You're wandering aimlessly through threads again - you want the other thread wherein you and I are having a somewhat one-sided battle of wits.

Yep the socialist Reagan
Ronald Reagan and The Great Social Security Heist : FedSmith.com

I'm not going to argue with you after I just finished reading the social security program's annual report and forward looking statements along with a couple analysis of that from both sides.

Right. Speaking of wandering aimlessly, heads up, this is the thread where the adults can disagree with each other without the snarky baloney you seem to need to wander aimlessly in here to try and spread.

that article shows exactly what I just said, that the $$$ was stolen and that that is the root of all SS problems...

I don't think it's particularly relevant who was the president at that time or what political party they belonged to... but if you are not comfortable with my use of "socialist", lets just use politician/bureaucrat instead... but that doesn't change a single thing, it still remains a fact that you can't trust the government to a run anything, including a simple program like SS...

(and that article isn't even 100% accurate, it implies that shadiness started in 1983, it started way earlier... I can't be bothered to look up exact dates, but it's not like it matters anyway...)

Woj, are you arguing against socialism or government?

both, I think one implies the other... you can't have socialism without "big" government, nor can you really have "big" government without socialism... I'm not against the "government" in some anarchist sense but I prefer the government to have smaller role in our lives...

Do you think it would take that much more government to have free public higher ed in America?

Al Gore: "Lockbox."

:D

Since I am a high school dropout I will answer that question: No.

I don't think that is the right question... I think it should be established if it's even desirable to have tax payers pay for higher ed of others in the first place... and I'm far from convinced that it actually would be a good idea...

what's so desirable about forcing one person to pay for higher education of someone else? what's wrong with paying for your own higher ed?

How do you feel about government getting involved in "venture capital" type of activities? Someone wants to start a business, should government be involved in funding companies? After all, if they succeed we will all benefit?

How is getting higher ed different from starting a business? you are proposing funding a student for many 10s of thousands of $$... would you be as open to fund anyone that wants to start a business for similar amounts?

Perfect! This is what I need!

"Hey Gov't: I want to start my own blowjob business. I need 100k to hire the ho's. What form do I fill out for that?"

if it's a good idea to give some kid $100k to go to college for perhaps no other reason than because he thinks it's a cool thing to do, why shouldn't Mr Porn Nerd get 100k to start a legitimate blowjob research company? who knows, maybe he will discover some new revolutionary way to perform blowjobs that will change mankind forever?

I think that when we all aren't arguing over this we can all agree that there is a "sweet spot" where govt. is big enough to really be of service and govt. is too damn big and overreaching.

In my opinion we overshot that "sweet spot" a few decades ago and need to dial it back a bit.

Other people are of the opinion that we need to go further in the direction that we are heading now and anyone thinking otherwise wants to go "backwards".

We all have our own individual experiences and reasons for having the opinions we have on the subject I suppose

School Taxes
 

That's because someone before you paid their property taxes for you to get an education.

As for "Capitalist" Korea, they have universal healthcare.

FICA taxes are 15 1/25%. 1/2 each paid by employer & employee. However they are capped at earnings of $117,000. Self employment the person is taxed the entire 15 1/2%, but the person gets to deduct 1/2 of the tax.

Socialism
 

My local "socialist" government runs the water & lights. My rates are much lower than the "capitalists" across the river from me.

I don't have the energy to read the entire thread tonight; but ....

My legacy to the world is my kids.

:thumbsup

Yeah, otherwise I'd love to see that.

Lots of us went to private schools.

Holy crap, I could not watch the entire thing, but fu-u-uck

Yeah, without interest at that.

All I know is I am hiring Woj to be my blowjob business lobbyist.

:thumbsup

The level of propaganda it takes to convince people that the level of socialism being proposed is anything like Communism. Must make Joseph Goebbels spin in his grave. :1orglaugh

When one splits the States by votes, one sees a lot of poor people must be voting for Republicans. Turkeys and Christmas spring to mind. All confirmed by the fervour they greet Sarah with.

Well off, white males can afford to get robbed by private insurance.

So I could have landed in the US before my 65th birthday and claimed a pension?

Can you explain how someone can suddenly get Social Security and Medicare without being part of the system?

I kind of get what you're both saying.

When Social Security and Medicare were constructed it was at a time when most Americans had well-paying jobs, the tax revenue was high enough to support the low cost of demand. Since then Governments have sold the ideal of free trade. Allowing companies to export those jobs to the Third World and replace a job making a product to selling it a mall.

Also, companies basing themselves in places like the Cayman Islands to not pay the right level of taxes.

To add to this Governments insist on importing cheap labour to put citizens out of jobs or lower wages.

Agreed it's the Governments fault and most of you, opposed to change, are saying they should keep doing it. This isn't a US situation, it's Worldwide. We need to stop companies basing themselves in places to dodge tax, tax imports from countries dumping cheap goods on is and sue any company employing illegal labour into bankruptcy. What a fine American he is.

This was possible when the manufacturing industries of the West could afford to pay for it, or couldn't hide their money.

epic :1orglaugh

Can you give us examples of what SS payments were paid out to?

If it was paid out to hospitals, invalid benefits that's no problem. The money goes back into the US economy to keep those in real need alive and provide jobs for people who will buy from you.

If it was to fund a war overseas, it gives jobs to soldiers and arms producers. Funding farmers keeps the prices of food down. However if it was to go to a company to rebuild a plant in Iraq, it's lost.

If things like healthcare, private insurance against being made redundant because your job is now done by a girl in China or a migrant in the US or developing cancer. They will charge 100% more and try to find a loophole to not pay.

This whole debate is about How do we pay? Because for sure you have to pay.

Roads, police, fire, health, education, control of big business, pollution, industrial waste and as much as possible. Can go into the hands of private companies. And if anyone thinks that's better, I have a bridge to sell.

It excludes the best in favour of the richest.

Such as a pension run by a company or a Union in the pocket of the Mafia?

I read the article.

So instead of ring-fencing the funds Governments robbed the people of their money. Reagan was a Republican, you might as well put a fox in charge of the henhouse.

Tax cuts do not stimulate an economy when the money is spent on imported goods. It puts money into the pockets of the 1%. That's something a 12-year-old would understand. And yet it's a message many don't get. The 1% understand it.

We all have opinions, the world runs on facts.

Give real examples of where you would suggest cutting back and how the cutbacks would impact you in terms of replacing them via private suppliers. And any positive of negative effect the cutbacks would have.

Half the 18 year olds should be nowhere near a college - they enroll in programs acquiring knowledge that will only be useful shooting their mouths off on Internet forums, most don't even get an undergraduate degree, meanwhile they are now 20 and already in debt with college loans. Donald Trump promises that when he becomes President he will somehow force Apple to manufacture the iPhone and its other products in the USA - industry experts say even if Apple wanted to manufacture in the US they couldn't, a major reason why is the US doesn't have the number of skilled people qualified to do the job - our people are either overqualified/too expensive or underqualified to do the work required. Kids should be in tech/trade schools/community colleges after high school to get the skills to do those kind of jobs.

As for the kids who really are mature enough and have the motivation to go to school and get a degree, here's a list of hundreds of damn good universities in the US with tuition fees between $5-10K a year 2015 US State Colleges and University Tuition Costs Comparison Table - what's the fucking problem with that? There is no reason in the 4 months of summer vacation a kid can't make $5,000 - if the kid wants to live on campus or his own apartment, get a part-time job or Mom and Dad can help out or get a loan. Don't be looking at strangers for handouts, try doing it yourself with some help from those who brought you into this world. If I had my way I'd sterilize everybody over 12, white black and every other color in between, until they are self supporting human beings capable of supporting a child.

Anyway there's not a chance in hell Bernie Sanders will become President of the United States but 20 years from now most of his plan will have come to pass - the US was never the capitalist utopia conservatives like to harken back to, look at the income tax rates in the 1950's - the top marginal tax rate was as high as 90%. There were a ton of loopholes but even so the top tax rate was 50-60%. The US has been on a steady path of increasing socialism since the Great Depression, like the rest of the world's democracies. Reagan and Clinton let the bankers and the very rich get richer and richer without paying their fair share but socialism continued, the national debt is testament to that. As long as the US dollar remains the world's reserve currency I say just keep borrowing and printing money - who's coming to collect on it?

The US needs a flat tax with every loophole the richest and largest corporations and individuals use to avoid paying their fair share wiped out. Trump has railed many times against corporate tax inversions, he's railed against the medical insurance companies, would be very interesting to see if he came through on promises to do something about those.

Bernie would be a complete mess because he'd deliver on the higher taxes for everybody but he'd never be able to pull off most of his plan to pay for his promises while hurting small businesses, costing more jobs, putting more people on the public dole.

Trump isn't the ogre and moron he's playing in this campaign, if he were to get into the White House, he'd reveal himself to be what he really is - a New Yorker, more liberal than conservative, he'd appease the right who got him elected by being tough on immigration, supporting the 2nd Amendment to the hilt, and just good old fashioned American patriotism/jingoism.

The failure of Social Security is very easy to explain, and it's a perfect illustration why Socialism doesn't work.

When social security was put into place, a vast majority of the U.S. population was at a working age, and gainfully employed. It doesn't matter how much money they were making, it only mattered that they were paying into social security. Then we had the baby boomers, which made the fund blow up. So just for this post, I'll make up a number. There were 10,000 people paying into social security for every person receiving benefits. That's 10,000:1, and the coffers were running at a surplus.

Other programs that were hurting, saw the huge surplus and thought, "Hey, we can borrow some social security money to help pay for our program. They can afford it, there are plenty of people paying." -- in essence they robbed Peter to pay Paul.

Well then the Baby Boomers started to age, and the numbers started to shift. The entire paradigm of working Americans shifted. No longer were people staying gainfully employed, but now they had all these fat government assistance programs that allowed them to be jobless, but still retain a comfortable way of life. So now there are less people paying into social security, all the time its coffers are being robbed to support programs ultimately built to empower non-workers. So now for there are 10 people paying for 1. That's quite the jump from 10,000:1. But the same amount of money is being taken from social security and allocated into other government assistance programs.

Now we're at a deficit with the amount of people paying into social security vs. the people receiving benefits. Now it's 1 person paying for 1,000, so 1:1,000. And there are no maths in this world where a system like that can work.

When the Social Security Administration starts to panic and asks, "Hey, can you guys start repaying all that money you took?" -- they're laughed at and told that the other programs can barely afford to run themselves, much less repay the SS funds. So now the politicians have to start cooking the books, and finding ways to pay out funds from an empty account. They're starting to borrow money or impose higher taxes on the working class to cover what they fucked up. Back in the 90's, social security was a revolving door, money coming in immediately went out to pay benefits. Since then, social security funds have gone completely into the red, and they're doing whatever they can to get benefits out. The system is beyond broken, it's FUBAR.

But instead of allocating new funds to put people back to work, they're implementing programs to make people even more dependent on government assistance. Welfare recipients don't pay into social security. In a nutshell, that is what will happen to our economy if any type of Socialist policy is put into place. Sure, most people will feel an immediate positive response. But how long will that really last? I'm not worried about myself, but I'm not trying to fuck up my children's opportunity to a great life. I don't want them waiting in food lines, or depending on anyone for assistance.

From a New York Times article:

"At most public universities, only 19 percent of full-time students earn a bachelorâ??s degree in four years, the report found. Even at state flagship universities â?? selective, research-intensive institutions â?? only 36 percent of full-time students complete their bachelorâ??s degree on time."

And we all know what most bachelor's degrees are worth, not bloody much.

Well if it's a personal residence then as of now you get capital gains waived. Also you cannot 1031 a personal residence and also the main goal of a personal residence isn't investment

Now if you invested in this scenario you'd have to compare your results to other investments to see how it would perform. They would also face 10% inflation and 50% capital gains. Can just abuse roths and tax deferred some more...

If I want to start a business with this money why should I be taxed at 30%+ of my profits then just 15% if I lazily just stick it in the stock market.

Exactly! A bachelor's degree is hardly worth the parchment its printed on. Now imagine the worth of it when they start giving them away for free. Companies these days won't even schedule an interview unless you have a Masters.

that's completely irrelevant, it was sold as you saving money for your own retirement... you paid it, decades later you find out that money was stolen, and that chance of you getting benefits you were promised are slim to none... but they have a fix, we'll just raise taxes and keep the ponzi scheme going for another few decades...

I have no idea how you can keep a straight face and tell me the way it played out is not a complete disaster...

that's a myth, how did you reach that conclusion? For every brilliant kid who couldn't figure out how to pay for college there are 5 that went on a 2 year college "vacation" then dropped out... do these 5 not take up spots that could be used by the "best"? You make it free, and there will be more of these "vacationers" squeezing out more competent students who really had a drive to learn...

and really, it's debatable if someone who is unable to work out how to pay for college is really the "best"... I think the "best" is one that has both "book smarts", but also drive, determination, etc and just a hint of "street smarts" to work out how to pay for college....

1932 was? there was the major depression at the time Social Security was created.

My point is about your comment that socialism = big government. not the efficacy of any one social program.

again, America has a long and rich history of embracing social programs, they are woven into the fabric of the USA. A social program does not necessarily require huge/bloated bureaucracies to administer.

i'm not the guy championing social security here, i used it as an example of the USA embracing big social programs

i'm not the guy championing free higher ed here, i used it as en example of how a social program wouldn't neccesarily require an accompanying big bureacracy.

i'm not a socialist. I specifically cited what i like most about Bernie and that's his promise to reform campaign finance and his view of ISIS/foreign policy.

a bachelor's degree is worth more than a high school diploma.

free higher ed means free access, to achieve the diploma, the work still needs to get done above a passing grade.

they aren't giving away diplomas for free. getting in is free, getting out requires work.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped..._1902_2010.png

where do you think one should draw the line? 50%? 75%? or do you think there is no point where it gets excessive?

you entirely missed the point again.

you think HIllary's gonna do something about that?

you think Trump is gonna do something about that?

ted cruz?

martin omalley?




why the fuck are you asking me that? again, i'm not here defending bernie or socialism. i simply stated why i like Bernie and the fact America has gobs and gobs of social programs and has a rich history of that.

neither of which even slightly suggest i think i'm the guy to explain when US government spending as a % of GDP is excessive.

what the fuck.

Paul why do you constantly post the most goddamned STUPID shit?

I said that in the beginning...in the 1935...Social Security started. But benefits were IMMEDIATELY paid to people over 65. Obviously they had NEVER paid in to the system at that point.

So people working in 1935 were already paying for people to retire who didn't have one penny in the system

You act so fucking DUMB in these conversations.

My whole point was that Social Security started out in debt and has stayed that way ever since. It was and is a big LIE that you are paying into your own personal retirement fund.

You are so useless in these threads because you don't even understand the words I am typing. :(

We should really bring back the policies of the 1800s, those were simplier times. If everyone just died at 55 we wouldn't have to worry about social security!

There were no social "policies" in the 1800's. Or the 1900's up until 1935.

The govt. was never meant to be involved in those things. Our society decided to get the govt. involved as a means to better people's lives when the great depression hit.
Older people got along just fine before that. Families took care of their parents when they retired back in those times.
The great depression hit so hard that nobody could take care of themselves.

Social Security was a way to make sure that never happened again. As I said...it was sold to the people as the govt. taking YOUR money and paying it out to YOU in retirement.

And that's a lie. It's nothing more now than just another tax... and welfare for anyone over 65.

I agree, with all that slavery and child labor, really can't beat those times. Now if only we can get rid of these pesky vaccines and modern medicine. At the very least we can stop washing our hands

Huh? Slavery was abolished in the 1860's. And were people owning slaves in New York City back in those days anyway? Nope.

I wasn't referring to slavery times. I was more referring to when the govt. stepped in during the Great Depression in the 1930's.

You seem to be more interested in attacking and less interested in discussion.

Social Security was a big turning point in our country. Paved the way for the federal govt. to grow bigger than it ever was intended to.

And it was something that arguably needed to happen....81 years ago.

You seem to be defending old ideas and solutions while at the same time attacking old ideas and solutions that don't fit your narrative.

What we need are NEW ideas and solutions. Social Security was an idea from 81 years ago that was flawed at the outset...but seemed to be the best thing to do at the time.

Where are the new ideas and solutions that will be viable for today?

Ok so what's the plan when automation (self driving cars etc) puts a giant chunk of the work force out of work. Sorry man, government is going to have to keep stepping in and continually try to work against market forces to keep the country stable.

Personally I love the idea of free college educations. With Internet classes these absurd costs cause be slashed to pieces. A more educated workforce is good for the country, I like my customers with jobs and money so they can keep buying from me