Privatizing Social Security unworkable politically, economically

So where is the money that those younger workers would set aside to invest in their own retirement?

Tax cuts. Ain’t you learned nothin’, boy?

• Link
• Report this comment

Ever since the school system started teaching the “new math”, Americans have been unable to understand how politicians calculated the costs of things like Social Security, war, Medicare, unlimited importing of goods and offshoring of jobs, etc.

Low interest rates for too long = excessively easy credit = out-of-control spending = economic disaster

• Link
• Report this comment

There’s a talk like Rupert Murdoch day?

• Link
• Report this comment

Jay…your mistake is trying to talk about reality and nuances…. Crazy cons don’t want to discuss either, they just want to get elected. Cause “con just wanna, just wanna have fun.”

• Link
• Report this comment

Jay–In case this article was in response to your “debate” with Harry Callahan yesterday, don’t sweat it. You won hands down.

What Harry and others overlook in their calls to privatize SSI in the hopes of a better return on the money is the simple relationship between risk and reward. 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.

• Link
• Report this comment

How is it that Progressives think it’s OK to rob the treasury for entitlements “they approve of,” yet the thought of adding to the deficit to fix SS is unthinkable? Oh no, we have to keep controlling those poor people, they are not smart enough to function on their own, and lord help us, if they actually succeed they could vote Republican!

• Link
• Report this comment

“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.”

Imagine that…boomers being subsidized for their greed by their children and their children’s children. How’s that revolution working for y’all? Well, it sucks for the x’ers and y’ers. Though I did run across a new and very apt name for gen-xers…Baby Busters.

• Link
• Report this comment

Fix it, up the cap from 106k to 300k, and then move on.

Mick, that is a simple solution along with raising the minimum age for eligibility. When SSI was started, people didn’t live nearly as long as they do today. The only wild card in the mix is that fact that minorities, as a group, don’t live as long as whites. Those concerned with social justice find this a bitter pill to swallow.

• Link
• Report this comment

I see the ad by Deal on this page now. ‘Roybama’, is that all he has? Can’t he tell us what he plans to do instead of trying to tie Roy to Obama. This is Georgia, not Washington DC last time I checked.

• Link
• Report this comment

I sure wish someone would show both sides of the discussion that JohnnyReb is putting across. He claims that the top 1% pay 39% in taxes but other claim they hardly pay anything.

Fly–In terms of income taxes, the rich certainly do pay the lion’s share of all taxes collected according to the IRS:

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

From the article:

“In 2007, the top 1 percent of tax returns paid 40.4 percent of all federal individual income taxes and earned 22.8 percent of adjusted gross income. Both of those figures—share of income and share of taxes paid—are significantly higher than they were in 2004 when the top 1 percent earned 19 percent of adjusted gross income (AGI) and paid 36.9 percent of federal individual income taxes.”

and

“For the first time this year, we are also presenting data on the top 0.1% of tax returns (the top 10 percent of the top 1 percent). This 10 percent of the returns in the top 1 percent amounts to only 141,000 tax returns but accounts for nearly 12 percent of the adjusted gross income earned and approximately 20 percent of the nation’s federal individual income taxes.”

• Link
• Report this comment

Bruno, you beat me to it. We posted the same link.

• Link
• Report this comment

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.

Does anybody really believe that if income taxes were higher in the upper income brackets that this shortfall would be funded? First off I don’t believe you would have as much extra money flowing to Washington as you think, but even if you did there’s not a snowball’s chance that the politicians wouldn’t find someplace else to spend it.

• Link
• Report this comment

First, as pointed out…the $2.5 trillion owed is because Congress decided to dip into the funds paid for SS to fund other programs. That money rightfully belongs to SS and the IOU’s must be repaid. That means that money will have to be collected to pay it back.

As for the other proposals, the problem still seems that the hard decisions are being avoided and a shell game continues.

• Link
• Report this comment

Seeing as how my yearly SS statements state that I will only be receiving 0.75 cents on the dollar to what I PAID into this government run ponzi scheme, I’d rather take my chances with privitization.

The government can’t do anything right or without some measure of corruption.

• Link
• Report this comment

As for the other proposals, the problem still seems that the hard decisions are being avoided and a shell game continues.

You’ll need to take that up with the AARP, Good Fight. Neither party is going to risk alienating that voting bloc.

• Link
• Report this comment

The next thing you know, the Republicans are gonna start whining about those unemployed folks not paying a poor tax or something and dumping their burden on the billionaires. Don’t they care about the billionaires! I mean, how can we expect billionaires to pay millions in taxes. It’s just crazy talk. It’s like if a billionaire made a 100 million and was asked to pay a million of that in taxes , then that would like rob this poor billionaire of almost a whole one percent of earnings that could have been trickled down on society in the form of real help. Like man. Doesn’t anyone care about the poor people that have to pay taxes any more, man.

• Link
• Report this comment

my yearly SS statements state that I will only be receiving 0.75 cents on the dollar to what I PAID into this government run ponzi scheme,

You know how long you’re going to live? Really? Can you tell me how long I’m going to live? Because that’d be a neat-o thing to know.

• Link
• Report this comment

Seeing as how my yearly SS statements state that I will only be receiving 0.75 cents on the dollar to what I PAID into this government run ponzi scheme, I’d rather take my chances with privitization.

Wow! I didn’t see that anywhere on my statement from Social Security. I imagine you must really be distraught over being singled out like that.

• Link
• Report this comment

I always love the overstatement that government can’t do ANYTHING right. Of course we know corporations get everything right. Yep, there are problems with government, waste, corruption, and just plain stupid moves at times. But there is not one government and not one agency and not all is wasted or lost to corruption.

And just ask those working for large corporations whether there is any corporate waste or lack of efficiency. Most everyone I talk to that works for large corporations have complaints about the way they are run. And we have plenty of evidence of waste, inefficiency, corruption and greed in corporations.

• Link
• Report this comment

Bruno,

“The only wild card in the mix is that fact that minorities, as a group, don’t live as long as whites. Those concerned with social justice find this a bitter pill to swallow.”

Want to talk about a bitter pill? Try being a gay man or woman who is unable to obtain survivor benefits when your partner dies b/c of our discriminating system.

• Link
• Report this comment

It’s not that I don’t trust you but I’d like to see someone else’s data.

Fly–The data provided on the link comes straight from the IRS. I don’t know what better authority exists on what income was earned and what taxes were paid.

I have my doubts but nonetheless this is one piece of data so I’d like to see someone from the side that claims the rich do not pay enough submit similar information.

On the “other side”, Fly, all you are going to find are anecdotal stories of particular individuals who didn’t pay a lot of taxes, e.g. Jay’s journalistic “scoop” that Nathan Deal didn’t pay a lot of taxes the past few years. IMO, the “Big Picture” is more important, not stories about a few individuals.

• Link
• Report this comment

I tend to prefer this site’s analysis of such things as incomes and taxation and such.

• Link
• Report this comment

The US Debt Clock shows us as being $110 Trillion in the hole. Check out those UnFunded Liabilities.

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

• Link
• Report this comment

Want to talk about a bitter pill? Try being a gay man or woman who is unable to obtain survivor benefits when your partner dies b/c of our discriminating system.

jewcowboy–I’m 100% with you on that account, not in small part due to the fact that one of my sisters is gay. Personally, I am completely in favor of legal “domestic partnerships” to circumvent this unfairness along with the other lost benefits that married folks automatically enjoy.

From my perspective, it seems to come down to a disagreement over terminology. In one corner, you have folks like josef who won’t accept any difference in legal language (marriage for straights, domestic partnerships for gays), even if the benefits are exactly the same. On the other hand, many polls I have seen show that a majority of Americans are comfortable with extending similar benefits to gay unions, but aren’t comfortable with equating such unions with heterosexual marriages in a linguistic sense. I count myself in the second group.

• Link
• Report this comment

Why does this thing eat my posts?

• Link
• Report this comment

We are so deep in the hole it’s not even funny and everyone is worried about how we’ll fund all this stuff. I hate to be the one to break it to you but…we won’t.

One day we’ll have to decide to actually treat our national budget just like we have to treat the one we have at home.

• Link
• Report this comment

“From my perspective, it seems to come down to a disagreement over terminology”

It isn’t just at “terminology” disagreement. It has to do with the amount of work that would be needed to give “domestic partnerships” exactly the same rights as a “marriage.” It would mean changing and amending ALL the laws in the US that affect marriage to also include domestic partnerships.

Which would be ridiculous. All that is needed to is to make LEGAL MARRIAGES available to all, regardless of their sexual orientation…and no changes to any other laws would be needed.

What it comes down to…yet again…is keeping religion out of government. Marriages are LEGAL contracts, and religious sensabilities have no place in how they are handled.

• Link
• Report this comment

Bruno,

Separate is never equal. If there is a problem with linguistic’s, then make every legal union between spouses (including heterosexuals) a civil union. Or get the government out of the marriage game altogether.

And just curious, for those churches that preform gay marriages, such as the United Church of Christ, would you call those unions marriages?

• Link
• Report this comment

Koch,

I have no issue with helping people when they are down. I do have an issue with building a class of people who will never have to choose to help themselves. In the end they end up hurt the worst.

• Link
• Report this comment

“The Social Security benefits for those older folks would have to be financed by continuing taxes on those still young enough to be working.”

I’m just curious as to whom the boomers think will be paying for their retirement, considering the record and almost epidemic proportions of the unemployment for those 18 – 30? Boomers and Greats have had their party, and have wrung every last bit for themselves and now expect their children to pay for it.

Think again. Boomers, I hope you’ve saved b/c your children might not be so willing to fiance your party any longer. Talk about personal responsibility…perhaps it’s time for the Boomers and Greats to finally find it.

• Link
• Report this comment

The Brother Koch,

“It was months before we started eating solid foods”

A silver nipple huh?

• Link
• Report this comment

harvey,

“You cannot trust the government.”

But you can trust the financial industry, huh?

• Link
• Report this comment

end the occupation.

• Link
• Report this comment

SS is a generational ponzi scheme. There’s no good way to keep it going without cutting benefits (ending the ponzi) or raising taxes(forcibly expanding the ponzi).

I’m not sure why Jay refers to it as insurance. It has none of the marks of insurance, at least not a viable insurance. Everyone gets to draw from it eventually, there is no risk leverage at all. Insurance only works if the costs of the risk are less that of the pool of insurance. SS has never had that, thanks to Congress spending what people put into SS. Auto Ins works because people like me pay for it, but I’ve never had a claim. Med. Ins doesn’t work as well now because more and more people have more and more claims, i.e., it isn’t insurance anymore but a medical payment pool. SS isn’t even close, because everyone gets it, unless you die before retirement, but even then, your spouse gets it.

SS is doomed for failure, like every other ponzi scheme. If we were honest about what it is, maybe we could deal with it.

• Link
• Report this comment

“If the benefits are the same, why should the terminology matter so much?? ”

you’ve answered your own question. If the benefits are the same, why does the name need to be changed? Separate but equal is not equal. Marriages are legal contracts. I say get them out of the hands of religions and end the problem.

• Link
• Report this comment

Have comments been shut down? Mine sure have.

• Link
• Report this comment

@@,

“Have comments been shut down? Mine sure have.”

I’ve been having issues as well…it keeps eating posts.

• Link
• Report this comment

no need to worry about this.. obama has much bigger concerns…

“Obama Reports America to the U.N. Claiming Difficulty in Forming a Union in This Country is a Human Rights Abuse”

weve been reported.. usinuk.. you should be fine..

• Link
• Report this comment

Jay, Jay, Jay. Too many false assumptions.

First, Those no longer on Social Security will NOT have to continue paying into the program BECAUSE, the 2.5 trillion (part of our enormous national debt) will cover them when we free up capital through privatization.

Raising the retirement age for those who opt to stay in the program will make it more solvent as well.

As an ADDED BONUS, the elderly people who will die as a result of denial of healthcare because of OBAMAcare will tend to make it a moot point anyway.

• Link
• Report this comment

The problem is, the 14th amendment doesn’t let you legislate your sense of “normalcy” based on discriminating against people for no other reason that you feel like it.

Unfortunately, the 14th Amendment doesn’t apply, because marriage is not a “right”, it is a “privilege”, in the same way that obtaining a driver’s license is not a right, but a privilege. And just like obtaining a driver’s license, obtaining a marriage license is subject to a host of requirements such as minimum age requirements, who is qualified (close familial relationships excluded), the number of people permitted to enter the agreement (only two people, not three or ten).

If you’re wondering why it is not a “right”, it is due to the fact that a marriage “right” is unenforceable. For example, if I had the hots for Jay, I can’t force him to marry me. I’m sure his wife will be relieved to know that.

• Link
• Report this comment

BruDog…excellent points.

• Link
• Report this comment

Gotta run and dig a ditch, but Jay, in case you change your mind, I make a convincing ingenue.

• Link
• Report this comment

We one percenters (actually, “we” are more in a class all our own of more like 0.01 percenters) only managed to “earn” (sure, “earn” might be a stretch for some peoples vocabularies) 23 percent of the nation’s entire AGI. Surely most people would agree that such a quantity is less than a full one quarter and that is so much less than it could be if we did not have to pay so much in taxes. So do the right thing and make those Bush tax cut permanent. Do it for us. Give us the tax equality we so richly deserve.

• Link
• Report this comment

I take exception with the notion that money was taken out of the SS trust fund and handed over to the richest Americans. jay put it thusly: “…money that was borrowed over the last 25 years largely to help offset tax cuts for the more affluent….”

The correct language would be: “Government spent way more than it collected in income taxes, so it raided the SS fund.”

Taking less is not giving; giving less is not taking.

• Link
• Report this comment

jewcowboy @ 1:44pm

“Are you willing to sacrifice your benefits and all you’ve paid into it so far to be the first to forgo ss?”

I’m 36, been paying into it for 20+ years and I would do this today if I never again had to pay a dime into SS.

As I see it, my money is gone as soon as my paycheck arrives. SS will not last long enough for me to see benefits. I’d much rather have my future “benefits” under my control, rather than the gov’t. My track record is much, much better.

• Link
• Report this comment

* Households in the bottom fifth of the income spectrum received tax cuts averaging $29, which raised their after-tax incomes by an average of 0.4 percent.
* Those in the middle fifth received tax cuts averaging $760, which raised their after-tax incomes by an average of 2.4 percent.
* The top 1 percent of households received tax cuts averaging $41,077, which raised their after-tax incomes by an average of 5.0 percent.
* Within the top 1 percent, those with incomes exceeding $1 million received tax cuts averaging $114,000, which raised their after-tax incomes by an average of 5.7 percent.

You see, the 2001 Bush tax cuts were a good first step in making taxation more fair. Just keep up the good work. Don’t let us down and don’t let those little people start whining about how much we make. That’s nothing more than wealth envy and if they were meant to be wealthy, they would be. It is just that simple.

• Link
• Report this comment

AT,

“I’d much rather have my future “benefits” under my control, rather than the gov’t.”

And how much control did you have over your benefit when the stock market tanked due to the market manipulation of others…and what would you do if you were close to retirement when that happened? What happens if you are (un)lucky enough to live an extra 20 years past what you planned?

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?

• Link
• Report this comment

Doogone@ “are YOU willing to watch people begging and dying in the streets because they couldn’t afford to save, or because they made “poor choices” in investments?”

Like happens to those today who aren’t eligible for SS, i.e. <62.5 years old?

• Link
• Report this comment

The increase in the share of taxes paid by the wealthy is often cited erroneously as evidence that their tax burden is rising. In reality, the effective federal tax rate for the top 1 percent of households — the percentage of their income that they pay in federal taxes — declined from 33.0 percent of income in 2000 to 29.5 percent in 2007.

The top 1 percent paid a growing share of total taxes chiefly because they received a growing share of total before-tax income: 19.4 percent in 2007, compared to 17.8 percent in 2000. Indeed, the effective tax rate of the top 1 percent of households was lower in 2007 than in any year since 1990, demonstrating beyond a doubt that their tax burdens were decreased, not increased.

And this is exactly why this country needs to put Republicans back in charge. They know that the only right thing to do is to continue with more tax cuts. How else can we afford to trickle down on the little people even more than we already do.

• Link
• Report this comment

It’s interesting how no one on here can ever reconcile their anti-gay marriage views with the 14th amendment.

• Link
• Report this comment

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

• Link
• Report this comment

Jewcowboy…GMTA!

• Link
• Report this comment

I say we trade — we privatize SS if we can switch to single payer health care system.

• Link
• Report this comment

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.

• Link
• Report this comment

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.

• Link
• Report this comment

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.

• Link
• Report this comment

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.

• Link
• Report this comment

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.

• Link
• Report this comment

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.

• Link
• Report this comment

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

• Link
• Report this comment

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!

• Link
• Report this comment

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.

• Link
• Report this comment

That jconservative — he’s alright.

• Link
• Report this comment

The GOP has no credibility.

• Link
• Report this comment

“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.

• Link
• Report this comment

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?

• Link
• Report this comment

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.

• Link
• Report this comment

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.

• Link
• Report this comment

**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.

• Link
• Report this comment

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.

• Link
• Report this comment

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!!

• Link
• Report this comment

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.

• Link
• Report this comment

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!!

• Link
• Report this comment

should be less than, not lews han

• Link
• Report this comment

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.

• Link
• Report this comment

Paul!!!

Starbuck is going to CSI

http://www.imdb.com/news/ni4215739/!!!

• Link
• Report this comment

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….

• Link
• Report this comment

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.”

• Link
• Report this comment

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?

• Link
• Report this comment

“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!

• Link
• Report this comment

MPercy – amen. It would be affordable for sure. Of course, we would have to contend with wheelchair riots.

• Link
• Report this comment

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.

• Link
• Report this comment

HDB

Love progressive jazz, had private balcony seats at the house of blues for return to forever, very cool.

• Link
• Report this comment

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.

• Link
• Report this comment

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.

• Link
• Report this comment

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?

• Link
• Report this comment

You don’t need any of that damn Social Security!

• Link
• Report this comment

is this the same cbo that gets all the other things wrong?

• Link
• Report this comment

democrats will oppose private accounts because it limits their access to our money.

• Link
• Report this comment

“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.

• Link
• Report this comment

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!!

• Link
• Report this comment

Doggone – I don’t think the government or churches should be involved in marriage.

• Link
• Report this comment

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.

• Link
• Report this comment

Doggone/GA

Nice to know my mispelling is so hugh errr huge in the scheme of mispellings.

• Link
• Report this comment

“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.

• Link
• Report this comment

I suffer from the “your” “you’re” syndrome.

• Link
• Report this comment

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.

• Link
• Report this comment

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. “

• Link
• Report this comment

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.

• Link
• Report this comment

i am still waiting for someone to tell me one thing the obama administration has been correct on?

• Link
• Report this comment

“Here is an interesting article about the Black Death and the family unit.”

Yes the aftermath of the Black Plague (and other plagues) were “interesting” to say the least. The plagues were also responsible for the peasant workers being able to flex some of THEIR muscle as well. Since there were far fewer people to do the work, the workers had some leverage is how they were treated and paid.

• Link
• Report this comment

“President Barack Obama, in a combative, campaign-like speech in Parma, Ohio, conceded that his policies have “fed the perception that Washington is still ignoring the middle class,” even as he castigated Republican opponents for “riding…fear and anger all the way to Election Day.”

obama has a new title.. “captain obvious”

• Link
• Report this comment

bosch.. is dick in office? err.. dick cheney that is..

• Link
• Report this comment

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.”

Not THAT far gone…..but you’re dead on…..particularly with Joe Williams, Nina, and Billy Eckstine!!

• Link
• Report this comment

Geez, jewcowboy, that was the most depressing article I’ve ever read.

• Link
• Report this comment

bosch..

• Link
• Report this comment

OK, so Nathan Deal’s entire campaign strategy is to link Barnes and Obama. Does he actually have a plan for anything else?

• Link
• Report this comment

Bosch 3:32 – hey funny issue. Apparently Deal has $0 available. All the adds are from the RGA (repubs gov assoc). They’re the ones running those ads. He’s broke after runoff.

• Link
• Report this comment

Bosch,

This should cheer you up:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qkJdEFf_Qg4

• Link
• Report this comment

jewcowboy @1:44 pm

“Are you willing to sacrifice your benefits and all you’ve paid into it so far to be the first to forgo ss?”

Where do I sign up?!! I will gladly walk away from the ~$100K I have paid into SS if I’m not forced to continue paying into it ever again.

• Link
• Report this comment

MPercy,

“Where do I sign up?!!”

And you promise if you live past your account balances, have a catastrophic illness that depletes your savings, or some one Madoff’s with your saving, you will have the decency not to ask taxpayers to foot any of your bills, right?

• Link
• Report this comment

BOSCH

“Starbuck is going to CSI ”

YESYESYESYESYESYESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

that’s really swell news.

jewcowboy

If I can get all religious on you for a moment, maybe this’ll help: I have it on very good authority there’s a special place in Hell (any Hell, religion doesn’t matter) reserved for those idiots who would try to steal an Audi such as yours. Only out they have is to plead they shouldn’t be held responsible because they’re too #!!$#% stupid to realize a car like that is designed to NOT be stolen.

$@!!## morons…..

Regarding the IRS data on which income band earns what and how much they pay in income tax: Rule of Thumb: always question the assumptions. Sure the data came from the IRS. But it doesn’t portray how much income the top whatever earned and how that relates to total taxes paid.

Those charts used Adjusted Gross Income. Not Gross Income. Adjusted. As in, deduct SEP contributions, IRA contributions, alimony paid, etc etc etc. Say someone earns a mil. They put 200K into a Sep, pay three exwives alimony of $600k total, their gross income is a mil and their AGI is 200K. Say the taxes paid are $100k. That looks like a 50 percent rate. Not ten percent (based on a mil).

Sure, the IRS says AGI are statutorily-based deductions. But hey, the earnings are the earnings. The deductions are whatever Congress wants them to be.

Fun with numbers.

The impact, of course, is to make the rate of taxes paid appear higher than it would be if the deductions were excluded.

Then there’s the business of computing other income, prior to the AGI deductions, with allowances for certain writeoffs….. which further understates earnings…

• Link
• Report this comment

This one is a tough nut to crack. First, I am a baby boomer. Born 1961. I have 20 years till retirement. The government has taken over $200k from me lifetime so far. If SS were scrapped today, 20 years is simply not enough time to make up that much money. I have saved… enough that IF I receive SS, then I will live a decent retirement.

Social security is NOT my fault anymore than Obamacare is the fault of each and every person reading this thread. Oh, you didn’t want Obamacare? That won’t matter… your children and children’s children will curse you and blame it on you. Social Security was passed almost 30 years before I was born. So those of you who generically blame it on “the boomers”… go f**k yourselves. You have no idea of what you speak. Most of the people who are to blame are in retirement right now. 20 years worth of baby boomers have yet to retire, and they never had a choice in the matter. They are victims the same way you are. They were robbed just as you are being robbed now.

Back to the point: The government has taken half a life savings from me. With 30 years interest on that money, you can see that I would have MORE than enough for my own retirement. Without social security now, I will live in poverty before I die (if actuarial tables apply). This was not a bed of my making or my choosing. Compound that with the very worst investing environment of any generation for 100 years:

http://moneywatch.bnet.com/retirement-planning/blog/retirement-beat/late-baby-boomers-the-worst-off-401k-generation/490/

The late baby boomers are screwed and will live in poverty if Social Security blows up. We will suffer that fate because the old folks of 1935 refused to suffer that fate. “Greatest Generation” my azz. “Greatest bunch of moochers” is who they are in retrospect. They took their adverse situation as an opportunity to rob from their children (the boomers). The difference between the early boomers and the late boomers is that the early boomers had a VERY favorable investing environment and were able to amass wealth. The late boomers, while investing, have seen pitiful returns as crashes and recessions have reigned during their investment years.

• Link
• Report this comment

Hi Paul!

“I have it on very good authority there’s a special place in Hell ”

That’s exactly what I wrote on facebook after it happened! The responding officer called the moronic a-holes. They ripped open the whole dashboard trying to get to the ignition. Nick Cage and Angelina Jolie they were not.

• Link
• Report this comment

Doggone, I’m just thinking about the common notion that people usually get “married” in a church, but if they don’t do that, they often have a “civil ceremony”. But I can see that these were called “legal marriages”. I stand corrected, as apparently the discourse should be in distinguishing “religious marriages” from “legal marriages” (if such distinctions are required, and only the latter should have any standing with respect to government-conferred benefits/perqs). My one problem here is that government has seemingly conflated the former with the later, which was a mistake and an unnecessary overlap of church and state.

• Link
• Report this comment

Social Security is the way the wealthy pay their
Medicare and Medicare Supplement premiums,
thus it will endure forever.

• Link
• Report this comment

SS will be funded, as the banks were bailed.

• Link
• Report this comment

late bloomer 3:55

“The government has taken over $200k from me lifetime so far”

Not to pry, but are you sure about that number? You’re what, 50? Began work when? Early 80s? Here’s a table showing the maximum amount that could be paid in a year – it’s the OASDI (old age, survivors disability). Also includes Medicare (HI – health insurance). You might want to recheck.

“http://www.ssa.gov/history/pdf/t2a4.pdf

jewcowboy

Now it sounds as if the insurance company’s being morons. Well, hopefully there are a couple of Audi dealers in the area so you can find who’ll do the best work. Should be covered under comprehensive?

• Link
• Report this comment

late bloomer

link, again

http://www.ssa.gov/history/pdf/t2a4.pdf

• Link
• Report this comment

I don’t care what hateful name you want to call me, I don’t care how much you want to label me or destroy my character, I don’t care what political party you would to assign me, I don’t care if you would like to tear down my family’s good name, again, I can take it, I already have, just please do one thing, not just for me, for all of us, can we please end entitlement programs for the rich first, and now, I just can’t support them anymore, my family can’t support them anymore, we’re good people, we’ve served our country, we work hard and we love the teachings of Jesus Christ, if not religion, so please save this country now. we all know what is happening, with the exception of the mentally ill and the lowest of IQ’s, if you’ve supported something that was wrong and hated on other people to protect those bad decisions, please be strong enough to save us all now by admitting to errors and using that humility and knowledge to make America America again. we’re losing it folks, just look at so many examples from the past that are right in front of our eyes as fancy magicians in political attire distract us from what’s good and what is truth. the children are not our future, we are our children’s future. I hear so many people saying that, but so few willing to swallow a little selfish pride to make that a good future. forget politics, just please take the corporations that get credits for moving manufacturing jobs overseas off of their entitlement programs, programs by the way that are larger than anything we can give the poor or the weak or the sick, they just don’t need that much, they just need to get through another day. but the rich will always be thirsty and hungry, something that can never be quenched, especially through the ease of constant handouts. as much that is made about to be sinical about those that are hurting the most economically(’their living beyond their means’ kinda crap), the one that looks most liking a chick in the nest constantly begging for more food are the rich, not the middle class or the poor. please, please, please, people go for what is real and save this country now, my family and wonderful animals can’t afford to support the rich anymore, but because of the BS, we can’t kick them out of our house either! why? why must my family suffer for someone that probably was born into wealth and never earned anything, why? I love America, too.

• Link
• Report this comment

dbm 5:01 That’s what makes Social Security more stable than what Ponzi did – physical force.
———————————————————————————————–
not just more stable, failsafe.

• Link
• Report this comment

how did we get so duped into to paying for companies just to build their plant and do business in our state or any other state? how the heck did we get this far? this is capitalism? really?

• Link
• Report this comment

AT wrote: “The government has sucked you in to believing you need them and so you continue to empower them with your complicity in return for your perceived security.”

The government didn’t suck me into believing anything, My complicity? You think I had a choice?

He then further lamely writes , “You are smarter than this. I’d like to think that the American spirit, your American spirit, is stronger than this.”.

Sorry , bud, but I never had 12% of my gross salary to pay to someone else AND another 25% of my gross salary to set aside for my self. How many people anywhere in the world are able to set aside 40% of their gross salary for retirement? It has nothing to do with platitudes of the “American spirit” or how “strong I am”. It has do with basic math. I managed to save 12% of my own salary, and the government took 12%. That’s 24% of my gross salary for a lot of years. That is about all anyone can expect. How many people do you know, today, with that kind of commitment? I thought so. Take your platitudes and save them for someone that hasn’t already sacrificed all their working years.

• Link
• Report this comment

hewhoasks

September 9th, 2010
11:27 am

There will be more people selling stocks, but three things:

They will be spread out over time. Not everyone retires at once.

Even sooner, there will be more people buying stocks, and this will continue.

There is a lot of buying and selling anyway, much of it by people who try to profit by frequent buying and selling.

• Link
• Report this comment