All angry all the time

Discussion in 'West Mall' started by Crockett, Sep 12, 2021.

  1. BrntOrngStmpeDe

    BrntOrngStmpeDe 1,000+ Posts

    I would suggest a mandated contribution that at least goes into a savings account and no withdrawals allowed. At a bare minimum, people would contribute $100 or so per month (going to basic savings account) and my hope is that after a while people would see $6-8K in there and then start to think "how can i do better with this". My former commander is whispering in my ear right now...."hope is not a plan" but to me the savings account is a starting place and gets the govt out of the equation, because they screw pretty much everything up. I believe that most people would eventually get somewhat smart about leveling up from a basic savings to something a little more lucrative after they have a little more skin in the game. ....so it would be individually selected/privately managed based on free market. ....but with no ability to opt out or stop minimum contributions. you could change providers/plans but you couldn't just quit the process.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  2. Horn6721

    Horn6721 10,000+ Posts

    It is a good idea
    Who makes sure the withdrawal is made? The employer?
    Who decides which bank etc gets the account?
    Do you trust these people who we didn't trust to save on their own, do we trust them to make the decision where to put the withdrawal?
     
  3. BrntOrngStmpeDe

    BrntOrngStmpeDe 1,000+ Posts

    Yes. I would suggest the employer be the auto-deposit point. Before the employee gets the funds. I would suggest the bank choice be the employee's choice, but choosing not to choose is not a choice.

    The choice would still have personal risk because they could opt to put it all in a risky vehicle and loose it all, but at a minimum they would be engaged in the process.

    There is no great choice for people that grow up ignorant of finances and investments, but letting them live their whole lives ignorant is a bigger problem in my opinion. Forcing people to do things with their own income is not ideal, but neither is letting the Gov control your retirement or letting 1/2 of our population get to retirement age with nothing in the bank. To me, this is a lesser of evils approach.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    The current funding mechanism for Social Security is probably fine - almost surely adequate to fund a retirement. The problem with Social Security is twofold. First, the individual doesn't own the contributions, so he doesn't care. Second, because the contributions are funding current retirees rather than the future retirement of the contributor, nobody benefits from long term growth, which is insane.

    What to do. Phase out Social Security as a universal program. SH is right. It has to go, even if it can't be done overnight. As the phaseout is taking place, phase in diverting FICA contributions to private retirement plans that invest the contributions according to the individual's retirement date. I wouldn't make early withdrawals out of the question, but I'd make it difficult and only for verifiable reasons. We don't want people gambling or snorting away their retirement.

    Even this will have problems. We will probably have to continue to have a government program for the poor elderly, especially those who are caught in the middle of the transition. Breaking out of government dependency is always tough. However, it should be means-tested, and as people's individual retirement plans become more and more solid, the government dependency and costs for the program will drop.
     
  5. bystander

    bystander 5,000+ Posts

    Wow... who are you!?!? Rick Perry was ripped by the Left for saying what you just said.

    ss ponzi scheme rick perry - Google Search
     
  6. nashhorn

    nashhorn 5,000+ Posts

    That should be true today. As many have said before, it’s crazy SS goes to anyone independently wealthy.
     
  7. Horn6721

    Horn6721 10,000+ Posts

    Nash
    I agree except they should then get what they paid in.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  8. nashhorn

    nashhorn 5,000+ Posts

    Understood.
     
  9. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    I agree. The problem is that the program was sold to the public as being universal, because everyone pays into it, and it was always spoken of as though there was something special about one's FICA contributions. We talked about them as though they were like retirement contributions meaning that they somehow had special entitlement to them, when they were in fact no different than your federal income taxes.

    And frankly, they in theory should be able to get it. Everyone did pay, and we even called them "insurance contributions" (the IC in FICA) rather than taxes. However, we've sold everyone a load of BS for decades (almost a century now). We BS'd everyone when we created the program, and for cheap political gain we've BS'd everyone every time someone tried to be honest and reform the program. From a policy and political standpoint, the bullshitters have always gotten their way (in part because the media always sided with and reinforced the bullshitters), and now we have a $41 trillion fustercluck (the unfunded liabilities for SS) that we can't figure out how to fix. And of course, we've pissed away many times more than that in lost growth opportunities by being stupid.
     
  10. iatrogenic

    iatrogenic 2,500+ Posts

    Just wait a minute Deez....are you saying the government is untrustworthy and only motivated by their own personal needs, have the wrong incentives and disincentives, and do not represent "the people"? That can't be true because over half the voters want bigger government, and a significant percentage of those voters believe communism would actually be beneficial. Hell, the leaders of that party actually want to stack the SCOTUS to do away with those pesky checks and balances.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Winner Winner x 2
  11. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    I share this sentiment. However, if we're talking about the actual bureaucracy at Social Security, I'm sure they do what they have to in order to cover their own asses like anyone else would. However, they haven't hidden the ball on this. The trustees warn us of the program's problems every few years. They don't suggest big changes, but that isn't their job. It's the job of the political leadership and ultimately, the public.

    We've even had political leaders suggest reform. Reagan, Gingrich, Bob Dole, Bush II, Romney, and Paul Ryan all made the argument for reform. All were demonized for doing it by Democrats, who spewed rank ******** and lies, which the media reinforced. (Pardon the foul language, but where the f**khead have the fact checkers been since 1935? There is an Everest-sized mountain of BS spewed largely by Democrats on this issue, and it's never seriously checked.) And of course, all of these guys got shot down at the ballot box for their efforts. We rejected them.

    We've even had bipartisan commissions charged with coming up with solutions. (Democrats know they're full of **** on this, and when they get on these commissions, they get a lot more honest.) They've come up with some. They aren't ideal and not what I'd do if I was a benevolent dictator, but they're far better than the current system. But even these get demagogued by dishonest ******** (again, with media help), and the real reforms don't gain any momentum and get buried in committees. The only changes made are more of the can getting kicked down the road.

    So we've had the opportunities to fix the problem and have chosen not to out of stupidity. At some point, I think the people need to take a little responsibility for the mess.
     
  12. iatrogenic

    iatrogenic 2,500+ Posts

    Human nature is slow to evolve. It is highly unlikely that “The People” will do anything to fix the problem because the majority receive more than they donate. Politicians know it is almost certain death to do the right thing with SS. Republicans are hesitant, and the mantra of the Dems is to buy votes by promising to give constituents money they didn’t earn. Until the pain of not changing exceeds the pain of changing, there will be no change. When do we cross that threshold? I can speculate but who really knows?
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  13. AC

    AC 2,500+ Posts

    We don’t reject reforms to the system as voters!
    Systemic voter fraud renders our vote meaningless! See AZ!
     
  14. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    Very true. However, something unique has always bugged me about Social Security. I understand why SS recipients are not receptive to reform. They are definitely getting more than they donated, and at least many of them are vulnerable. An 80 or 90 year old who depends on Social Security is going to have a hard time just getting off his *** and going to work if changes to the program hurt his benefits.

    I also understand why it's hard to motivate people in general to care about government waste whether it's in social programs or at the Pentagon. The harm is very attenuated. It just doesn't hurt us much on the individual level. For a young person, that isn't true of Social Security. This program is screwing them in a very direct, very acute, and very profound way. It's costing them hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars over a lifetime. it's far more consequential than student loan problems/tuition or health insurance and of course, monumentally more consequential than whatever ********* social justice cause they happen to care about on a given day. Some stupid statue will work them into a frenzy, but their long term financial security getting destroyed prompts a shrug of the shoulders. Have the weed, video games, and internet porn really screwed up their priorities that badly?
     
  15. BrntOrngStmpeDe

    BrntOrngStmpeDe 1,000+ Posts

    This line is going to be our undoing.
    "Systemic voter fraud renders our vote meaningless! "

    If that phrase gets repeated often enough, you are going to see people that we want to vote GOP stay home from polls. That is a lose-lose scenario. There are certainly voter security practices that need to be enhanced but repeating this line means we lose more elections. If we lose more elections, we have fewer legislators and fewer people to push a conservative agenda, to include... more voting security. By undermining the process, you are helping to bring about the very thing you rail against.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  16. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    It has already cost us control of the US Senate. Fortunately Joe Manchin and Krysten Sinema are sane adults and keep the rest of the Democrats from completely putting us into bankruptcy and destroying the federal court system, but if we actually controlled the process, things would look wildly different.
     
  17. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    The legislation passed in the wake of the 1934 elections, which gave Democrats 322 House seats and 69 Senate seats. We've rejected reform efforts countless times over the last 40 years. Even if we accepted the Arizona fraud allegations, we can't blame the lack of Social Security reform on fraud.
     
  18. AC

    AC 2,500+ Posts

    You guys assume the Dems actually won the election. What point is it to ever vote again until voter integrity reforms happen. I know of 8 million fake votes. It could be much higher. All 50 states need forensic audits and until that happens the USA is controlled. My opinion is not that unpopular. 54K fake votes, just in Maricopa County! 54,000. Thinking this is still a democracy makes you feel good, but it’s not. US is controlled, media is controlled. They only focus on total vote counts, ignoring the 54K fake votes in one county. Your vote is worthless! Seriously, we must focus on vote integrity. Trump says this, Mike Flynn, Mike Pompeo. The media wants you to look the other way. Don’t fall for it. More corruption will soon be announced!
     
  19. AC

    AC 2,500+ Posts

  20. AC

    AC 2,500+ Posts

  21. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    Again, even assuming all this goofy stuff is true, you're talking about one election. This is 40-year old problem (at least). And of course, Trump opposed entitlement reform. Had he actually won, it would have made no difference on this issue.
     
  22. mchammer

    mchammer 10,000+ Posts

    The progressive plan is to grab all the money from the white folks, so who cares?
     
  23. AC

    AC 2,500+ Posts

    I would imagine it goes back before this election. How far back, IDK. I hear LBJ cheated his way in. I was born during his administration so who knows. Know that we know, it must be fixed.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  24. Crockett

    Crockett 5,000+ Posts

    Donald Trump and Michael Flynn under cross examination would be funny as hell.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1

Share This Page