Privatizing Social Security unworkable politically, economically
In this morning’s post, I talked about today’s political environment as “a primal scream of denial, an insistence that easy answers be found — right now!” A recent Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll adds some weight to that description.
Voters were read a series of positions or actions and were asked whether they would make them more or less enthusiastic about supporting a candidate for Congress. In response, 50 percent said that they would have reservations about, or would be very uncomfortable about, a candidate who supported the economic policies of Barack Obama.
On the other hand, 62 percent said they would feel that way about someone who supported the economic policies of George W. Bush.
The poll also found that 49 percent of voters would feel very uncomfortable about a candidate who proposed to phase out Social Security and instead allow workers to invest in the stock market. Only 21 percent said they would be enthusiastic or comfortable with a candidate taking that approach.
That’s an interesting number, given that more and more Republicans are once again beginning to raise that possibility. But I want to set aside the polling numbers for a moment and consider a very practical problem with that idea.
Proponents of that approach almost always say that they will guarantee the Social Security of all current recipients as well as those over 50 or 55, while allowing younger workers to opt out the system in favor of private accounts. Politically and morally, that kind of guarantee would be essential, and everyone understands that.
So here’s the problem. The Social Security benefits for those older folks would have to be financed by continuing taxes on those still young enough to be working. For better or worse, that’s how the insurance system works: Today’s workers help finance today’s retirees.
So where is the money that those younger workers would set aside to invest in their own retirement? That would have to come on TOP of what they’re paying to support Social Security. They will be paying to support today’s retirees AND paying to finance their own private accounts, in effect paying for two retirement systems at the same time.
If you add in the fact that today’s and tomorrow’s taxpayers are obliged to repay $2.5 trillion to the Social Security Trust Fund — money that was borrowed over the last 25 years largely to help offset tax cuts for the more affluent — you’ve got a third retirement-related burden to handle.
I haven’t heard any proponent of private accounts explain how the accounting of all this could possibly work. Even President Bush, in his aborted attempt at privatization, never really explained how that transition could be financed without adding trillions more to the national debt. In other words, those 49 percent are right to be deeply uncomfortable.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
248 comments Add your comment
jewcowboy
September 8th, 2010
2:16 pm
chuck,
“the defense of marriage act has been adjudicated and upheld as constitutional hasn’t it?”
Um no…actually the opposite:
http://www.newsweek.com/2010/07/09/federal-judge-rules-the-defense-of-marriage-act-unconstitutional-will-it-stick.html
Doggone/GA
September 8th, 2010
2:17 pm
“upheld as constitutional hasn’t it?…due process”
No. “Court Rules Defense of Marriage Act Unconstitutional ”
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/3990-court-rules-defense-of-marriage-act-unconstitutional
Doggone/GA
September 8th, 2010
2:17 pm
Jewcowboy…GMTA!
jewcowboy
September 8th, 2010
2:18 pm
Doggone/GA,
Bosch
September 8th, 2010
2:20 pm
I say we trade — we privatize SS if we can switch to single payer health care system.
Paulo977
September 8th, 2010
2:21 pm
Poor Boy
from Alabama re: current SS unsustainable …do read for info
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-coates/the-looming-battle-over-s_b_687106.html
jconservative
September 8th, 2010
2:21 pm
Dealing with Social Security is at best wishful thinking in today’s political climate. Social Security will require bi-partisanship on a scale not seen in this country in over 25 years.
First, there are 58.5 million people on some type of Social Security.
That is a huge percentage of voters.
Second, the baby boomers, those born between 1946 & 1964, number 72 million people. Starting in 2011 they will start going on Social Security in huge numbers. That is a lot of voters.
Bottom line, politically, is that there are a potential 100 million plus voters that must be accounted for on any plans to “fix” Social Security.
That is why the effort must be bi-partisan. No party has the guts to shoulder the responsibility and potential wrath of 100 million voters.
But we are in a very partisan atmosphere at this time.
The last time Social Security was “fixed” it was Tip O’Neill and Ronald Reagan working out a compromise. No one was happy. But that is what compromise is, giving up something for something.
But today the “base” of both parties will not tolerate any compromise.
So unless both parties tell their bases to “stick it”, nothing will be done.
And you guys born after 1964 are going to shoulder an enormous load.
Not only will you be required to pay for Social Security and Medicare but you have the now $13.6 trillion national debt created in the last 30 years to pay off.
I am suggesting that as long as you guys in the base of both parties keep at each others throats you are only digging your own grave.
But it is your funeral, not mind. I will be “kicking up daisies” as the old saw goes.
Mick
September 8th, 2010
2:22 pm
JC
**SS is a safety net, and should be treated as such. It is not a retirement account, even though many treat it as such. However, if you are 95 and run out of money in those private accounts, who are you going to turn to?**
Right on – I’ve been laying that perspective down many times now but some just cannot wrap that thought up. Yet we try……
Poor Boy from Alabama
September 8th, 2010
2:23 pm
Doggone/GA @ 2:12
“And I have NO faith that if people were allowed to opt out that they would NOT come crying on the government’s door when they retire and have nothing to live on.”
Agreed. I’m OK with some form of mandatory retirement accounts because you’re right about how many people will be irresponsible and not save for their golden years. That still doesn’t mean we shouldn’t allow folks to have more say in how their retirement dollars are invested.
jewcowboy
September 8th, 2010
2:24 pm
Hiya Bosch!
“I say we trade — we privatize SS if we can switch to single payer health care system.”
I could live with that.
jewcowboy
September 8th, 2010
2:26 pm
Mick,
“I’ve been laying that perspective down many times now but some just cannot wrap that thought up. ”
Grandma would then be on welfare…driving her gold Cadillac @ 20mph with the left blinker on the wrong way on 285.
AT
September 8th, 2010
2:26 pm
jewcowboy @ 2:10
You have hit the nail on the head of the problem. SS is a safety net in name only, not in practice. Millionaires can and do draw SS as well they should, there is no restriction and they surely paid into it.
I had complete control over my retirement tanking recently, it was my choice, my freedom to do so. I won’t be in the market when I get close to retirement.
Regardless, it is my problem, I’m not asking anyone else to fix it for me and I will not ask the gov’t to steal for me and call it a safety net. Our country used to cherish freedom, cherish it much more than our economic future. We have no such freedom with SS. Its SS or jail.
chuck
September 8th, 2010
2:26 pm
Sorry about that. Here is the current status of that decision: DOMA has been under challenge in the federal courts, and on July 8, 2010, Judge Joseph Tauro of the District Court of Massachusetts held that the denial of federal rights and benefits to lawfully married Massachusetts same-sex couples under the DOMA is unconstitutional, under the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution.[12][13] This ruling is currently under a stay, but would affect residents residing within the federal district that covers Massachusetts if the stay is lifted.
I assume that since the decision is under stay, the Federal gov’t is still not required to recognize gay marriage.
chuck
September 8th, 2010
2:27 pm
As of November 2009, when legislation legalizing same-sex marriage in Maine was defeated by referendum, same-sex marriage had been defeated in all 31 states in which it had been directly put to a popular vote.[15] Thirty states have passed constitutional amendments prohibiting same-sex marriage.[15]
jm
September 8th, 2010
2:28 pm
The younger generation is probably scr#wed. No one under the age of 45 (that I know of) expects social security to be around. So we’re on our own.
That said, reform, as difficult as it is politically, is possible (as long as 51% stand their ground for some kind of reform), and it is possible economically.
Most reform proposals include some amount of privatization, but the solutions generally center around raising the retirement age and indexing benefits to something other than income. As well as means testing. Those solutions “work” and still leave social security in existence.
The politics stink though. Of course, the politics will work themselves out, if necessary. As I think yogi berra said: “all things that cannot go on forever, eventually end”. So it is with SS. If it isn’t fixed, bankruptcy of the country will fix it.
Doggone/GA
September 8th, 2010
2:28 pm
“That still doesn’t mean we shouldn’t allow folks to have more say in how their retirement dollars are invested”
they DO have more say in how their retirement dollars are invested. SS is not a retirement fund. Ask yourself this: how much say do you have in how your auto insurance company invests the money you pay them?
Mick
September 8th, 2010
2:28 pm
jconservative @ 2:21
A loud, thunderous applause for your commentary. It’s contains almost too much common sense and we all know that common sense isn’t so common these days.
jewcowboy
September 8th, 2010
2:28 pm
jconservative,
“And you guys born after 1964 are going to shoulder an enormous load.
Not only will you be required to pay for Social Security and Medicare but you have the now $13.6 trillion national debt created in the last 30 years to pay off.”
Many on here say a “backlash” is coming…they just misunderstand where the backlash is coming from…it won’t be right vs left…it will be inter generational… and it will be ugly.
MPercy
September 8th, 2010
2:29 pm
Fly-On-The-Wall: You can download the spreadsheets the Tax Foundation used directly from the IRS website http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0,,id=133521,00.html. I have spot checked the Tax Foundation numbers against the IRS-provided numbers and have found no discrepancies in the tables (spot-check does not mean there aren’t *any* errors, just that the number certainly seem to jibe for the several dozen values I checked).
In 2006:
* the top 1% consisted of 1,357,192 taxpayers who had AGI greater than $388,806
* they had a total of $1,792B in AGI, which comprised 22.06% of overall AGI
* they paid a total of $408B in taxes, which comprised 39.89% of overall taxes
* their average effective tax rate was 22.79%
* per taxpayer, average revenue was $300,663
In 2006:
* the bottom 50% consisted of 67,859,580 taxpayers who had postive AGI less than $31,987
* they had a total of $1,016B in AGI, which comprised 12.51% of overall AGI
* they paid a total of $31B in taxes, which comprised 2.99% of overall taxes
* their average effective tax rate was 3.01%
* per taxpayer, average revenue was $456
larry
September 8th, 2010
2:29 pm
larry–Hold tight, things will pick up in January when the anti-business Democrats are thrown out on their collective rears.
Lets see……………hmmmm……whos been blocking tax breaks for small businesses for the last 6 months, it hasnt been the anti-business Demorcrats.
Who had the White House and both houses of Congress from 2001-2007, and the White House from 2001-2009. ? And yet the net job growth was zero.
Don’t ya mean pro-regulation Democrats.
The Brothers Koch
September 8th, 2010
2:30 pm
Second, the baby boomers, those born between 1946 & 1964, number 72 million people. Starting in 2011 they will start going on Social Security in huge numbers. That is a lot of voters.
And that is indeed the beginning of the real problem to be addressed. There is no money there to pay those multitudes that are scheduled to start drawing social security and we’re not giving it back. It’s our money. We earned it. So, pfffftttttttt! Take that!
jewcowboy
September 8th, 2010
2:30 pm
chuck,
Why does anyone think they have a right to vote on relationships between two consenting adults, who are freely able to enter into contracts?
Bosch
September 8th, 2010
2:30 pm
Hi ya back at cha’ jewcowboy!
I wish these GOPers who are proposing to do away with SS would get on the rooftops and scream it as loud as they can — I’m not sure who the hell it is that think would go for this.
jm
September 8th, 2010
2:32 pm
Bubba Bob – “I think we should spend ourselves into debt so heavily we can’t recover, let the economy crash, suffer for years and then see if people want to be more fiscally responsible”
I think that be the course we are headed on unless the debt / deficit commission gets its way.
Bosch
September 8th, 2010
2:33 pm
That jconservative — he’s alright.
Mick
September 8th, 2010
2:33 pm
**The younger generation is probably scr#wed. No one under the age of 45 (that I know of) expects social security to be around. So we’re on our own.**
Not necessarily. If it is fixed now and once the boomers are extinct, that hugh curve will start to straighten out with each generation paying for the next ad infinitum.
Jefferson
September 8th, 2010
2:33 pm
The GOP has no credibility.
jewcowboy
September 8th, 2010
2:33 pm
Bosch,
“I’m not sure who the hell it is that think would go for this.”
Good point! Perhaps Democrats should buy them airtime
Doggone/GA
September 8th, 2010
2:34 pm
“Thirty states have passed constitutional amendments prohibiting same-sex marriage.[15]”
It wouldn’t matter if all 50 states passed such laws. If the SC rules it unconstitutional – as they should – those laws will be rendered invalid.
jm
September 8th, 2010
2:35 pm
Jay 12:41 – based on what I’ve read (and I’m sure some disagree), the CBO estimates suggest that Ryan’s plan fixes the deficit. As draconian as his plan is, it takes that draconian of a plan to fix things.
Exciting, eh?
jewcowboy
September 8th, 2010
2:35 pm
Mick,
“If it is fixed now and once the boomers are extinct, that hugh curve will start to straighten out with each generation paying for the next ad infinitum.”
Where are those death panels when you need them?
Bosch
September 8th, 2010
2:36 pm
chuck,
In 1967 – the Supreme Court voted unanimously to declare VA’s law prohibiting people of different races was unconstitutional – in Loving v. Virginia. Something like 70% of the people at the time thought that inter-racial marriage was wrong, but it didn’t matter because the Richard and Mary Loving wanted to get married and they won their case.
See, it doesn’t matter what you or anyone else thinks about what is right or wrong for someone else.
jewcowboy
September 8th, 2010
2:38 pm
Doggone/GA,
“Ask yourself this: how much say do you have in how your auto insurance company invests the money you pay them?”
Someone tried to steal my car last week, shorting out the electrical system and generally f8cking it all up. I’ve been going round and round with the insurance company and have starting telling them where they can stick it…I don’t think they are taking heed of my advice though.
jm
September 8th, 2010
2:38 pm
Taxpayr 12:43 – the actual SS trust fund administrators admit that that there will be “insufficient funds” to pay more than 80 cents on the dollar after something like 2035 or somewhere thereabouts. Of course the funds come out of the imaginary checking account set up by congress. So that money’s not really there.
Essentially, to continue paying benefits at the current rate requires massive, drastic tax increases. Welcome to the fiscal reality party.
The Brothers Koch
September 8th, 2010
2:39 pm
The CBO data shown in Table 1 also show that between 1979 and 2007:
* The average after-tax income of the top 1 percent of the population nearly quadrupled, from $347,000 to over $1.3 million. As noted, this represented an increase of $973,100, or 281 percent, per household.
* By contrast, the average after-tax income of the middle fifth of the population rose from $44,100 in 1979 to $55,300 in 2007 — a relatively modest gain of $11,200 or 25 percent.
* The average after-tax income of the poorest fifth of the population rose from $15,300 to $17,700, an increase of $2,400 or 16 percent. [2]
This is surely a clear indication that most people, more than 99 percent actually, are just plain lazy and envious too! If you want more then work for it like we did.
chuck
September 8th, 2010
2:40 pm
jewcowboy, Marriage is much more than a contract. If you and another wish to enter into some sort of civil agreement to accommodate each other in some of the areas which would otherwise be closed to you, go for it.
Marriage is one our most cherished institutions. It is the PREFERRED way to raise children and transmit our culture. Unfortunately it has been denigrated by those who enter into it lightly and without the full intention to fulfill its lifelong commitment. That doesn’t mean that we should just open it up to any sort of perversion.
Mick
September 8th, 2010
2:42 pm
**it will be inter generational… and it will be ugly.**
I know where you are coming from on that and we could cite music as an example. Boomers believe that classic rock rules and is the greatest gift to mankind. The real music stopped right when disco started. So, it goes with social security, this is grandpa’s plan and it won’t be here for me, so why should I fight for something that does not benefit me? The answer is that it will be there for you if you demand it to be. Just like types aof music are more relevant to different generations. Boomers move in herds cause there are just so many of us and you have to drag us kicking and screaming to believe that we are actually getting old. Young people need to believe and understand that social security, the safety net, is theirs too.
Doggone/GA
September 8th, 2010
2:43 pm
Mick…I *try* not to do this, but this “hugh” happens to be a pet peeve of mine! The word you want is “huge” – Hugh is a man’s name.
jewcowboy
September 8th, 2010
2:45 pm
chuck,
“Marriage is much more than a contract.”
Actually…in eyes of the state…that is all it is.
“That doesn’t mean that we should just open it up to any sort of perversion.”
So your argument is that you think homosexuality is a perversion…that is your opinion…and the 14th amendment protects me from your opinion.
Hillbilly Deluxe
September 8th, 2010
2:45 pm
In the case of SSI, virtually no risk is acceptable. As such, we have to accept that fact in advance that the return on investment (ROI) will always remain low.
That’s it in a nutshell. The same as investing in band CD’s as opposed to the stock market. You always know where you stand, which looks better and better, the older you get. When the stock market crashed in 1929, it was 1954 before it returned to it’s pre-crash level. That’s 25 years. That’s a long time ti wait for a recovery, if you’re 50 or older.
I wonder, if some of the proponents of privatizing, were caught in a crash like that when they were say 60 or older, would just say, “Well, I made a bad choice” and take their lumps, or would they be looking for someone to “make them whole”. I’d bet on the latter, were I a gambling man.
Add to that, the fact that I view the Stock Market as a rigged system, must like a casino, and I want no part of “privatization”.
HDB
September 8th, 2010
2:45 pm
Doggone/GA
September 8th, 2010
2:34 pm
“Thirty states have passed constitutional amendments prohibiting same-sex marriage.[15]”
It wouldn’t matter if all 50 states passed such laws. If the SC rules it unconstitutional – as they should – those laws will be rendered invalid.”
You’re right on point….and the Equal Protection Clause and the Commerce Clause are the keys!! A contract entered into in one state – by LAW – must be recognized in ALL states! Since marriage is a CONTRACT, it’s protected by the Commerce Clause…and Equal Protections will make same-sex marriage a fait-accompli……sooner than later!!
Mick
September 8th, 2010
2:46 pm
Doggone/GA
Thanks professor, please feel free to lower my spelling grade. I have noticed that I am getting rather sloppy and it really sux that you pick it up after you hit submit.
TaxPayer
September 8th, 2010
2:46 pm
Taxpayr 12:43 – the actual SS trust fund administrators admit that that there will be “insufficient funds” to pay more than 80 cents on the dollar after something like 2035 or somewhere thereabouts. Of course the funds come out of the imaginary checking account set up by congress. So that money’s not really there.
The claim made in the cited post was that the person would only recover 75 percent of what he paid in. That’s quite different from being paid a lesser amount than is currently paid without having first hand knowledge regarding death panels and how long each of us will be allowed to live. One could receive either more or less or the same as one has paid in over the years depending on how long one lives.
jm
September 8th, 2010
2:48 pm
Bosch 2:20 – I sort of like your trade.
HDB
September 8th, 2010
2:49 pm
Bosch September 8th, 2010
2:36 pm
“chuck,
In 1967 – the Supreme Court voted unanimously to declare VA’s law prohibiting people of different races was unconstitutional – in Loving v. Virginia. Something like 70% of the people at the time thought that inter-racial marriage was wrong, but it didn’t matter because the Richard and Mary Loving wanted to get married and they won their case.
See, it doesn’t matter what you or anyone else thinks about what is right or wrong for someone else.”
Perfect example of where the majority can be WRONG!! Thanks, Bosch!!
John Birch
September 8th, 2010
2:49 pm
Pay back the $2.5T, remove the current $106K ccap, and add a 3% wealthy surcharge tax to everything over $100,000 and you’re funded. The surcharge is only fair, if we finally accept that this is just another tax for re-distributing income, since the wealthy have been paying only something lews han 6.25% up to this point.
John Birch
September 8th, 2010
2:50 pm
should be less than, not lews han
TaxPayer
September 8th, 2010
2:51 pm
Bosch 2:20 – I sort of like your trade.
I like professional (and amateur) bloggers too but the pay is lousy.
jewcowboy
September 8th, 2010
2:52 pm
mick,
“Boomers believe that classic rock rules and is the greatest gift to mankind.”
Funny…that was my point yesterday when Jay equated Lady Gaga as just an attention seeker. I found his dismissal of her talent hypocritical. Looking back at the music he had chosen since June for Friday nights they were: The Temptations, Benjamin Tehoval, ZZ Top, Jeff Beck, Bugs Hernderson, REM, Willie Nelson, Rolling Stones and Elton John.
Not a single artist under 50 years old.
“Young people need to believe and understand that social security, the safety net, is theirs too.”
Good point. As obvious by some postings on here saying they don’t expect ss to be around when they are ready to retire. Well it won’t be unless they fight for it.
jewcowboy
September 8th, 2010
2:54 pm
Mick,
“it really sux that you pick it up after you hit submit.”
I switched to Firefox b/c it has spell check built in. Not fool-proof mind you, and I can be a fool
Bosch
September 8th, 2010
2:56 pm
Paul!!!
Starbuck is going to CSI
http://www.imdb.com/news/ni4215739/!!!
HDB
September 8th, 2010
2:56 pm
jewcowboy
September 8th, 2010
2:52 pm
mick,
“Boomers believe that classic rock rules and is the greatest gift to mankind.”
In SOME areas….but if you REALLY want to listen to the greatest music…try John Coltrane, Charlie Parker, Thelonius Monk, Dizzy Gillespie, Miles Davis…..then come forward to Stanley Clarke, George Duke, Chick Corea, Al DiMeola. Listen to some Ella ansd Sarah…then come forward to Aretha and Chaka……
“Young people need to believe and understand that social security, the safety net, is theirs too.”
Good point…no….EXCELLENT point!
jm
September 8th, 2010
2:56 pm
jewcowboy 2:28 – The problem is the politicians won’t listen to those paying the stupid taxes until there’s a fiscal crisis (which means they’ll really be listening to wall street). So intergenerational warfare won’t occur because the old side has already won.
So, the only way for the taxpayer side to win the fight is to do one of the following:
1. Stop working
2. Move to another country and violate the law by not paying taxes since US tax law requires you to still pay US taxes no matter what country you live in, and even for 10 years following a renouncing of citizenship. Hotel California USA….
Doggone/GA
September 8th, 2010
2:56 pm
“Marriage is much more than a contract.”
No, it isn’t. A legal marriage is nothing BUT a contract. If religions want to have sect marriages that is their business, but if the presiding religious authority does not sign that marriage license you are NOT legally married.
jewcowboy
September 8th, 2010
2:56 pm
HDB,
“Perfect example of where the majority can be WRONG!! Thanks, Bosch!!”
I posted before, “Never underestimate stupid people in large groups.” That can be amended to “Don’t underestimate scared and bigoted people in large groups.”
Mick
September 8th, 2010
2:56 pm
jc
Funny thing about music to me anyway is; if I like it – I like it. Can’t stand m&m but that slim shady garbage is kinda catchy. Gaga has musical ability and talent…..who knows, maybe she suffers for her art. Bottom line; if I like it, it’s good to me. So, even scout has turned me on to some good music that I never might have found.
MPercy
September 8th, 2010
2:57 pm
As to raising he age, in 1935 when SS was first passed and the retirement age was set at 65, the life expectancy was 61.0 for white men, 65.0 for white women, 51.1 for black men and 55.2 for black women. When passed SS was designed to provide proof “against poverty-ridden old age.” [Roosevelt's Signing statement].
Today, retirement age is 67 for people born after 1960 (and still 65 or 66 plus some months for people born before that) . Life expectancy is 75.7 for white men, 80.8 for white women, 69.5 for black men and 76.5 for black women. And SS is no longer merely providing protection against living in abject poverty for a few years in old age, it is providing a modest income allowing people to maintain lifestyle and assets (about the same as $13.50 per hour as wages — nearly 2x minimum wage) for many more years, especially considering Medicare pays for health care.
What would a SS system cost that provided minimal (e.g. minimum wage equivalent) benefits only to people over 75 and who can show that they have no income and no assets?
jm
September 8th, 2010
2:58 pm
HDB / jewcowboy – “Young people need to believe and understand that social security, the safety net, is theirs too.”
Only if they’re delusional….
Doggone/GA
September 8th, 2010
2:58 pm
“Thanks professor, please feel free to lower my spelling grade.”
No problem! As I said, normally I don’t worry about it…I’m good at reading “tyop”! But that particular error popped up about 5 or 6 years ago and spread like wildfire! And I have NO idea how it came about!
HDB
September 8th, 2010
2:59 pm
jewcowboy
September 8th, 2010
2:56 pm
HDB,
“Perfect example of where the majority can be WRONG!! Thanks, Bosch!!”
I posted before, “Never underestimate stupid people in large groups.” That can be amended to “Don’t underestimate scared and bigoted people in large groups.”
GOT THAT RIGHT!!….and hasn’t there been evidence of that fact here????
jm
September 8th, 2010
2:59 pm
MPercy – amen. It would be affordable for sure. Of course, we would have to contend with wheelchair riots.
Doggone/GA
September 8th, 2010
3:00 pm
“I switched to Firefox b/c it has spell check built in. Not fool-proof mind you, and I can be a fool”
this is a good time for this:
A Little Poem Regarding Computer Spell Checkers…
Eye halve a spelling chequer
It came with my pea sea
It plainly marques four my revue
Miss steaks eye kin knot sea.
Eye strike a key and type a word
And weight four it two say
Weather eye am wrong oar write
It shows me strait a weigh.
As soon as a mist ache is maid
It nose bee fore two long
And eye can put the error rite
Its rare lea ever wrong.
Eye have run this poem threw it
I am shore your pleased two no
Its letter perfect awl the weigh
My chequer tolled me sew.
jewcowboy
September 8th, 2010
3:00 pm
HDB,
“In SOME areas….but if you REALLY want to listen to the greatest music…”
Don’t get me wrong…I love me some Sinatra, and my iTunes is full of Julie, Eartha, Sarah and Ella, but that doesn’t mean that there is not great new music that rivals them being produced all the time, or that music that I don’t particularly care can’t be appreciated.
chuck
September 8th, 2010
3:00 pm
In certain circumstances the SC has determined that there are exceptions. For instance 4th amendment rights don’t apply to students in schools in many cases. Marriage I believe by both common law, AND practice would be one of those exceptions IF THE 14th AMENDMENT APPLIED. There is NO DISCRIMINATION HERE. Marriage laws treat you EXACTLY the same way as they do everyone else. No male is prohibited from marrying a woman anywhere in the United States.
Mick
September 8th, 2010
3:00 pm
HDB
Love progressive jazz, had private balcony seats at the house of blues for return to forever, very cool.
jewcowboy
September 8th, 2010
3:01 pm
jm,
“Stop working”
That is exactly what those 18 – 30 have had forced upon them by this recession.
The Brothers Koch
September 8th, 2010
3:02 pm
Income gains have been even more pronounced among those at the very top of the income scale. The incomes of the top one-tenth of 1 percent (0.1 percent) of U.S. households have grown more rapidly than the incomes of the top 1 percent of households as a whole, rising by 94 percent — or $3.5 million per household — since 2002. The share of the nation’s income flowing to the top one-tenth of 1 percent of households increased from 7.3 percent of the total income in the nation in 2002 to 12.3 percent in 2007. This is the highest level in the Piketty-Saez data going back to 1913, surpassing even the previous peak in 1928.
So you see. Even amongst those of us that work for a living, there are the lazy masses. If we had our way, we would be done with them but we do need someone to show off our wealth to that at least comes close to appreciating how hard we worked for it without being overtly envious. If only we could keep more of it. Won’t you little people please vote Republican again and get rid of those dreadful Democrats.
MPercy
September 8th, 2010
3:04 pm
Doggone/GA 1:12 pm
I think you’ve got your terminology wrong, even though I agree with you. “Marriage” is a religious ceremony that the state has no business defining. If for some reason the government chooses to recognize certain shared living arrangement as carrying certain implied and/or contractual benefits, that would be a civil union.
So, if your church allows, get married *and* file for the civil union certificate (if you want government recognition). If your church doesn’t allow, you simply get the civil union.
One problem is that due to church/state overlap here, “marriage licenses” have been issued by the government as if the religious rite and the civil union were one and the same, which should never have been.
jewcowboy
September 8th, 2010
3:04 pm
chuck,
“There is NO DISCRIMINATION HERE. Marriage laws treat you EXACTLY the same way as they do everyone else. No male is prohibited from marrying a woman anywhere in the United States.”
That argument ignores the intent of the 14th amendment. By that same reasoning there was no discrimination in inter-racial marriage b/c black could marry black and whites could marry white. the Supreme Court didn’t buy what you’re trying to sell.
Please give me one legal reason, that does not involve your opinion on homosexuality, why gays should not be allowed to marry.
HDB
September 8th, 2010
3:05 pm
jm
September 8th, 2010
2:58 pm
HDB / jewcowboy – “Young people need to believe and understand that social security, the safety net, is theirs too.”
Only if they’re delusional….”
So those young people hanging on rooftops during Katrina screaming for help were delusional?? The safety net is there for ALL people….even those who don’t believe in its existence!! Social Security is just one PART of it!! I have a friend who through no fault of his own can’t work due to renal failure….and the safety net (Social Security and Medicaid) is there for him…and he’s a YOUNG man!!
Will you jump out of the window if the bilding’s on fire onto a concrete surface….or will you jump into the net the fire department spread for you! Jumping blindly can get you killed!!
jm
September 8th, 2010
3:06 pm
jc 3:01 – I don’t think the 10 million people on unemployment are social security protesters. would be funny, were that so.
Look, this could work out swell. Everyone gets something from the government. If companies fire everyone, all the working joes get unemployment benefits. Retirees get social security. Where’s the error in this idea?
jewcowboy
September 8th, 2010
3:07 pm
Doggone/GA @ 3.00pm,
Write on!
The Boner's Tan Line
September 8th, 2010
3:07 pm
You don’t need any of that damn Social Security!
jm
September 8th, 2010
3:08 pm
HDB 3:05. Safety nets are delusional when everyone ends up on them. At that point, they’re called hammocks.
Union
September 8th, 2010
3:08 pm
is this the same cbo that gets all the other things wrong?
Union
September 8th, 2010
3:09 pm
“Health Insurers Plan Hikes
Rate Increases Are Blamed on Health-Care Overhaul; White House Questions Logic”
suckers..
tscali
September 8th, 2010
3:11 pm
democrats will oppose private accounts because it limits their access to our money.
Mick
September 8th, 2010
3:11 pm
union
So, you don’t think they would be raising rates anyway? Thats all they do is raise rates, please name the republican plan to stop it?
Doggone/GA
September 8th, 2010
3:12 pm
“I think you’ve got your terminology wrong, even though I agree with you. “Marriage” is a religious ceremony that the state has no business defining”
No I don’t. Churches might wish it was that way, but it isn’t. That’s why you have to get a MARRIAGE LICENSE from the state to be legally married.
“If your church doesn’t allow, you simply get the civil union.”
Nope. If you get married by a judge in a civil ceremony you are still legally MARRIED. You don’t get a “civil union” license.
Marriage has always been a legal contract. In fact, during the Middle Ages the Catholic Church was literally BEGGING people to get legally married because there were so many issues surrounding death and inheritance, and the rights of survivors due to the plague epidemics that killed so many people.
Look up the history of marriage – maybe you’ll be surprised. The problem is churches trying to muscle in on what is a purely legal contract, not the other way around.
jewcowboy
September 8th, 2010
3:13 pm
Doggone/GA,
“But that particular error popped up about 5 or 6 years ago and spread like wildfire! ”
Loose and lose are my pet peeve…drives me batty.
HDB
September 8th, 2010
3:14 pm
jewcowboy September 8th, 2010
3:00 pm
HDB,
“In SOME areas….but if you REALLY want to listen to the greatest music…”
Don’t get me wrong…I love me some Sinatra, and my iTunes is full of Julie, Eartha, Sarah and Ella, but that doesn’t mean that there is not great new music that rivals them being produced all the time, or that music that I don’t particularly care can’t be appreciated.”\
SOME of the new music IS off the charts….and I love hearing it…but too many fail to realize that a lot of the new stuff is stolen samples from some of the masters! The Black Eye Peas stole from James Brown (still like ‘em though!)….like most of the rappers did!! Still haven’t found anyone who can hold a candle to Jeff Beck, Al DiMeola, Chick Corea, Joe Satriani…but I’m open to suggestions!!
Mick September 8th, 2010
3:00 pm
“HDB
Love progressive jazz, had private balcony seats at the house of blues for return to forever, very cool”
Cool….can’t go wrong with RTF…and Buddy Guy….love the blues too!!
MPercy September 8th, 2010
3:04 pm
The problem is that the government also recognizes church-sanctioned marriage as an EQUIVALENT civil contract…therefore, the acceptance of the terminology!! Civil unions….unless made equivalent to marriage…particularly in inheritance, decision-making…and RECOGNITION…..will NOT be the same!! That’s where is issue lies!!
jewcowboy
September 8th, 2010
3:14 pm
tscali,
“democrats will oppose private accounts because it limits their access to our money.”
But people like Bernie Madoff will welcome them with open arms….
jm
September 8th, 2010
3:14 pm
Doggone – I don’t think the government or churches should be involved in marriage.
Doggone/GA
September 8th, 2010
3:15 pm
“Loose and lose are my pet peeve…drives me batty”
right up there with “their” and “they’re”! But I happen to be guilty of this one myself, so I TRY to keep quiet about it!
Jefferson
September 8th, 2010
3:15 pm
The insurance companies can keep it up and there will only be one left standing. They will be put out of business, there’s your savings.
Union
September 8th, 2010
3:16 pm
mick -
obama said it was going to be cheaper..
Mick
September 8th, 2010
3:16 pm
Doggone/GA
Nice to know my mispelling is so hugh errr huge in the scheme of mispellings.
Bosch
September 8th, 2010
3:16 pm
I have to say my favorite blog name du jour is “The Boner’s Tan Line”
~~~~~~~~~~~~`
I have read alot of absurd wingnut concepts over the past few years, but I have to nominate this one as the most absurd:
Those nasty old rich, job providing people.
Here’s why:
First of all, business owners and government agencies provide jobs — not all business owners are rich — my mom was perfect example of that.
Second of all, poor people do provide jobs because they spend their money just like rich people and there are more of them. Poor people actually provide jobs FOR rich people — even poor folks need to go to the doctor.
So, happy to debunk that absurd wingnut statement. Anytime, really. Next?
Doggone/GA
September 8th, 2010
3:17 pm
“I don’t think the government or churches should be involved in marriage.”
And I disagree. The government has every need to be involved in legal contracts. Just as they are in any other legal contract. That government involvement provides back up for any legal case that might get to court.
jm
September 8th, 2010
3:17 pm
Art Blakey, Mingus, Miles, Coltrane, Joe Williams, Nina Simone…. ah, a bygone era. People dressed up kinda nice then too. Such a classy age.
Bosch
September 8th, 2010
3:17 pm
I suffer from the “your” “you’re” syndrome.
Jefferson
September 8th, 2010
3:17 pm
tscali,
It ain’t your money anymore.
jm
September 8th, 2010
3:18 pm
Doggone – of course the government is involved in the enforcement of legal contracts. The difference is, with marriage, they write the contract for me, which is completely unnecessary, in my book.
HDB
September 8th, 2010
3:19 pm
jm
September 8th, 2010
3:08 pm
HDB 3:05. Safety nets are delusional when everyone ends up on them. At that point, they’re called hammocks.
Erroneus statement…not everyone ends up in the safety net! Granted, present circumstances generate the position that the safety net creates laziness…..but I beg to differ!! I know of many who are looking to get BACK to where they were prior to certain recessionary periods…and the ONLY thing keeping a roof over their heads IS the safety net! Don’t want such a draconian existence that people are killing others just because they have a warm place to lay their heads! We keep up this current pace…that will surely happen moreso than it is now!!
jewcowboy
September 8th, 2010
3:19 pm
Doggone/GA @ 3.12,
Here is an interesting article about the Black Death and the family unit.
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/266975/the_devastating_impact_of_the_black.html?cat=9
“The marriage rate rose, though not for love. Men and women married immediately afterward in unusual numbers. Some took advantage of orphans to obtain rich dowries that it became unlawful the marriage of female orphans without their kinsmen’s consent. In England, many since the plague had married out of greed, which resulted in childless and unhappy marriages. “
Gale
September 8th, 2010
3:21 pm
It took me a while to find where gay marriage drifted into this subject. I am right with you on that point jewcowboy. I grit my teeth every time a SS report shows up to remind me how much in spouse survivor benefits my partner of 19 years would not be entitled to because of a $35 document that any straight couple can get without question, assuming they are both consenting adults.
Mick
September 8th, 2010
3:21 pm
union
OK, the plan has not been fully implemented yet. They really smoked us during the last administration too. One can conclude that in the case of gov’t vs, insurance companies, we the people seem to be impotent while the lobbyists are on viagra.
jm
September 8th, 2010
3:22 pm
Back to SS (and Medicare, since its scary too), if Single Payer theoretically solved the cost issue (and all single payer benefits were capped at a % of GDP, in the model where gov’t provides h.c.), trading for the eventual “privatization” of retirement funds seems like an ok solution. As long as savings are forced like Chile or other countries, perhaps 10% a year with private accounts.
Such a grand bargain wouldn’t make it for 5 seconds in a place like DC though, I’m afraid.
Union
September 8th, 2010
3:23 pm
i am still waiting for someone to tell me one thing the obama administration has been correct on?
Doggone/GA
September 8th, 2010
3:23 pm
“The difference is, with marriage, they write the contract for me, which is completely unnecessary, in my book”
Actually, no they don’t. They license the contract, they do not dictate what it says. And if you want to negate it, they provide for a legal way to do that…it’s called “divorce”