Berkeley CSUA MOTD:Entry 33741
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
 
WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ
http://csua.com/feed/
2025/04/03 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
4/3     

2004/9/24-25 [Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:33741 Activity:high
9/24    Regarding the http://opensecrets.org link below, I'm really surprised that
        Bush doesn't get more donations from oil industries and instead get
        them from 'retired' people. Weird...
        \_ People begging for SS have a surprising amount of money to
           throw around.
           \_ It's not so much a widows-and-orphans welfare system as a giant
              pension system.  Hell, Warren Buffet is eligible.
              \_ Well, yeah.  Which is why it's stupid, now anyway.  Why
                 should old people be getting money?  Aside from asinine
                 health care costs, they have very few expenses.  No
                 children, no where to go, and usually, pleanty of money.
                 \_ Old people are generally not poor in this country because
                    of Social Securirty.  There's a reason SS was created in the
                    first place you know.  Would you prefer we return to the
                    days where the elderly mostly lived in abject poverty,
                    and people would literally work themselves until their
                    death for fear of retirement?
                    \_ So you say.  I think reality differs.
                       \_ I think you're wrong.  Look at the demographics of
                          the poor from before SS and after.
                          \_ Situation has changed since SS was
                             introduced.  A lot.
                             \_ You're right.  However, with the widening
                                income gap in this country, it seems that
                                we are rapidly going back to something
                                approximating the '20s.
                                \_ And social security is going with it.
                                   \_ Wow.  So we agree!  Thanks!
                                      \_ Well, the fact that SS is hozed
                                         and broken is hardly a secret.
                                         Nor is the fact that the Dems
                                         stole all the money from it.
                                         \_ Wow.  Wrong on both counts.
                                            Way to go...
                                         \_ Care to back up that accusation?
                                            \_ I think it's rather the reverse.
                                               The Republicans have presided
                                               over the largest expansions in
                                               public spending.
                                            \_ Since LBJ was in the white
                                            \_  You are wrong. It was Reagan
                        who proposed that the payroll medicare and SS taxes
                        be doubled in the 80s. It was argued hat starting with
                        the 80s, the surplus money generated by the higher
                        payroll tax payments would be used to retire the
                        government debt so that by the time the baby boomers
                        start retiring, the government would be in a better
                        position to pay their pensions. Yet, there hasn't been
                        a single year during the Reagan era when ALL of the
                        surplus payroll tax payments were not shamelessly used
                        for purposes completely unrelated to the social
                        security or debt retirement. It was actually Bill
                        Clinton who cared about balancing the budget. Then came
                        GWB has again run record decicits and also proposed
                        record breaking deficits for future without any viable
                        proposal for a viable SS reform. Most economists agree
                        the this country will be broke soon if this doesn't
                        change.
                        \_ Pessimism never created a job!  Just put your
                           blinders on, go to Walmart and buy Britney Spears
                           and let the folks in Washington deal with the bean
                           counting!
                    house. Pretty much that whole time was a Dem congress.
                    http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA189.html
2025/04/03 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
4/3     

You may also be interested in these entries...
2010/3/2-12 [Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:53735 Activity:nil
3/1     My sister works for the county and pays into CalPERS instead of
        Social Security. This year she got a second (private sector) job
        which paid more than her government job and paid into Social
        Security. Does she have to contribute to both retirement plans?
        That seems like a waste. I STFW and cannot find the answer.
        \_ You don't pay into CalPERS if you don't have a public sector job.
	...
2008/7/16-23 [Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity, Finance/Investment] UID:50587 Activity:nil
7/15    My mom's fixed annuity is maturing and we're wondering what we
        should be doing with it. She's 70 and we gotta put the money
        where it is safe (no stock market, no 401k). What are some good
        choices to make now, considering that the US economy is failing
        and the banking industry is fubar?
        \_ I would buy another fixed annuity with enough of it so that
	...
2008/6/20-23 [Science/GlobalWarming, Politics/Foreign/Europe] UID:50318 Activity:low
6/20    Hinchey still thinks nationalization of refineries is a good idea, but
        doesn't think it's likely
        http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,369321,00.html
        \_ It's a stupid idea.  He should be shot.  Building more refineries
           and not having 8 zillion different blends for ego stroking reasons
           is a good idea.
	...
2008/6/17-20 [Politics/Domestic/California/Prop] UID:50277 Activity:high
6/17    When I first came to California many years ago my advisor invited
        me to his house and gave me an advice that I never really thought
        about until recently. It was dead simple, and had nothing to do
        with what I was studying-- if you ever buy houses in California,
        DON'T SELL THEM. Keep them around, because in time, property tax
        will be so low that it'll take an act of stupidity to sell them. As
	...
2007/11/19-26 [Politics/Domestic/California, Reference/Tax] UID:48657 Activity:very high
11/19   Warrent Buffet says that the inheritance tax / death tax is a good
mm
        thing.  No surprise since his company makes a fortune buying up
        properties sold to pay for the tax.
        http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/vernon/050824
        \_ The problem with death taxes: when I earned the money, I was taxed
	...
2007/10/15-17 [Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:48327 Activity:moderate
10/15   First Baby Boomer files for Social Security.  DOOM!
        http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071015/ap_on_go_ot/boomer_social_security
        \_ Oh shit! They're going to bankrupt the nation. Let's kill them.
           \_ How so?  Social Security is a cornerstone of the socialist
              promise.  You don't want SS but you want universal health care?
              *boggle*!
	...
2007/9/4-7 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Foreign/Europe] UID:47896 Activity:very high
9/4     "Annual job growth has definitely not reached pre-recession levels in
        1990s. In California, 200,000 jobs were added last year compared to
        400,000 (annually) between 1997 and 2000. In the United States, we're
        still nowhere where we were in annual job additions as a whole." The
        200,000 increase was unable to keep up with the state's increasing
        population, with unemployment jumping to 5.2 percent in the last 12
	...
2005/6/29-30 [Politics/Domestic/Immigration] UID:38363 Activity:very high
6/29    Bush administration cancelled a border survey after the results weren't
        positive.  http://www.judicialwatch.org/5350.shtml
        I'm pretty much ready to sell my vote to whoever will actually control
        the border. -emarkp
        \_ who cares?
        \_ So in other words, controlling our border is the most important
	...
2005/5/19 [Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:37757 Activity:moderate
5/19    David Brooks, moderate conservative of the NY Times, on Newsweek
        http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/19/opinion/19brooks.html?hp
        \_ Thank you.
        \_ David Brooks is an intellectually dishonest man.
           \_ Examples?
              \_ He's a master of the false dichotomy.  A canonical example:
	...
Cache (4654 bytes)
www.nationalcenter.org/NPA189.html
Amy Ridenour If federal spending and revenue trends of the last three years continue, the United States will be able to pay off its entire national debt in 15 years, says Wisconsin Congressman Mark Neumann. That's good news for everybody, but especially anyone who depends upon Social Security. As many Americans realize, the government has borrowed from (read: "spent") the Social Security Trust Fund since LBJ was in the White House. Unless that money is repaid, or Social Security is reformed, Social Security checks will start bouncing the first day the amount being paid into Social Security is less than the amount being paid out. With baby boomers approaching retirement, that date will surely come by 2012, or as early as 2006. Recent good news regarding the budget gives those still hoping to receive Social Security in decades to come reason for optimism. One reason for pessimism is that President Clinton still advocates raiding the Social Security Trust Fund. In his 1998 budget he proposes "borrowing" another $95 billion, in part to fund new spending programs. No new federal spending program is as important as restoring Social Security. The government can afford to stop borrowing from Social Security, and now it can even afford to start repaying money it borrowed in the past. One way to put Social Security back on its feet would be to pass a Balanced Budget Amendment to force politicians to stop borrowing from Social Security. Americans will recall that, in 1995, following probably the longest continuous debate in the US Senate since the filibuster of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, a Balanced Budget Amendment failed by one vote. Backers were bitter, pointing to votes against the amendment by senators who ran for office promising to support it. Senators such as Harry Reid of Nevada, Byron Dorgan and Kent Conrad of North Dakota and Minority Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota replied that the Amendment would have been approved if it had included provisions stopping federal borrowing from the Social Security Trust Fund. What was fiscally improbable in 1995 -- passage of a balanced budget that did not borrow from Social Security -- is now within easy reach. Passage of a Balanced Budget Amendment that mandates balancing the budget without borrowing from Social Security is now easily possible and a wise move. Doing so would put off Social Security's bankruptcy until 2029 or so and impose fiscal discipline to prevent massive government deficit spending in the future. Passage of an Amendment would strengthen Social Security, and it needs the help. In 1955, there were 86 workers for every Social Security recipient. In 1995, there were 33 By 2040, there will be no more than two. A January 1998 study by The National Center for Policy Analysis found that when today's 20-year-olds reach retirement age, their government retirement benefits may consume as much as two out of every three dollars earned by those still working. Equally sobering is a February 1998 poll by the National Center for Women and Retirement Research at Southampton College of Long Island University, which found 24% of baby boomers have not made plans to ensure their financial retirement security. A January-February 1997 survey of non-retired Americans by Public Agenda found that 46% of all Americans have less than $10,000 saved for retirement, including 30% of Americans aged 51-61 and 40% of those aged 33-50. Americans aren't saving as much as they should, even though a majority say they have little confidence in Social Security. A September 1996 Polling Company survey found only 21% of Democrats, 21% of Republicans and 17% of independents are either "extremely" or "very" confident that Social Security and Medicare will exist throughout their retirement. A famous 1994 poll by the Generation X group Third Millennium found that 28% of Generation Xers believe Social Security will exist when they retire -- while 46% of them believe in UFOs. Clearly, many of the same Americans who say they have little faith in the reliability of Social Security are still planning to rely on it. Policymakers have a lot of good ideas for ensuring the future of Social Security, including a partial privatization plan that would make Social Security permanently secure, guarantee benefits for current retirees and actually raise benefit levels for future generations. But the best way to get started on comprehensive Social Security reform is with a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution. It will stop the federal government from raiding the Social Security Trust Fund, and force the federal government to stop deficit spending once and for all.
Cache (686 bytes)
opensecrets.org -> www.opensecrets.org/
Basics Big Picture Who Gives Who Gets News Get Local! Money in Politics Basics New Contribution Limits Look Up an Individual Donor Search 2004 Cycle: Go! Index Custom Data Search the Site Sign Up for OpenSecrets Data Updates The White House The White House o 2004 Presidential Race o George W Bush o The Administration o Embassy Row Search for administration officials: Go! Capitol Hill o Members of Congress o Committees o Congressional Races o Political Parties Capitol Hill Who's My Rep? Go! Find a Politician: Go! Get Local! Get Local! Pick a State: GO o Enter a Zip Code: Go! Sen. Larry Makinson (Center for Responsive Politics, 2003)) Speaking Freely, 2003 Ed. Hidden links: 56.