Social Security is on the brink of demise--sadly

Discussion in 'Social Security' started by pjohns, Feb 8, 2013.

  1. pjohns

    pjohns Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2009
    Messages:
    6,916
    Likes Received:
    658
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    And in case you did not notice, my words were as follows:

    "Secondly, pay all the bills before doing anything else." [Bold in original]

    So there are not two "firsts" here at all.

    You are not really very observant, are you?
     
  2. JakeStarkey

    JakeStarkey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2016
    Messages:
    25,747
    Likes Received:
    9,526
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And neither are you, at times.
     
  3. pjohns

    pjohns Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2009
    Messages:
    6,916
    Likes Received:
    658
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Evidently, you equate supply-side economics (see: Arthur Laffer) with "R[ight] W[ing] propaganda."

    Would you care to prove the contrary, please?

    (By the way, a lower tax rate obviously increases spending, as people have more money available to spend. Whether this is sufficient to offset, totally, a lower tax rate, is an interesting question--and one that I am probably not qualified to answer with any authority. Are you?)
     
    JakeStarkey likes this.
  4. pjohns

    pjohns Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2009
    Messages:
    6,916
    Likes Received:
    658
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I would advise purchasing a used car (or "pre-owned," as some euphemistically call it) but from a new-car dealer, as automobiles sold by their owners are a real crapshoot.

    Just what "economic system" would you prefer, then?

    Socialism?

    Communism?

    Feudalism?

    Or what, exactly?
     
  5. pjohns

    pjohns Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2009
    Messages:
    6,916
    Likes Received:
    658
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Example, please?
     
  6. Iriemon

    Iriemon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    82,348
    Likes Received:
    2,657
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I didn't say anything about supply side economics. Did you have anything to say about what I actually wrote?
    That is a total fail on your part to prove that a tax cut necessarily increases gross national income by a factor that exceeds the amount of revenues lost due to a lower effective tax rate.

    As for the contrary, I have no need to prove such a thing, because I've made no claim that higher taxes increases gross national income. However, we can look to the recent past for empirical data. Reagan cut taxes (though also raised them several times) and we saw an explosion of deficits and a good economy. We saw Clinton raise taxes, followed by (completely contrary to conservatives' claims) a great economy and skyrocketing revenues and a then record deficit turning into a surplus. And we saw major tax cuts under Bush, a putrid economy, and the surplus quickly turn into new record deficits.

    So based on that, I'd say it would be hard do deduce that tax policy (within those ranges, at least) seems to have little effect on the economy.

    But it has a major effect on tax revenues, as one would expect if one understands the relationship between effective tax rates and revenues.

    Not necessarily true at all, and can be to the contrary. Because taxed money is spent by the government back in the economy, it doesn't necessarily result in less spending. If the government takes taxes and uses them to pay SS benefit which the recipient spends in the economy, there has been no net effect on overall spending.

    The source of tax revenues has a play in this as well. If you have a tax cut, and the benefits of that tax cut goes to a m/billoinaire who sticks the money in his portfolio or offshore account, you have not created any additional spending in the economy.

    And that is basically what we've seen in our country since about 1981. The bottom 10% used to get 65% of gross national income, now its down to 50%. The top 10% is getting an extra 15 percentage points of gross national income that used to go to the bottom 90%.

    In an economy with about $16 trillion in gross income, that equates of over $2 trillion every year going to the top 10% (and mostly to the top 1% and top 1/10%) instead of bottom 90%. Because the rich save more of their money, only a portion of that extra discretionary income is being spent in the economy; whereas if it was going to the bottom 90% virtually all would be spent.

    Which goes a long way to explain why spending, and thus the economy, has generally grown more sluggish over time over the past 35 years.
     
  7. Kode

    Kode Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    26,311
    Likes Received:
    7,461
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    There's no money in your IRA, 401-k, or bank account either. duh
     
  8. Kode

    Kode Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    26,311
    Likes Received:
    7,461
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That doesn't solve the problem I described.


    Socialism of course. That's the only alternative. But not like you know from history. Past attempts to create socialism failed. But all that has been studied, analyzed, and weak points identified and a new approach is being proposed, which I support. And trust me, the fact that you asked that question means you don't know what I'm referring to. So if you are curious we could discuss and clarify it.
     
  9. pjohns

    pjohns Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2009
    Messages:
    6,916
    Likes Received:
    658
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    For openers, the government will continue to pay out Social Security benefits--even if it has to come out of the general fund (or add to the deficit)--as it would be political suicide to deny seniors their Social Security benefits.

    But to claim that it is "[n]ot necessarily true" that people will spend more if they have more to spend is...well, it is utterly beyond my comprehension!
     
  10. pjohns

    pjohns Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2009
    Messages:
    6,916
    Likes Received:
    658
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Can you give me an example of where that has ever worked?

    Venezuela?

    Cuba?

    North Korea?

    The former USSR?

    Yes, they did.

    Miserably!

    Oh, I see.

    You support a mere theory--one that has never even been attempted.

    Gotcha...
     
    Last edited: Sep 19, 2017
  11. Kode

    Kode Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    26,311
    Likes Received:
    7,461
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Capitalism was a just a "theory" at one time. Marxism was only a "theory" at one time. Your dismissal is an attempt to resist and bury the march of history. You prove it by your incurious thinking and by leaping to such a dismissal without knowing what I'm referring to or the history of it.

    The nuclear bomb, computers, lasers, and most other developments of importance began as theories and were developed through experimentation and experience.
     
  12. pjohns

    pjohns Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2009
    Messages:
    6,916
    Likes Received:
    658
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The reference to some "march of history" sounds almost Hegelian...
     
  13. Kode

    Kode Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    26,311
    Likes Received:
    7,461
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Do you always tend to get hung up on perceived similarities?
     
    Last edited: Sep 19, 2017
  14. pjohns

    pjohns Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2009
    Messages:
    6,916
    Likes Received:
    658
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That is a logical fallacy known as the fallacy of the complex question...
     
  15. Old Man Fred

    Old Man Fred Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2017
    Messages:
    840
    Likes Received:
    253
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Is the Social Security Trust Fund accounted for in the national debt? Could the Federal government redeem those securities for normal Treasury issues without difficulty? Or just print more money because apparently that's possible in your world without consequence?

    The Federal deficit for FY 2009 was $600 billion, and since Republicans literally shut down Congress to force spending cuts, REPUBLICANS cut the debt faster than anyone, after Democrats increased it more than anyone.

    Also, unless FICA revenue can be used to pay interest on the debt, it doesn't count as revenue to pay the interest on the debt. Do you get to use your employer's health care and 401(k) contributions, their FICA rate, unemployment taxes, etc, when considering your debt to income ratio when applying for a loan? In 2015, interest on the national debt was 22% of all non FICA Federal revenue. The CBO projected an rapid return to trillion dollar deficits, before the election, and the Fed has been extremely slow to raise interest rates because our entire debt has been floated for 9 years.

    And also, in regards to my personal financial situation, most people don't start at rock bottom(in regards to market values).
     
    pjohns likes this.
  16. Mr_Truth

    Mr_Truth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2012
    Messages:
    33,372
    Likes Received:
    36,882
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
  17. Moriah

    Moriah Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2013
    Messages:
    7,646
    Likes Received:
    2,125
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    pjohns likes this.
  18. JakeStarkey

    JakeStarkey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2016
    Messages:
    25,747
    Likes Received:
    9,526
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The fix for SS is very, very easy. It will not go bust.

    However, taking SS when you can instead of waiting for max benefits is the smart choice because you don't know when you will shuffle off this mortal coil.
     
  19. pjohns

    pjohns Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2009
    Messages:
    6,916
    Likes Received:
    658
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Your breezy equation of capitalism to Marxism begs the question: Are the two merely competing "theor[ies]'?

    A book that I am now reading--Suicide of the West, by Jonathan Goldberg--makes the rather trenchant point that capitalism is the only economic system that has ever been attempted.

    Not merely the best one.

    But the only one.

    (Socialism, as he points out, is really a political system--not an economic system.)
     
  20. Kode

    Kode Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    26,311
    Likes Received:
    7,461
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    Think. Just think a tiny bit. Capitalism got established and has functioned. Socialism was attempted and was never established. Do you think that may explain your statement a bit?


    It would be interesting to read his definition of "economic system". Plenty of economists would argue the point. They see feudalism as an economic system since it provided the means by which people provided for their needs. Same for slave societies that went before it. And same for hunter-gatherer societies before that.


    Workers owning and running industry is a "political system"? LOL!!!!!! So much for him and his great insights.

    OH! WAIT!! I know what he's saying. He's saying he only accepts the old, outdated, failed attempt at socialism that entailed seizing state power and trying to get to socialism. Yeah that was a political system, It never got to socialism. But the system of socialism that is still being attempted is, indeed, an economic system. He just prefers to count on his cohort, which includes people like you, to remain confused and misinformed by all the propaganda you've been fed since you were born, and think socialism or worse, "communism", was established by a revolution somewhere. LOL!!!
     
  21. pjohns

    pjohns Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2009
    Messages:
    6,916
    Likes Received:
    658
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    If you can post without the the insults (and I find it very difficult to take seriously any people who rely upon these; it is usually a strong indicator that they have no truly compelling arguments), I would just suggest that you read Suicide of the West. Jonah Goldberg--its author--is far more intellectual than I am.

    Or, in fact, than most people are.
     
    Last edited: Jul 10, 2018
  22. Kode

    Kode Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    26,311
    Likes Received:
    7,461
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Wait. Insults? You mean the part about thinking a little bit? If so, I was trying to say it isn't hard to see my point. Sorry if it came across and insulting. Or was it something else?
     
  23. pjohns

    pjohns Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2009
    Messages:
    6,916
    Likes Received:
    658
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I think that the final paragraph--and especially the last half of it (the part about my being "confused" and "misinformed")--should qualify.

    I am more than happy to discuss anything--in a dispassionate and cerebral manner.

    But I do not much care for the passionate and the visceral, in political/philosophical discussions.
     
  24. Kode

    Kode Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    26,311
    Likes Received:
    7,461
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Understood. But it is an objective fact that most people are confused by the propaganda that they don't believe they've been subjected to, and then they talk about socialism being state control of industry which never was Marx's description of socialism, and they talk about the collapse of communist societies that never existed. And all because they are confused by the propaganda. After all, you did say "Socialism, as he points out, is really a political system--not an economic system" and that isn't at all true. See what I'm saying?
     
  25. pjohns

    pjohns Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2009
    Messages:
    6,916
    Likes Received:
    658
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Perhaps there is a distinction--which you may not be making--between the theories of Das Kapital (or even The Communist Manifesto) and Marxism as it has historically been practiced.

    Although I do not care for either--to say the very least--I am not much concerned about simple theories that, in their purest form, never see the light of day.
     

Share This Page