, illness or other circumstances.

The fact that SS has 'always' been getting dipped into does not make it right that this has been occurring. Changes need to be made in the SS system to insure that the monies all of us contribute will be available when we can no longer work and the time has come to collect the retirement funds that all contributors have a right to.

As Americans, we are perfectly within our rights to be outraged that $150 billion from our retirement funds has been misappropriated to fund the war in Iraq.

[Valthissa]

Please explain the mechanics of how the government took money from social security and sent it to another country?

Why not say that they took money from social security and used it to fund the new prescription medicine benefit? Whenever the government has a deficit you could make this argument about almost any expenditure. Money was taken from X to pay for Y.

You don't think they have a locked room full of social security money and they just opened the door, stole the money, and walked it down the hall to the room labled 'money for Iraq', do you?

As I posted before, it is not possible to discuss social security without first agreeing on the social policy that it is intended to serve. We have a system right now that, over time, pays benefits in excess of receipts. We may decide that is a good thing. I which case we will have to:

A) increase taxes
B) decrease other government expenditures to fund this benefit
C) borrow

We may decide that we would like, as a matter of social policy, a system that pays benefits equal to receipts. To meet this we would have to:

A) increase taxes
B) decrease benefits
C) decrease other government expeditures

We certainly need to improve the current system.

The amount of misinformation about the national debt that I hear is staggering. The national debt is at 60% of GDP. That is virtually the same as 1986 and 1996. Canada runs a debt of about 80% of GDP and Great Britain is around 85%. I know that everyone here realizes that the recipients of the interest on the debt are mostly US citizens. I fail to understand why otherwise intelligent people buy into the notion that we have a debt problem.

Just a few more numbers then I'll go back to playing backgammon.

% GDP expended to fight WWII - 40
% GDP expended on Iraq - .7

doesn't seem like such a big number when you look at in those terms, does it?

C/Valth bored to tears - I really need for work to pick back up!

[Edited on 2-17-2005 by Valthissa]

[Edaarin]

Oh come on...comparing Iraq to WWII?

[Warriorbird]

Exponential expense and population growth will make it not exist. Screw private accounts, let's just get rid of it with a deadline.

[Warriorbird]

And your "bondholders= mostly American" info is a bit inaccurate, Valthissa. Numerically yes, monetarily no. It's just conservative voodoo economics though. Your agenda is pretty clear. If Bush wasn't trying to justify the war, you wouldn't be saying that.

[Nakiro]

What bothers me is you have one senator saying social security as it stands with no changes and no further contributions is capable of funding the next 40 years of American life.

Then you have another senator saying that in 20 years the program as is will no longer be able to provide for its benificaries without going into multi-trillion dollars in debt.

Yah, the entire dip into social security for everything idea pisses me off too. It was orginally suppose to be a bank we pay into and take out of later, and it has turned into a bank we pay into to pay for the current benificaries, only hoping our children will someday pay for us too.

If I could choose not to pay SS Tax and not recieve SS benifits, I would gladly do so.

[Jazuela]

The issue is about the sheer numbers, Valthissa. Think of it in more personal terms:

A regular joe shmoe can handle a 200 dollar debt a whole lot easier than a rich guy can handle a 20,000 debt. Fluid cash is easier to get to when it's in smaller numbers, than it is when it's in mass quantities.

Yes, our proportion of debt to income might not be so bad. But the numbers themselves are staggering, and our chances of paying back the debt if it's ever called in is virtually nil.

What you're talking about is "borrowing from Peter to pay Paul." We're taking from one fund, to pay into another fund. We have a surplus in yet a third fund, that we aren't touching...so all the numbers end up looking screwy. But when you break it down, and look at the final product, you're looking at an ENORMOUS hole in the total that our country has absolutely no chance whatsoever of filling back in.

[Nakiro]

The debt is designed and engineered knowing that it will never be paid off. You're misunderstanding the way a national debt operates.

Christ, living under a bridge eating dog food? Lay off the crack. Everyone will be fine at their old age as long as they make smart business investments and use their SS wisely.

- Arkans

[Nakiro]

No, there is no ideal situtaiton in which everyone will be fine under any plan, including Bush's.

But that's not the point. If you depend on SS to make or break your retirement, chances are SS is going to be a drop in the bucket for you anyway.

Its like the alcohol your mom pours on your infections when you're little. It can be nice, but without some neosporain and a bandaid that gangreen isn't going away.

[Valthissa]

Originally posted by Jazuela
The issue is about the sheer numbers, Valthissa. Think of it in more personal terms:

A regular joe shmoe can handle a 200 dollar debt a whole lot easier than a rich guy can handle a 20,000 debt. Fluid cash is easier to get to when it's in smaller numbers, than it is when it's in mass quantities.

Yes, our proportion of debt to income might not be so bad. But the numbers themselves are staggering, and our chances of paying back the debt if it's ever called in is virtually nil.

What you're talking about is "borrowing from Peter to pay Paul." We're taking from one fund, to pay into another fund. We have a surplus in yet a third fund, that we aren't touching...so all the numbers end up looking screwy. But when you break it down, and look at the final product, you're looking at an ENORMOUS hole in the total that our country has absolutely no chance whatsoever of filling back in.

I'm totally lost here. Just because the numbers are staggeringly large doesn't mean that looking at them in terms of percentages is invalid.

I would argue just the opposite. A discussion baed on percentages helps remove the emotion associated with talking about billions and trillions of dollars.

C/Valth


C/Valth

[Jazuela]

Arkans, the problem is that there won't BE any SS to use, wisely, or unwisely, in the next few decades. All the people who have paid into it so far..if they're not already collecting, will not collect a thing. They won't see a single penny of the thousands of dollars they've paid into it. It wasn't a voluntary thing for them to pay into social security. It was mandatory, unless you worked for a non-prof or other exempt employer. The government set it up so that you pay in 6% (give or take) of your gross income, and you'd get a portion of it BACK when you retire or become disabled.

Unfortunately they kept using that money - YOUR money - for things it wasn't ever intended to be used for. And never replaced what they borrowed. Add to that the fact that you'd get this money in a monthly check for the rest of your life, and people are living longer than they were when the system was created...that means - at some point - there won't be anything left to give ANYONE.

Then plz be smart with your money. If you work some schmuck job for all your life, of course you're going to have problems. Get an education, get lucky, get what the fuck ever and be smart with your money? Well... There ya go!

- Arkans

You're right. There will be 0 SS left. I won't see a dime. Please.

- Arkans

ADDITION: Privatize some of the fucking thing if you're so scared of not seeing ph4t l3wt.

[Edited on 2-17-2005 by Arkans]

[Jorddyn]

Originally posted by Nakiro
If I could choose not to pay SS Tax and not recieve SS benifits, I would gladly do so.

You could always become a priest.

Jorddyn

[Nakiro]

Originally posted by Arkans
Then plz be smart with your money. If you work some schmuck job for all your life, of course you're going to have problems. Get an education, get lucky, get what the fuck ever and be smart with your money? Well... There ya go!

- Arkans

The best advice is pretty much what you said. Don't depend on social security for support because it won't give you much, if any.

Yes, they're screwing us out of our money. I wish they'd stop too.

Don't depend on the state period. That's the thing. It's slow, unreliable, and generally not good. Rely more on yourself and we'll be doing great.

- Arkans

[Nakiro]

Originally posted by Jorddyn

Originally posted by Nakiro
If I could choose not to pay SS Tax and not recieve SS benifits, I would gladly do so.

You could always become a priest.

Jorddyn

I'd prefer for it to be as simple as I stated. Social Security? Check 1 for yes, 2 for no.

[Valthissa]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
And your "bondholders= mostly American" info is a bit inaccurate, Valthissa. Numerically yes, monetarily no. It's just conservative voodoo economics though. Your agenda is pretty clear. If Bush wasn't trying to justify the war, you wouldn't be saying that.


You made me laugh out loud! I consider you as one of the most agenda driven posters at the PC.

You assume much about me and Bush (the guy I voted against).

It has been a personal goal of mine for many years to be open minded - and not just the first time I'm presented with an issue. That's the real test, whether you can rationally process new information that may change your opinion or a long held belief.


C/Valth

[Nakiro]

Yes please lets all remember that the vast majority of us will not be swayed from our political or religious standings through the almighty influence of an online message board.

[Jorddyn]

Originally posted by Nakiro

Originally posted by Jorddyn

Originally posted by Nakiro
If I could choose not to pay SS Tax and not recieve SS benifits, I would gladly do so.

You could always become a priest.

Jorddyn

I'd prefer for it to be as simple as I stated. Social Security? Check 1 for yes, 2 for no.

Sheesh, celibacy is a small price to pay for 6.2% of your pay each year! :)

Seriously, though, I'd love it to be that simple. Unfortunately, many people aren't fiscally responsible, and we'd have a bunch of 80 year olds getting evicted from their homes because they checked box 2 and never saved any of the money.

I agree that Social Security needs changed, I just don't think a "yes/no" checkoff is the answer.

Jorddyn

Privatize part of it. Want it from the private sector? You have the option. Want it from the government? That's there too? Want to pony up 12% of your l3wt for both? Go for it.

- Arkans

[DeV]

I like the idea of privatizing and being able to manage my own money for the next couple of decades. Who wouldn't want to have control of their own financial future. The only set back would be less money available for current and near future retirees. The government would have to come up with that money from somewhere and I'm guessing it would have to be from more borrowing.

Seriously, you'd hope most people wouldn't be depending on SS as a way to fund the retirement of their dreams. That was never a smart idea. However, I do see where alot of people, including myself have problems with the fact that we have no choice in having these funds taken from our paychecks now with no option of disallowing it since we know it won't benefit us when we retire.

Investing wisely now in your 401k, stocks and bonds, etc... is the only viable option I can think of. There is no painless solution, unfortunately.

People who need social security as a life-sustaining tool are the people who have the right to bitch about it.

People who are covered by social security, yet have enough money to make tax deductables by donating million dollar sculptures to museums should not see any social security income whatsoever..

..and be flogged.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Killer Kitten
I'm sure that most of us won't mind living under a bridge eating dog food in our old age to bring freedom to these people who love us Americans so much.You seriously want people who happen to be born elsewhere to die or live a brutally substandard life so you can live in comfort? I mean, take shots at Bush all you want, but how about some compassion?
Originally posted by Jazuela
A regular joe shmoe can handle a 200 dollar debt a whole lot easier than a rich guy can handle a 20,000 debt.I would be very surprised if this was true. 1,000 from 20,000 hurts much, much more than 100,000 from 2,000,000.

Finally, becoming a priest so you don't have to pay SS is kind of like cutting off your arm because your finger hurts. Priests have that whole vow of poverty thing.

If priests have a vow of poverty, what is with all the million dollar glass paintings in their humble workplaces?

Here is how it should work:

Poor people: If you used up your welfare, that was your social security, you had a point to turn your life around, so no more money grubbing from that point on. If not, the government has fucked you in the ass, you've overcame the odds, and succeeded, therefor entitling you to a fat social security cheque.

Middle Class: Should get as much social security as a Poor People who haven't abused Welfare.

Upper Class: Mentioning of Social Security should be met with prompt snapping of necks via the gallows.

[Latrinsorm]

Did you buy all the equipment in your laboratory, Stanley? :)

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
Did you buy all the equipment in your laboratory, Stanley? :)

It's grant money.

See "work" discussed above.

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
Did you buy all the equipment in your laboratory, Stanley? :)

If I break it I buy it.

Being the good scientist that I am, I have yet to hear the shattering of a beaker, flask, affinity tube, stirring rod or beaker at my own hands.

[Killer Kitten]

"You seriously want people who happen to be born elsewhere to die or live a brutally substandard life so you can live in comfort? I mean, take shots at Bush all you want, but how about some compassion?"
________________________________

God, what selfish, uncompassionate bastards we Americans are! How dare we want to sleep indoors and have enough to eat and have access to medical care in our old age just because we paid a portion of every dollar we ever earned to do just that? (Of course we also paid our taxes, and isn't the money to be helping these poor brutalized souls supposed to be coming from that money, not our retirement funds?)

Here's a few 'have-to's' that the average retiree lives with every day:

1. Have to move away from my life long home because the taxes on the property I paid off years ago are too high for my income - oops, what income?

2. Have to give up my car, can't afford gas or taxes, here's hoping I don't get mugged waiting for the bus.

3. Have to really shop smart, only buy generic brands even though they taste like CRAP

4. Have to pick and choose which of my medications I can take, depending upon if there is a generic available

5. Have to keep the house at just above freezing and pile on the blankets all winter, and never mind that cold I can't seem to get rid of

Yeah, maybe these people should have invested in IRA's, stocks, and other retirement plans. Pity most of them didn't have money left after raising their children, putting them through school, and paying their taxes and Social Security deductions. For most retirees, the idea of going to college themselves was a pipe dream. They sacrificed so their children could have a better life. Now their children are repaying them by saying, 'You shoulda planned better. Tough shit.'

Charity begins at home. What's wrong with making sure our own elderly aren't living a brutally substandard life before giving their money to the rest of the world?

[StrayRogue]

Originally posted by Killer Kitten
Well, you know, we have to liberate the Iraqui people. I'm sure that most of us won't mind living under a bridge eating dog food in our old age to bring freedom to these people who love us Americans so much.



I seriously hope you're joking.

4. Have to pick and choose which of my medications I can take, depending upon if there is a generic available.

That is extremely quote-worthy. You'd figure with all the geniuses in pharmaceuticals, you could at least stockpile the generic version of medication X... And in most cases, they do.

The only problem is that I went through about 5 different doctors all prescribing me the same name brand medication, until it was me, I, who raised the question if there was a generic version of this same medication. . There was, and instead of 30 beans for 50 name brand pills, I now only dish out $5 to cop the same amount, generic.

[Edited on 2-17-2005 by Stanley Burrell]

[GSLeloo]

Ok it's not just the issue of them sending it to Iraq. As others have mentioned, we made that fund. Every person (almost) who works pays social security and puts money into that fund. Why is it that they can take 150 billion dollars of the money we put there and not even say a word to us?

The ONLY mention of this I could even find was at a meeting about contracting in Iraq and was a side comment...

Originally posted by GSLeloo
Ok it's not just the issue of them sending it to Iraq. As others have mentioned, we made that fund. Every person (almost) who works pays social security and puts money into that fund. Why is it that they can take 150 billion dollars of the money we put there and not even say a word to us?

The ONLY mention of this I could even find was at a meeting about contracting in Iraq and was a side comment...

Because *right now* we the people are paying out of the ass to give these soldiers the protection they deserve, circa. February, 17, 2005.

I just wonder, when all the Gulf War 2 amputees and veterans have grown up, how are *they* going to feel sitting their stubs on the front doors of their trailers, pondering the plethora of reasons behind why a percentage of 150 billion dollars that should be arriving in their mailbox never reached its rightful owner.

[Warriorbird]

Sort've funny you didn't vote for him, Valthissa...considering the statements I've seen you make.

The debt is not good for our country or our society. Neither is the deficit.

We should be able to opt out of the social security issue.

None of those statements are particularly "liberal".

[Edited on 2-17-2005 by Warriorbird]

[xtc]

Originally posted by Valthissa
Please explain the mechanics of how the government took money from social security and sent it to another country?

Why not say that they took money from social security and used it to fund the new prescription medicine benefit? Whenever the government has a deficit you could make this argument about almost any expenditure. Money was taken from X to pay for Y.

You don't think they have a locked room full of social security money and they just opened the door, stole the money, and walked it down the hall to the room labled 'money for Iraq', do you?

As I posted before, it is not possible to discuss social security without first agreeing on the social policy that it is intended to serve. We have a system right now that, over time, pays benefits in excess of receipts. We may decide that is a good thing. I which case we will have to:

A) increase taxes
B) decrease other government expenditures to fund this benefit
C) borrow

We may decide that we would like, as a matter of social policy, a system that pays benefits equal to receipts. To meet this we would have to:

A) increase taxes
B) decrease benefits
C) decrease other government expeditures

We certainly need to improve the current system.

The amount of misinformation about the national debt that I hear is staggering. The national debt is at 60% of GDP. That is virtually the same as 1986 and 1996. Canada runs a debt of about 80% of GDP and Great Britain is around 85%. I know that everyone here realizes that the recipients of the interest on the debt are mostly US citizens. I fail to understand why otherwise intelligent people buy into the notion that we have a debt problem.

Just a few more numbers then I'll go back to playing backgammon.

% GDP expended to fight WWII - 40
% GDP expended on Iraq - .7

doesn't seem like such a big number when you look at in those terms, does it?

C/Valth bored to tears - I really need for work to pick back up!

[Edited on 2-17-2005 by Valthissa]

First off your numbers are wrong.

1. Canadian debt is at around 47% of GDP. Canada has reduced it debt drastically over the past 10 years and consistently runs budget surpluses. In other words we are not running a (yearly) deficit i.e. we take in more then we spend each year. We use to be at around 70% 10 years ago.

http://www.admfincs.forces.gc.ca/financial_docs/msood/2002/images/graph08_e.gif
http://www.admfincs.forces.gc.ca/financial_docs/msood/2002/intro_e.asp

2. Britain’s debt is less than 40% of its GDP.

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=277

3. The United States debt is currently charted at around 60% but rising

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy04/pdf/hist.pdf


The numbers we should be looking at is the % of foreign indebtedness which is on the rise. Also which direction is the debt moving in. If we run record deficits year after year and our economic growth is slow, the debt as a % of GDP has to rise.

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html


The other number we should be concerned with is personal debt which is at an all time high.

http://www.cepr.net/publications/debt_trends.htm


Regarding the over $150 Billion which has been spent in the war of Iraq. Semantics aside, this is money that could have spent on social security, education, healthcare.

[Edited on 2-17-2005 by xtc]

[peam]

I feel sorry for anyone who isn't smart enough to invest on their own or work for the railroad.

I'd rather not work a blue collar, redneck job, thanks though.

- Arkans

[peam]

Originally posted by Arkans
I'd rather not work a blue collar, redneck job, thanks though.

- Arkans

I'm sure that after you considered the many, many doors that were surely open to you, the military was the best choice.

Actually, the railroad, labor or officers, has a retirement plan that is completely seperate from social security.

I'll never have to deal with it. The money will be there, when I retire at 52.

Military is only part time. Something that I really didn't *NEED*, rather something I wanted to do. I just cannot stand jobs that are blue collar. This doesn't mean there is anything wrong with them, but they just really rub me, as a person the wrong way. I'd rather get a great white collar job with a nice retirement package that has unlimited growth.

- Arkans

[DeV]

Is the military not considered blue collar?

Anyway, people do need to invest on their own. Relying on the government is the least best option.

Depends. I'd consider lower enlisted and NCOs as blue collar. Officers I'd consider white collar. The military is its own little society in itself.

- Arkans

[Back]

I’m torn on this issue. Obviously, with the baby boomers starting to retire and the population lower, there needs to be some kind of supplement.

I don’t claim to be an expert at economics, but it sounds risky to me to use the stock market as that supplement. Bonds sounds much safer. To say the stock market is risky might sound negative. In theory, it should always grow. But there is that “what if” that looms there, and that “what if” could really screw a lot of people over. Of course, if the market tanks, we are all in trouble.

Of course, everyone should have another option on top of SS. My grandparents did. SS is just a little cushion, not the whole bed.

[Valthissa]

First off your numbers are wrong.

1. Canadian debt is at around 47% of GDP. Canada has reduced it debt drastically over the past 10 years and consistently runs budget surpluses. In other words we are not running a (yearly) deficit i.e. we take in more then we spend each year. We use to be at around 70% 10 years ago.


2. Britain’s debt is less than 40% of its GDP.


[Edited on 2-17-2005 by xtc] [/quote]

I conceed that Canada's number is closer to 50% (I get 52% based on 501B debt and 958B GDP)

Canada is a good example of what a growing economy does for debt.

I know that there is some debate relative to what Britain claims so I should not have used them.

Japan's is pretty exciting at over 100% so I should have used them instead.

C/Valth

[Brattt8525]

God, what selfish, uncompassionate bastards we Americans are! How dare we want to sleep indoors and have enough to eat and have access to medical care in our old age just because we paid a portion of every dollar we ever earned to do just that? (Of course we also paid our taxes, and isn't the money to be helping these poor brutalized souls supposed to be coming from that money, not our retirement funds?)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

My guess is those very elderly people who are collecting SS are using YOUR money because they long used up any they put in. Next SS check day in your town go rip it from their hands because they shouldn't be living off your money should they?

[Back]

Oh, on the issue of the government withdrawing money from SS... I have to wonder... if it does go private does that mean the government can’t touch?

Where will they get the money from? Obviously, aside from all the taxes we pay, they must need it if they’ve been dipping in it all this time.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Valthissa
First off your numbers are wrong.

1. Canadian debt is at around 47% of GDP. Canada has reduced it debt drastically over the past 10 years and consistently runs budget surpluses. In other words we are not running a (yearly) deficit i.e. we take in more then we spend each year. We use to be at around 70% 10 years ago.


2. Britain’s debt is less than 40% of its GDP.


[Edited on 2-17-2005 by xtc]

I conceed that Canada's number is closer to 50% (I get 52% based on 501B debt and 958B GDP)

Canada is a good example of what a growing economy does for debt.

I know that there is some debate relative to what Britain claims so I should not have used them.

Japan's is pretty exciting at over 100% so I should have used them instead.

C/Valth [/quote]

Actually your figures on Japan are and aren't correct. Japan includes it's future commitments for social security as part of it's debt and the Bank of Japan's commitments as well, which other nations don't do. A more equitable number to use for comparison to other nations would be around 64% debt of GDP which is still quite high.

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000039&refer=columnist_pesek&sid=a5xJ0E q4EYIU

My fear with the debt in the US is the direction in which it is going. If you look at the Government estimates for the next few years it has us up to 68% debt per GDP by 2008.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy04/pdf/hist.pdf

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Stanley Burrell
IfMy point was, the "equipment" in churches is often more extravagant than any individual priest can afford (which is worth a discussion even more off-topic than this). This doesn't mean priests don't live under a vow of poverty.
Originally posted by Killer Kitten
Charity begins at home. What's wrong with making sure our own elderly aren't living a brutally substandard life before giving their money to the rest of the world? The likelihood of civilians being killed by the United States (after that whole DDT thing) is far less than the likelihood of civilians being killed by a madman/dictator with very efficient weapons (that we gave to him). And I'd say, after what we've put the rest of the world through, charity should end at home, as opposed to begin.
Originally posted by peam
I feel sorry for anyone who isn't smart enough to invest on their own or work for the railroad.Plus, you get your own song!! Assuming you know someone named Dinah, of course.

[Artha]

Originally posted by Killer Kitten
Charity begins at home.

Is it still charity if it's mandatory?

[Back]

Holy shit. An idea from Bush that I agree with.

Make the wealthy pay their share (http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?flok=FF-APO-1151&idq=/ff/story/0001%2F20050217%2F1842195521.htm&sc=1151).

Capital responsibility.The wealthy don’t even need SS anyway.

[Killer Kitten]

Originally posted by Artha

Originally posted by Killer Kitten
Charity begins at home.

Is it still charity if it's mandatory?

Well, it shouldn't be, yet folks collecting their SS are made to feel that it is.

[Killer Kitten]

"The likelihood of civilians being killed by the United States (after that whole DDT thing) is far less than the likelihood of civilians being killed by a madman/dictator with very efficient weapons (that we gave to him). And I'd say, after what we've put the rest of the world through, charity should end at home, as opposed to begin."
__________________________

I'm just wondering what we've put the rest of the world through that is so much more dreadful than what other countries have put the world through. Most nations are guilty of something somewhere along the line. Nobody else seems inclined to do penance for past sins, so why should we neglect our own people in order to do so?

And I wasn't referring to civilians being shot by a dictator. I was referring to our elderly living below the poverty line, being cold or hungry or homeless because the benefit money they are entitled to was looted to pay for this war. It is thanks to our elderly Americans that any of us are alive, have our freedom or are prosperous. We owe them more than fear and poverty in their old age.

[Killer Kitten]

Originally posted by Brattt8525
God, what selfish, uncompassionate bastards we Americans are! How dare we want to sleep indoors and have enough to eat and have access to medical care in our old age just because we paid a portion of every dollar we ever earned to do just that? (Of course we also paid our taxes, and isn't the money to be helping these poor brutalized souls supposed to be coming from that money, not our retirement funds?)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

My guess is those very elderly people who are collecting SS are using YOUR money because they long used up any they put in. Next SS check day in your town go rip it from their hands because they shouldn't be living off your money should they?

Um, I was being facetious in that particular paragraph. I am a firm believer in taking care of our senior citizens and giving them the benefits to which they are entitled. Sorry if I was unclear.

[Killer Kitten]

Um, sorry about all the posts. Nothing like spending the day with your 78 year old mother to get you riled up about SS benefits!

I need my valium now.

[Geoff]

God the BS is getting thick in this thread.

SS isn't going away, the 20 somethings crying "no fair!" are going to get it, and no one is going to be eating dogfood under a bridge the next 50 years or so.

If you want an honest to god bipartisan opinion of what'll happen with SS under Bushe's plan along with how it works currently (Something a lot of people here don't get) go here (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6920720/site/newsweek/) it's written by an economist and everything...

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Killer Kitten
Nobody else seems inclined to do penance for past sins, so why should we neglect our own people in order to do so?We're #1. :)

[Killer Kitten]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm

Originally posted by Killer Kitten
Nobody else seems inclined to do penance for past sins, so why should we neglect our own people in order to do so?We're #1. :)

Do you mean that as in the USA is #1 at sinning?
If so I'm thinking Germany makes us look like amateurs. They started two world wars, perfected the art of death camps, and have now spawned a thriving Neo-Nazi movement.

[Latrinsorm]

No, we're #1 in terms of power, and therefore responsibility.

I think it's a bit much to blame Germany for dumb people, and I'd blame the French guy (Clemenceau is my best guess at his name) and Henry Cabot Lodge for World War II, personally. World War I, all of Europe, but mostly Germany.

[Killer Kitten]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
No, we're #1 in terms of power, and therefore responsibility.

With great power does come great responsibility. Where does the line get drawn, though, between taking responsibility and assuming too much?

When does our act of 'liberation' become instead an act of 'invasion' and 'oppression'? I know that a lot of people within the US itself are starting to feel a bit oppressed, and that a great many people in Iraq did not welcome us with flower petals and open arms.

I sometimes feel as if the US, in it's desire to do good, is instead assuming a bit too much and becoming too heavy handed in its policies. I also think (to stay on topic) that we should take care of our own people before we run around in tights and cape righting the wrongs of the whole planet.