02/26 http://polls.yahoo.com/public/archives/57019568/p-quote-312
But that isn't how Social Security calculates initial benefits,
at least since 1977. Instead, lifetime earnings are indexed
by the annual change in average national wages--a procedure
called wage indexing. Sound like a small technical difference?
In fact, some authors have pointed out, the entire projected
Social Security shortfall of 25 trillion dollars can be shown
to disappear, merely by switching these two techniques.
\_ it's on yahoo. Go post there if you care.
\_ So instead of basing SS payouts on income earned, it becomes
based on the cost of consumer goods. So under a new system:
as things get cheaper, your SS payout gets smaller. Under the
old system: as wages rise, so does your payout.
\_ It doesn't sound like a small technical difference at all.
Under the old system, SS had to track your success in life.
Under the new system, SS merely has to track the cost of
subsisting you. This is a HUGE difference, morally, considering
the huge chunk of people's (generally rising) wages that have
to be contributed to SS. Of course under this new system SS
will not be bankrupt -- it just takes your money but only
provides subsistence in return. How about we change SS so
participation is voluntary? This will fix it instantly. -- ilyas
\_ [Someone deleted the nifty anti-socialist troll.]
\_ no, no, no, we can't have voluntary participation. how else
will we reach socialist nirvana if we don't soak the people
who work the hardest to support the least capable?
[deleted again]
[restored because I like seeing socialists cry and whine
after they get put in their place on the motd]
\_ Except that you didn't restore the part where YOU got
put in your place. Selective restoration is even more
dumb than selective deletion. Goodbye.
\_ You're a big baby. I restored the parts I have from
my own files. If you added something else after
that which I never saw, tough shit, babycakes.
\_ Uh, huh. Whatever, big boy - I'm not the one
throwing around the word "socialist" like a big
club...
\_ Shaddup troll.
\_ Die, socialist scum! The opposing view isn't a troll,
it is the opposing view. If you had something worth
saying on the topic, you'd say it. You don't so stop
wasting bits.
\_ Die socialist scum? Who's wasting bits?
\_ Just playing along with the theme. The rest of
what I've said in both comments above remains
true, accurate, and unrefuted. Get a sense of
humor.
[restored because I like seeing socialists cry and whine
dumb than selective deletion. Goodbye.
after they get put in their place on the motd]
\_ Sigh. What's wrong with wanting a society where every
man, woman, and child is guaranteed nutrition, shelter,
healthcare, safety, and a decent education? Social
Security is just one small step in the right direction.
Don't trash the idea just because the current system needs
overhauling.
\_ The problem is you want to coerce someone else to
take your view at gunpoint - that is what is
'wrong'. Also recognize that those individuals
using the same code words as you - Hitler, Stalin,
Lenin, and Mao... - were directly reponsible for
overhauling.
10's of millions of deaths in the 21th century.
Shouldn't that be of some concern?
\_ There is nothing wrong with wanting something like this,
but you have to accept the consequences of the means you
would use to achieve such a society. The problem is,
I can keep expanding the scope of entitlements that
would be good (what if I want to guarantee decent
nutrition for all pets, or some minimum level of
prosperity for every human being, or guaranteed
college education, etc. etc. etc.) Eventually you end
up extinguishing property rights altogether, but at
least everyone has some minimal level of something or
other. Is the price worth it? Everyone becomes a
pauper. It's also worth it to think about _why_ SS
needs overhauling. Is it an accident, or a pattern?
-- ilyas
\_ Any system, whether socialism or libertarianism
makes no sense when taken to ridiculous extremes.
You just have to hope that the people in control
(hopefully voters) have enough sense to choose a
happy middle ground.
\_ Well, I am an optimist. I d like to believe that
the best society isn't just some arbitrary
middle ground between competing ideologies,
twitching in some state of unsteady equilibrium,
subject to vagaries of the election season and
voter mood swings. -- ilyas
\_ Ilya, I think you're an "idealist" rather than
an optimist. The problem with idealists is
that reality never conforms to an ideal.
\_ When I lost my idealism I stopped being a
libertarian. -- !ilyas
\_ You are not an optimist, you are a kook at
best, an extremist at worst.
\_ But he's our kook and we love him.
\_ But he's our kook and we love him.
\_ They are not exclusive. You can be both.
\_ They are not exclusive. You can be both.
\_ Lenin would have called you a 'useful
New Zeeland, The Netherlands all started in this
idiot'
\_ You keep claiming this ilyas, but can you give
an example of any society anywhere in history
that went down this slippery slope? Sweden,
New Zealand, The Netherlands all started in this
direction and have since then cut taxes and social
benefits as they see the longterm cost to their
economies. -ausman
\_ This is a weak argument for two reasons.
(1) We might not have given enough time to Western
socialism. Eastern socialism is older, and
collapsed.
(2) Even if you are right, and it will never
happen (or at least not any time soon), would
you really want to live in a society where the
only thing stopping complete soviet style
income redistribution is expedience and voter
inertia? How do you know these forces, which
the pragmatic relies on so much, will
not give out one day? -- ilyas
\_ Where did Sweden makes cuts? New Zealand?
\_ Maybe he meant Germany. I think the point is,
these countries haven't gone headlong into full
socialism or communism and don't appear likely
to ever do so. It's true that their taxes
harm their economic competitiveness. But life
is about more than cold efficiency.
\_ Harm the economy enough and there won't be
enough wealth available to support the
system. These sorts of supplemental
assistance programs are draining off the
economy. I don't believe in cold hard
efficiency but I don't want to see the
whole system suffocate in it's own feces.
\_ Okay maybe Sweden is a bad example. I seem
to remember The Economist claiming they
had cut their social benefits, but if you
look at government spending as a percentage
of GDP, it has gone down in New Zealand,
economies. -ausman
efficiency but I don't want to see the
whole system suffocate in it's own feces.
citizenry, and you don't have to privatize
all basic services in order to support
a prosperous economy.
Germany and The Netherlands over the last
decade.
http://csua.org/u/66p -ausman
\_ The real point is this: Sweden, New Zealand,
and Switzerland are positive examples of
places that have great social benefits
_and_ still support businesses. You don't
have to abolish all property ownership in
of supplemental income system so poor old people who are no
longer able to work don't have to eat catfood. That's not
order to provide the basics for your
citizenry, and you don't have to privatize
all basic services in order to support
a prosperous economy.
\_ For a generation such a system
\_ The fact that you think this is actually important is
at the heart of your ridiculousness.
can exist, especially when national
defense is paid for by Uncle Sam;
these are already showing signs
of decay and have < 20 years before
bankruptcy.
\_ I guess it depends on whether you see SS as a retirement system
or a safety net. It was never really designed to be the former,
but politicians have found it politically expedient to keep
expanding benefits and including more and more people in it.
The only way it works fiscally is as the latter. This is what
it originally was intended as. Eliminate the survivor and
disability benefits and the system would work fine.
\_ You're trying to tell the motd about the need for safety nets?
Good luck, dude.
\_ Makes a lot of sense to me, SS as a safety net, not a
retirement system, and I'm a libur'l.
\_ I'm a conservative. I'm in favor of safety nets and some sort
of supplemental income system so poor old people who are no
longer able to work don't have to eat cat food. That's not
what the current system is about today. It's a publicly
known fact for many many years that the system *can't* last
as it exists now. I've never expected to get a single penny
from the system. I see it as part of my federal income taxes
and nothing more. All out-go, no come-back.
\_ Can you summarize your (conservative) position in some
small set of principles? -- ilyas
\_ The fact that you think this is actually important is
at the heart of your ridiculousness.
\_ Yes, I think principles are important. Sorry, I ll
try to be less kooky next time. -- ilyas
\_ No. Life is more complicated than that. That's one of
things that is wrong with the libertarians and the
various smaller one-item political parties. --conser.
\_ I can - I believe it is incumbent on every individual
as it exists now. I've never expected to get a single penny
\_ Can you summarize your (conservative) position in some
small set of principles? -- ilyas
\_ catfood is a good deal more expensive price/nutrition-wise
from the system. I see it as part of my federal income taxes
and nothing more. All out-go, no come-back.
\_ Can you summarize your (conservative) position in some
small set of principles? -- ilyas
\_ No. Life is more complicated than that. That's one of
things that is wrong with the libertarians and the
various smaller one-item political parties. --conser.
(except for the retarded or disabled) to take
responsible actions throughout their lives and live
with the consequences. This is called 'freedom';
the freedom to succeed and the freedom to fail. I
believe in equal opportunity, not economic equality
by government fiat. The rule of law; a government of
laws and not men.
\_ Providing for a minimum economic floor is not the
same as economic equality. Why should those retards
get a free lunch when even millions of below-
average people "fail"? The fact is that even with
best efforts people can fail. And others can do well
enough to get by most of the time... but how many
can become independently wealthy? Your freedom is
just greed. "i'm fine, fuck the losers".
\_ No, I am a huge proponent of charity, faith
based or otherwise. You instead, want to
coerce me at gunpoint to pay to assuage
your conscience. You are thief backed up
by government fiat; that's tyranny.
You are elitist statist and what Lenin would
call a 'useful idiot'. American used to be
place of rugged indvidualists who would balk
at the idea of a gov't handout; now we have
weak paintywaists who believe they have an
enshrined constitutional right
to cradle to grave care from
an authority figure.
Here's a great exegisis:
http://csua.org/u/66u
\_ Tell us, little chile, of the old
Americans. Which John Wayne movies
did you learn of them from?
\_ cat food is a good deal more expensive price/nutrition-wise
than human food. Go go marketing...
\_ I don't think that was always the case. Anyway, dry
dogfood is quite cheap, if you buy the right brand. |
http://csua.com/feed/