Third Party & Independents: Archives

Apparently, United’s management floated operations by dipping 9.8 billion into worker’s pension plans, and now can’t recover the money. Our Republican government is saying to employees, tough! We are only insuring 5 billion and you lose the rest.

Sounds like companies are learning bad habits from the government.

United’s management should have never been able to steal from the pension plans (like governmentshould have never been able to borrow from Social Security).

It is sad that people work all their lives, and get cheated out of their life savings.

It is sad, and infuriating too. Losing a pension, a life-time of hard work and savings lost, would enough to send some people over the egde, and start lookin’ for some pay back. How didn’t they not see this coming?

Some of the wealthier Republicans like Cheney and Bush, will remain wealthy even if the economy tanks. So why should they care as long as they are amassing more wealth today.

Too often, we only get rich people (like the last and many other presidential elections) that don’t really represent or appreciate most people’s values.I’m not trying to demonize the rich, but government needs some diversification (i.e. not just rich people), and those in government must be subject to the same pension plans and benefits and systems. Perhaps Social Security, Medicare, and other entitlement systems would not be in trouble, and perhaps an $8 trillion dollar National Debt would not exist, had Congress been limited to the same Social Security system they plundered and mismanaged.

Also, too often, the burden of such problems (such as the Savings and Loan scandal), and many other instances of government mismanagement, fall on the back of the middle-class tax payer, who ultimately gets to pay for all of those mistakes.

This is another reason we need more voting choices.

David,

I am so thoroughly disgusted by this situation regarding United. Unfortunately, I’ve long held one of their credit cards to gain flying miles — and I’ve already booked a trip on their airline at the end of this month, so I’m going to have to fly with them this time. But I never will again. I’m also going to be cancelling my credit card, and if that means I have to forfeit the rest of the miles I’ve accrued as a result, so be it.
Dirty, Rotten, Scoundrels.

Great points in the rest of this article. You already know I agree with you.

An important, but often overlooked, rule of negotiations is that you can’t negotiate a better deal than the other side is able to give you. It doesn’t matter if you have truth, justice and the law on your side or not. Your possibilities are constrained by reality.

The key to understanding this is to look at who promises and who pays. United Airlines promised to pay pensions back in better times. In return, workers trusted the promises and took smaller paychecks in compensation. They might have been better off with personal accounts because those who made the promises were not the same ones who have to pay off. They left that to subsequent generations. These new guys found the obligation too onerous (whether you think they are right or not) and have avoided it.

The same process is at work in SS. We can promise ourselves any sum we want, but the decisions about whether to keep the promise of not will be made by a subsequent generation. The USG does not default on its obligations, but there are ways to accomplish the same goal in more subtle ways. The terms “not worth a continental” or “we don’t want greenbacks” comes to mind. Ultimately all promises are based on only the desire and capacity of people to honor them.

It is touching to see how my more liberal colleagues have come to trust whoever is running the USG in 2018-2045. I thought you guys were worried the hard right would take over.

David -

Great post: this is exactly why we need private Soc. Sec. accounts. I couldn’t have made a better argument myself.

The existing Social Security Trust Fund functions like United’s pension fund. United’s revenues have given out now; Federal revenues are expected to start slipping around 2020. When the financial crunch beginning in 2020 reaches its climax around 2040, this exact same thing will happen to all of those who are counting on Social Security.

That would be an economic and human tragedy such as we haven’t seen since the Great Depression - and it would affect the poor most of all because they don’t have private assets.

By contrast, private accounts, like IRA’s, are out of reach of greedy corporate and political fingers. We have ample evidence that neither party has the self-control to keep its paws out of the SocSec till, and if the IOU’s that are left in place of the real assets pilfered by Congress ever lose their value*, I sure hope my eggs are in another basket!

* They could lose their value either through a revenue crisis like United’s or a credit crisis like GM and Ford’s.

David,

“United’s employees lose, and they have no voice in who will run the company next.”

No crap. Employees are alwas the first people to get screwed over and have the least say in the management of “their” company. Maybe if they weren’t so reluctant to start their own retirement plan they wouldn’t have to worry about this.

The government is mismanaging Social Security.
If it mismanages it into ruin, then, government should not be trusted any further, and
Social Security and similar systems should be phased out as painlessly as possible.
This may be the last chance government has to prove their usefulness (if any) to society (and that includes voters and those in government).

The bad thing (most probably) is that the government will just do the bare minimum to just barely keep it going.
And, if the pain and abuses are not too severe or sudden, we (sadly, the hard-working, but sheepish minded) will continue to accept it and ignore it, and empower the abusers to continue to abuse us.

In years past, companies’ wanted loyalty from their employees, and vice-versa.
But, these days, it seems all but gone. The growing number of companies cheating employees is alarming (United, Enron, American Airlines, Global Crossing, Andersen, AIG, Tyco, MCI/Worldcom, Computer Associates, cheating Energy Corporations, General Mills, Boeing, Northrup Grumman, Halliburton, Lockheed Martin, Chevron, Texaco, the Corporate face of evil, etc.; and the SEC that permit all of it, the list is too long to include in entirety).

I’d like my children to grow up believing hard work and honesty it what
gets you ahead, but it’s not easy when you see government cheating, and corporations
cheating employees and investors, and (for the most part) getting away with it, which
demonstrates a perversion of the laws to do the very things it’s supposed to prevent.

Will we (voters) ever force (peacefully) government to be accountable and simply enforce the laws? Or, is this the way it is and will always be?

OSI,

“I’d like my children to grow up believing hard work and honesty it what
gets you ahead”

To use a cliche, nice guys finish last. I don’t want you to get the wrong impression here, I DO believe hard work is essential for success no matter how much of a cheater you are, but we both know that being honest is not always enough (and neither is hard work for that matter). You need to understand how to get ahead in life and accept that the best ways may not be the most honorable ways. Please, feel offended by my remarks, I’m not trying to be condescending here but please consider what I’ve said.

Zeek

The Leo Durocher quote is always taken out of context.

Being honest and hard working is not always enough to get you to the top, but it usually is enough to make you successful.

Most of the successful people I know are nicer than average. It is important to be nice if you will have other interactions with people. Otherwise they figure out ways to get back at you. I have seen this on occassions. The recipients just think they have suffered bad luck, while their opponent lays in the weeds unknown and unseen.

I think we have all punished people who have been nasty to us years after the event. It is not important that they know who did them in.

Maybe you are mistaking being nice with being stupid or soft.

Zeek,
I will never walk on someone else to
get ahead. I’d rather find the win-win
solutions. Otherwise, walk away and
find another way. What good is it if
it is dishonorable?

Zeek,
Are you tellin’ us it’s OK to do the
dishonorable thing to get ahead?

Zeek,
Don’t under-estimate One Simple Idea.
You’d be surprised how many E-Mails, posts,
blogs, and telephone calls I’ve received about this idea.
Good things take time, and patience, and hard work.

And this idea, unlike most parties, isn’t asking for much. It’s not asking for money or time.
It simply offers an alternative to despair, whining, and complaining; this one idea for voters that is simple, easy to understand, easy to peacefully implement, wisely uses the one thing each voter already has, which is already within the existing voting system, and costs nothing: their vote

Zeek, they have social security. And only Republicans stand between the promise Americans made to each other and the fulfillment of that promise. Just doesn’t get any plainer or simpler than that.

No Jack, the decision to keep America’s promises to its own people is up to the Democrats and Republicans. Democrats believe we have to honor our promises, Republicans don’t. On SS, it just doesn’t get any clearer or simpler than that.

I love the conservative hyperbole here about taking money from some to give to others. Republicans have absolutely no qualms at all taking money from my daughter’s generation and beyond by raising national debt from 5.5 Trillion to 8 trillion dollars today and giving it to the wealthiest in the form of tax breaks and making future generations pay for it out of there taxes. Sounds just like Social Security doesn’t it?

Only difference is who receives. Conservatives want the wealthy to receive from the future tax payers and liberals want the poorest and modest income folks to receive. I don’t believe either is a Ponzi scheme, but, certainly if SS is one as conservatives claim, then so is their borrow from the future to benefit the rich today exactly the same Ponzi scheme just with a different class of recipients.

David -

I don’t believe either is a Ponzi scheme, but, certainly if SS is one as conservatives claim, then so is their borrow from the future to benefit the rich today exactly the same Ponzi scheme just with a different class of recipients.

Absolutely - they are both the same thing. If you don’t have a problem with running up big deficits, then I understand why you don’t have a problem with expecting your daughter and I to ante up in massive taxes to pay for your retirement.

I don’t have the numbers in front of me, but the GAO has shown how the high taxes needed to fund SocSec & Medicare in the 21st century are going to interact with deficits in a vicious circle that will destroy the U.S. budget.

The higher SocSec & Medicare payments get, the higher deficits get. The higher deficits get, the larger the debt gets. The larger the debt gets, the more we have to pay servicing it. Right now, about 11% of the Federal budget goes to service the debt. (Just imagine what we could do with that money if the debt were gone!). The GAO shows that if taxes are held constant, things will spiral out of control so that debt service accounts for something ridiculous, like 60% of the Federal budget, by 2070. Obviously, taxes won’t be held constant, but that gives you an idea just how much we’ll have to raise taxes to pay for our retirements if we refuse to start saving money now.

If politicians could keep their hands out of the till, I would say that private accounts are unnecessary (though they would still be a nice touch). As it is, they are an absolute must.

Chops, then logically, your position would support repealing the tax breaks on the very wealthy in order balance what politicians are spending today. Of course, in addition, we should be cutting spending, drastically. Afterall, the economy (presently) is in good shape, and that is the time to increase revenue, especially where such increases would not reduce demand for goods and services of the GDP.

BTW, Chops, that GAO report is exactly right. Our economic future is getting dimmer and dimmer as current politicians turn their back on the devastating vicious cycle that the GAO discusses.

David

I don’t think Republicans are more likely to keep their promises of the reverse.

What I do know is that we are making promises now that we will ask another generation to keep and it gets even worse than that. Our generation is promising that future generations will support us. It is like me promising that you will give me money at some future date because I am currently supporting my father.

It is just risky. Even if you assume as in your statement that one party is more likely to keep the promises we are making to ourselves, the chances of any party being in power for the whole period of our retirement is almost zero.

Finally, we will be asking a future generation to do something that our generation has never been able to do – run a real surplus for at least a couple of decades – not one year, or five years or even ten years, but more like twenty five years. That is truly the triumph of hope over experience. You have to assume that over a period of a quarter of a century, we will never have a government that will tax too little or spend too much AND we will have an economy that grows at above average rates despite the high tax burden imposed by the retirees. AND you will do this with the working population making up a significantly smaller percentage of our population than anytime in our history.

Sometimes you can’t keep a promise even if you intend to. You can’t promise you won’t get sick; you can’t promise you won’t die and you can’t promise to pay money you won’t have.

Well, Jack, if future promises are so stupid, children should abandon their parents in droves now! The idea that one can’t make a future promise and keep it is absurd on its face.

The prima facia evidence that SS can keep the promise is simply that it has faced future funding shortfalls before and small adjustments resolved them. Stop using tainted crystal balls. The present and the past are better predictors. The program in about 25 years will be a century old, and a quick scan around the country does not show widespread deprivation and destitution due to Social Security.

Jack, it is about spending priorities. Given the choice between supporting my parents and grandparents or a colony on the moon, I will choose my ancestors everytime. Given a choice between insuring medical assistance to those in need in America and ending AIDS in Africa, I will choose to Americans first. This is where the current Republicans and I are in complete disagreement. Their priority of world first and Americans last, is just about as unpatriotic and unAmerican a set of priorities by a political party as I have ever witnessed in my 55 years.

Excellent article, David. I was thinking the same thing when I saw that on my news ticker.

Some here have tried to use United’s default to make it sound like the USG could do the same thing, but if the USG defaults on it’s promises because it refuses to raise taxes, roll back tax cuts for the rich, cut government spending, or otherwise address SS solvency issues, we have bigger problems than some “fly-by-night” [ahem] company defaulting on it’s pension plan.

Anytime Republicans want to get serious about addressing SS solvency issues, all they have to do is take privatized account carve-outs off the table. Everyone’s aware there’s a potential problem fifty years down the road, but even the Whitehouse acknowledges that privatized accounts don’t address it at all.

only Republicans stand between the promise Americans made to each other and the fulfillment of that promise. Just doesn’t get any plainer or simpler than that.

Exactly. Thanks David.

We’ll probably have to wait until after the
next election, to see some serious steps to
shore up the Social Security system.

However, time is growing short, and grid-lock and
inaction is making it worse day by day.

The government gets more than enough revenues
annually to fix this problem (and others).
Unfortunately, they’ll just borrow more though,
rather than ever do something as novel as
cut spending, which is why the government
grows and grows and grows.

The idea of Privatization is interesting, since
it is essentially seems like an admission that government
can’t be trusted to do it right, and it should be phased
out gradually by privatization.

It’s amazing that government can spend $1 billion
per day on interest on the national debt,
and another $4 billion per day for other things,
and still can’t find the money to properly manage Social Security,
Medicare, Border Security, or properly enforce the laws to
protect citizens from corporation cheaters and parasites.

Perhaps, government really doesn’t add any net benefit to society?
Perhaps there’s more wisdom than we ever truly realized in the
saying that “Government that governs least governs best”?

[X] the private sector is shrinking and so is it’s share of the economic pie
[X] Federal Spending of $2.4 trillion Consumes 26% of the Economy, or $8,134 per man, woman and child
or 36% of the economy counting regulatory compliance, and the Social Spending portion consumes 58% of the total, and has increased 14 Times Faster Than The Economy and - individual incomes pay 82% of all federal revenue compared to a 51% share in 1950
[X] an ever increasing share of the economy is consumed by state & local government, and the excessive headcount is growing fast
[X] government is building up huge debt and interest, which is a recipe for disaster, and shrinking options.
[X] long-term median family incomes is stagnant or shrinking (and that’s with 2 or more workers per household).
[X] Mismanagement of Social Security is a major cause of economic squeeze on the young.
[X] the government spends social security trust fund surpluses on programs having zero to do with pensions.
[X] the government spends billions on regulation, and still can’t enforce the law (one of governments primary duties).
[X] Citizen Voter Participation over the last 36-year has been falling, as disaffection increases.
[X] the U.S. has more government employees than all manufacturing jobs; just consider how many government employees work at the IRS.

Consider the remarkable similarities of government and a virus. A computer virus is a self-replicating program that spreads by inserting copies of itself into other executable code or documents (for a complete definition: see below). Thus, a computer virus behaves in a way similar to a biological virus, which spreads by inserting itself into living cells. Extending the analogy, the insertion of the virus into a program is termed infection, and the infected file (or executable code that is not part of a file) is called a host.

Perhaps, the nation (host) has a infection (virus)?
That’s would help explain why it’s so hard to get well.

But how do you shrink this monster now (or get rid of the virus)?
About 57% of our economy is government-controlled.
Government spending is squeezing individual incomes and
shrinking the middle-income class.
Can government be reduced, or is a final ugly implosion inevitable?
Looking to history for the answers, what is most likely?
The GAO report and what history shows us is looking ominous.

Is it just me, or is this country in decline?
Growing threats:
#1 Growing Government Dominance & Mismanagement of many things, including Social Security, Pensions, SEC (the list is too long)
#2 Lack of Law enforcment and perversion of the laws
#3 Falling Quality of Education
#4 Growing Debt Dependence
#5 Growing Energy Dependence

David et al

We are not the ones who have to keep the promise WE make. There is no we here. There are generations that include different individuals. The continuity makes it look like there is an entity, but there is not. And nobody can deny the demographics have changed. Do you really want your kids to pay twice as much in taxes to keep you comfortable? Wouldn’t it be better to do something now?

The government, by the way, is always changing its promises. That is why you need tax accountants to help you figure out what you have to pay. Many people on this blog have complained about tax cuts. What if you made an investment because of the government promise of a certain tax rate on capital gains ten years from now? Would the government not have the right to change the tax rate if conditions changed? I know people who can’t use the land they bought for the purposes they chose because the government has imposed regulations of various kinds. They were promised property rights. They got regulated. The fact is that when the government promises something as long as the wind blows and the water flows, it doesn’t always do it. Sometimes it can’t. Sometimes it won’t.

SS will be a massive transfer of wealth from the younger and more productive parts of the population to the older parts. Even if we assume that we will tax enough to make all the payment, is this a smart of moral thing to do?

All of us will be among the recipients. We can’t wrap ourselves in altruism. We are arranging for OUR OWN wellbeing. Do you really think that it is fair or just for us to take that much out of the pockets of our young people?

We’ll probably have to wait until after the next election, to see some serious steps to shore up the Social Security system.

OSI, I think you’re right there. Just like only Nixon could go to China, only a Democratic president will have the street-cred to address SS solvency without everybody screaming about benefit cuts. And everyone will expect a Democrat to include some means testing, too.

Together, that oughtta take care of it, but nobody’s going to give the guy a pat on the back for making the call. They don’t call it the third rail for nothing.

Since government just spends every penny it gets, tax cuts help keep them from spending more.
Thus, it defies understanding why anyone would complain about tax cuts.
Of course, the government can just borrow more and print more money too. And what about those tax cuts. Aren’t they going to expire soon ?

If government doesn’t start soon doing something useful with the $trillions they get each year, like resolving the National Debt, fixing Social Security, Energy Dependence, Tax System, Border Security, Law Enforcement, then the young people of this country are going to get severely screwed. Perhaps they will get P.O.’ed enough to revolt? What was different about our forefathers (of the U.S.) and people today, that makes us tolerate so many abuses. I wonder, if they could (our fore fathers), what they would say about the way things are now?

By Tipton Coffman:
Our Fore Fathers Must Be Rolling in Their Graves
It is a sad state of affairs to see this country today, especially in the light of what it’s creators had intended. The future of federalism is bleak. It has been twisted and warped by so many previous politicians and their contributors (those with money) that what we have now in America is merely a shadow of what was intended. The federal Government has been given some supremely powerful powers reccently with our patriot act, which has allowed it to begin removing some of our freedoms one by one. Some Americans do not believe it is happening because they cannot see what the federal government does not want them to see. That does not mean that it is not happening. If we are not careful, and if we do not act soon, federalism will be but a thing of the past. When our country was still trying to find itself ( during the Articles of Confederation) there was a concept of Federalism which could only be whispered for fear that it would vanish. Our predecessors made the mistake of thinking that when we wrote it all down, it would simply last forever, that it would withstand the yells and echos of time and “improvement”. Well, it has not lasted as it was written, and we must begin to whisper again, or else we will forget about it ourselves. If we forget, who will our children turn to when they ask, “what is the Constitution for if we don’t even use it anymore”?

I have a private investment account and I can check the balance every day. I’ve never seen my SS account balance. Why? Because it’s just a promise from the politicians.

There is no big bank account that all the payroll taxes for SS goes into.

I don’t expect SS to be there when I get older. My investment account on the other hand is there all the time. I know exactly how much I have and how much more I need to sustain my standard of living. I’ll take real hard currency over a promise any day.

Anyone who wants to argue this simple logic, please send me $200 per month and when you retire I promise to give some back. In the mean time, I’ll spend your money on whatever I want and hope someone else is around to give me money so I can pay you back.

Pat, Any takers yet?
I wonder how much money has been paid in thus far (at this instant),
to recipients that have not received any benefits yet (i.e. from Social Security)?
With a pay-as-you-go system, there’s not even
the option of just giving it back.
The surpluses continue to be replaced with I.O.U.s
Borrowing continues to climb.
Cheaper labor over seas(globalization), which is inevitable, is driving down incomes here.
Our energy and oil dependence could become as serious as during WWII.
And, when my son recently graduated from college, I noticed 98% of the engineering and science degrees were to foreigner students, not American students. If our children are our future, we may be in trouble.

I am now totally convinced that my “Upbeat” categorization by the Typology test was totally inaccruate.

Jack asked: “Do you really want your kids to pay twice as much in taxes to keep you comfortable?”

NO, I want my kids to pay 5% more and I want Republicans to stop giving huge volumes of tax dollars to corporations, foreign nations, and spending it on elective wars where our defense is not an issue, etc., etc. and by all means, rescind the tax cuts on the wealthiest 1% who have 30% of all the wealth in this nation - they won’t even miss it.

The 5% more is what will be needed to float the demographic hump along with eliminating income caps on FICA and means testing benefits. Voila! 1% of the nation pays a bit more, which they can afford, and some 60 million Americans will be secure from poverty. It’s a great deal.

Thanks, AP. One easy prediction to make is that in a couple years, real estate will be a huge bust for a large number of wealthy wannabes and Pensions will be a much bigger story than Social Security.

It is amusing to watch human herds clamor toward bubbles floating out over the cliff to hitch a ride.

David

Ceteris paribus – as the economists say if everything remains the same. That is the assumption. In fact, raising taxes lowers growth. If you eliminate the SS caps, you are raising taxes on many people who are not particularly rich and by a lot. Whenever supporters of raising taxes for SS talk about it, the almost assume things remain the same with higher taxes. They never do.

Your other ways of saving money with the exception of staying out of wars (if you can) doesn’t save much. The U.S. is the world’s biggest donor of foreign aid, but (as detractors point out) it is not a big part of our GDP and nothing compared to SS. I am not sure what you mean when you talk about giving money away to corporations. Some of that money is wasted, some not, but your chances of stopping those payments (which continue under both parties) are almost zero.

Finally, asking our kids to pay “just” 5% more? That is a lot of money – more than $3000 for a median American family. And 5% is the best-case scenario. That assumes we can achieve all those other things, which I don’t think we can.

In order to make all these things work at the same time, we have to stipulate a nearly perfect confluence of good economy, responsible government, good luck and a benign international environment – AND it has to last for a quarter century.

I am certain that if a Democrat is elected in 2008 he or she will immediately discover the SS crisis and all those currently resisting will fall in line like ducks behind their mother -because it is truly a problem. The light we see in the tunnel is not the end; it is an oncoming train.

Jack, I, of course, disagree :-). The problem is not Soc. Sec. - Soc. Sec. acts both as a drain and boost to the economy making it pretty neutral. Yes, it saps a bit of investment capital. But, on the other hand, every dollar received by SS recipients gets spent in consumer transactions which stimulates demand and grows the economy (or maintains it).

The real problem America faces on the social spending front not Soc. Sec., it is Medicare/Medicaid; and not because the the program is inherently bad, but, because the program is dependent entirely upon the cost of health care which is spiralling out of control. Medicare/Medicaid is not even close to being economically cost neutral like Soc. Sec. and the problem worsens with citizen longevity increasing.

The Republicans are dodging the real issue facing the nation by creating a non-existent crisis in Soc. Sec. A clever political ploy but, irresponsible is as hell.

BTW David

I don’t want old folks to live in poverty. Since my wife and I and most of the people I know will be old folks by 2018, and my kids will be among those paying the bills.I do have several dogs in that fight.

But the best way to ensure that we all do not end up in that unhappy situation is to reform SS now when we still have a chance to do so with minimum pain.

|
| Voila!
|
Or, better yet:
(1) get rid of all tax deductions and loop-holes;
(2) implement a FLAT Income tax rate; and
(3) eliminate 85% of IRS:
__________________2002___________________
total government employees 120,322
total fulltime government employees 84,284
total IRS revenue agents 11,978
total IRS tax technicians 3,183
total IRS tax examining 9,772
total criminal investigators 2,892
revenue agents per million population 42.6
tax technicians per million population 11.3
cri investigators per million population 10.3
_____________1999________________________
total government employees 97,530
total fulltime government employees 84,651
total IRS revenue agents 13,820
total IRS tax technicians 3,487
total criminal investigators 3,400
revenue agents per million population 51.1
tax technicians per million population 12.9
cri investigators per million population 12.6
___________________________________________
(4) cut spending and reduce government; there’s plenty useless of offices, departments, agencies, government corporations, committees, commissions, employees that can be eliminated: Departments and Agencies A-Z
(5) never rescind taxes, since government will just spend it !
(6) never raise taxes, since government will just spend it !
(7) reduce the national debt
(8) reduce borrowing
(9) pass a BALANCED BUDGET Amendment (with major War time exclusion)
(10) pass ONE ITEM PER BILL Amendment (not line-item veto) so voters can see who, why, and how each politician voted (not possible now with 10,000 multi-item bills)
(11) implement an Approval Voting system;
(12) secure the borders and end IDentity theft, and implement a biometrics IDentification system;
(13) Protect and/or phase-out entitlement systems;
(14) reduce dependency on oil; help implement hydrogen and renewable power sources;
(15) stop creating new laws that are unnecessary and duplicate numerous existing laws, and simply enforce the existing laws better, and uphold the Constitution;
(16) Remove the President’s power to pardon convicted felons;
(17) improve education, and develop ways to increase enrollment in science and engineering
(18) treat Congress as one entity; make government Responsible, Transparent, and Accountable;

Seriously !
We should be getting much more for $2.5 trillion dollars.

….per year….and $8 trillion in debt.

jack, I entirely agree. Diverting revenue from the program is not fixing it, however, it will kill it and those who will depend on SS.

OSI, just did an important calculation.

2004 interest on national debt = 321 billion, 566 million dollars.

2004 work force 145 million.

Tax per wage earner just for the interest on debt =
$2,217.69.

The tax payer gets absolutely nothing back for those tax dollars. What a waste. Thanks, Bush, et.al.

David:

The real problem America faces on the social spending front not Soc. Sec., it is Medicare/Medicaid; and not because the the program is inherently bad, but, because the program is dependent entirely upon the cost of health care which is spiralling out of control.

What do you think we should do??

Craig

Jack,

“It is important to be nice if you will have other interactions with people.”

I never said don’t be nice. I’m saying that it just isn’t enough.

OSI,

“I’d rather find the win-win
solutions.”

Great, but what if no such solution exists? The problem I have with Stephen Covey is that when it comes to a win-lose situation he always advocates walking away (like you are suggesting). Being more callous a person myself, I prefer winning to going no deal.

“Are you tellin’ us it’s OK to do the
dishonorable thing to get ahead?”

I’m not telling you anything. I’m just saying that if it came to that bridge, I would cross it. You can do whatever you like and quite frankly I wouldn’t care. I don’t have ‘morals’ in mind when I say this, so it is rather pointless to continue in that vein of thought.

“Don’t under-estimate One Simple Idea.”

How about this, if it ever comes down to the line with your OSI, I will be there to help you out. I doubt, however, that the OSI shall ever get that far (prove me wrong).

David,

“Zeek, they have social security. And only Republicans stand between the promise Americans made to each other and the fulfillment of that promise.”

Yeah, kinda makes you wonder why the trusted their future to the government doesn’t it? Or why anyone one would for that matter.

Zeek

It is true that being nice is not enough to ensure success. But the quote “nice guys finish last” implies it is a liability and that is not true.

“After 33 years on the job, crane operator James Roberts retired from Bethlehem Steel in 2000 with a monthly pension of about $1,875 and free health care.

Within three years he lost much of that cushion for the future, when the bankrupt steelmaker was allowed to hand off its pension obligations to a federally funded program that insures pensions. The pension check shrank to about $1,250, and he lost health and life benefits.

Roberts had retired early, at 54, after a year off with a degenerative bone disease. He was suddenly stuck with less income and with monthly bills of about $200 for insurance premiums and $400 for prescription medications.

His plight is shared not just with many other former Bethlehem Steel workers but by a growing number of retirees from companies that are collapsing and turning their pension programs over to the underfunded Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp.”
By MARYCLAIRE DALE , Associated Press Writer

David,

It would appear that things are getting rough all over.

Jack,

“But the quote “nice guys finish last” implies it is a liability and that is not true.”

Yeah, well, “soft guys finish last” doesn’t roll off the tongue as well and doesn’t have the same catchy ring to it… It’s all about the delivery :P

Zeek,

I work with a wide range of people. Right now I am finishing up a job for a museum in a major city. On this job I was a project manager. The job entailed dealing with a valuable irreplacable artifact.
Now in order to complete my job it is nescessary to deal, not only with the museum, but with union trades (electricians, carpenters etc.) that will help me complete my job, BTW, I am not a union member. It is in my job description to be a “nice guy”. That doesn’t mean that the trades get to walk all over me. If I am not a nice guy, the job isn’t going to get completed on time, the contractor I am a sub to doesn’t get his sign off and has to pay a a $15,000.00 a day penalty.
How is it again that “nice guys” finish last?

Craig, first and foremost, I would recommend the US government stipulate in every contract to the private sector receiving public money, that a .5% interest royalty in all product development resulting from the research sponsored in whole or part by public money be returned to the US government as revenue.

It is long past time for tax payers to start getting a direct return on their investment in private sector medical R&D.

Second, I would require that every cent of that royalty be earmarked for existent medicare and medicaid programs to offset both their cost and future tax hikes.

David:

That is a great idea. It slows down (but doesn’t stop) the rich from getting their drugs (or other R&D) and creates a pool of dollars to be used for the rest of the world.

Sounds like a drop in the bucket. What else??

Craig

Craig, nope, your turn. What would you do?

David

I don’t doubt the efficacy of the taxes you propose, but I don’t think we should spend the money.

What would I do?

I think we have to shift the paradigm. We treat way to many aliments and work too hard to keep people alive. We spend more money in the last year of a person’s life than in the rest of it. Let nature or natures God take over. Stop the heroics. When a person over a certain age develops a fatal disease, treat him/her to make them comfortable, but don’t extend life. Don’t save premature babies that will be disabled all their lives. It is not natural. Do this can take all our money.

Rocky,

“How is it again that “nice guys” finish last?”

Re-read my post above and you will see that I did not mean ‘nice’ in the sense that you are thinking of.

When a person over a certain age develops a fatal disease, treat him/her to make them comfortable, but don’t extend life. Don’t save premature babies that will be disabled all their lives.

See, now I got preached at by a priest swearing that Democrats want to kill off babies and the elderly. But it’s really the Republicans who want to do that. Typical.

“You need to understand how to get ahead in life and accept that the best ways may not be the most honorable ways.”

Zeek,

The best ways are always the most honorable ways. You can get ahead by screwing people, but you don’t appreciate it when you have it, and you have just made enemies of the people you screwed.

That which is worked hard for, is always cherished.
A wise man said that once, and if he didn’t, he should have.
Karma, Zeek, will always find you in the end.

David R. Remer wrote:
| 2004 interest on national debt = 321 billion,
| 566 million dollars.
| 2004 work force 145 million.
| Tax per wage earner just for the interest on debt = $2,217.69.
| The tax payer gets absolutely nothing back for those tax dollars. What a waste.

It’s really amazing isn’t it? About $1 billion per day on just the interest alone.

Are there any economists in government any more?
And, what’s the purpose of the Bureau of Public Debt?

Also, that means if the interest is $1 billion per day, the smallest payment daily that can reduce the debt, must be more than $1 billion.

We seem to have several growing problems from several different areas. Any by itself may not seem so bad, but the combination may ruin us:

Growing threats:
#1 Growing Government Dominance & Mismanagement of many things, including Social Security, Pensions, SEC (the list is too long)
#2 Lack of Law enforcment and perversion of the laws; lack of Transparency and Accountability;
#3 Falling Quality of Education
#4 Growing Debt Dependence
#5 Growing Debt Dependence
#6 Growing Terrorism

AP

Only this Republican. I get in trouble on all sides so my ideas on this subject.

Let me give you another. I feel generally uncomforable with abortion. I think it is bad, but it has to be a woman’s right. So far, almost liberal. But if you grant that a woman has a right to choose, she also has a right to choose to abort a retarded baby or choose a baby on the basis of gender or anything else.

Often my liberal friends (of course conservative too, but for other reason) are appalled when I propose we abort babies with handicaps.

Rocky,

“You can get ahead by screwing people, but you don’t appreciate it when you have it, and you have just made enemies of the people you screwed.”

I never said screw people… Nice try though.

“Karma, Zeek, will always find you in the end.”

I don’t subscribe to that sort of thing… Bad things can happen to good and bad people alike, and in equal amounts. I find that the more you start believing in that stuff, the less control you seem to have over your future.

No Zeek, you’re right, this is what you said.

“”You need to understand how to get ahead in life and accept that the best ways may not be the most honorable ways.”

Please if you want to parse what I said I still don’t see the difference between what you wrote and what I wrote.

There are only two ways to get ahead. The honorable way, in which you gain the support of your fellows, and the dishonorable way, in which you tromp on other people’s body parts on your way up.
Either way it is still hard work to get ahead, btu frankly I prefer the friendly way. It seem a lot easier than trying to conive your way to the top.

As far as Karma is concerned, you couldn’t be more in control, as you are making a conscious effort to be the best being you can be. Good things do happen to good people.

Being a good guy is it’s own reward.

Rocky - you are an honorable guy and I agree with you.

Nobody is less realistic than a confirmed cynic.

Thank you Jack, coming from you, I take that as a great compliment.

Rocky,

“Being a good guy is it’s own reward.”

Well, to each his own I guess…

Zeek

Being a good guy is its own reward. Integrity is the price you put on yourself. I will say again that most successful people I know are nicer than average and they have more integrity. That does not say they are perfect or without fault, but the idea that the crooks are the ones who get the farther has not worked out in my experience. Maybe in the entertainment business or something where you get the adulation of others, but not when you have ongoing relationships with people who are more or less equals.

Jack,

“Being a good guy is its own reward.”

The same response I gave Rocky…

Zeek,

If you assume that I bend over for every charletan that comes down the pike, you’re quite mistaken.
I am in the entertainment/service business, and I am a company of one. I get business because of who I am, and because of my reputation as an honorable man. In my business, companies will drop you like a stone if you screw them once.
BTW, business is very good.

Zeek,
What line of work are you into ?

Rocky,

“If you assume that I bend over for every charletan that comes down the pike, you’re quite mistaken.”

Why would I make such an assumption and what in our history together makes you think I’m that stupid?

“BTW, business is very good.”

Agreed.

OSI,

“Zeek,
What line of work are you into ?”

Ummm. Self indulgence? O_O

Having worked at an insurance company, I “saw” defined benefit plans negotiated and implemented
in pain-staking steps to yeild “binding” contracts between employers and employees.

The Federal government is assisting big business in breaking a contract rather than go out of business.

If an individual breaks a contract with their cell phone company, there is a large penalty and he/she may need to declare bankruptcy. Let a corporation go bankrupt if they break a social contract.

Look at who will suffer now: the older,weaker people who cannot recover from this because they dedicated their youth in trusting the employer and the government to uphold their honorable contracts.

My sense of betrayal has never been greater.

Perhaps, the U.S. Supreme Court can come to the rescue, otherwise, we are all in deep, deep
trouble.

Steve, I echo your outrage and thinking on this government aiding corporations in their desire to breach contracts. When corporations can lobby, they will win over the common citizen damn near every time.

Often my liberal friends (of course conservative too, but for other reason) are appalled when I propose we abort babies with handicaps.

You know what, Jack. My son was born with a heart defect. Thankfully, it turned out to be correctable, but I did a lot of soul searching in the months before we knew that. I agree with you. I hate the thought of abortion, but it must be the parent’s choice (assuming they’ve been fully educated on the problem, the alternatives, and talked it over with their family, counselors, and God), not the federal government’s.