All Forums > General Discussion > Non-Sports > OT- North Carolina and Duke in a mess
10/25/2012 11:26 AM
billyg, as someone already pointed out that post was not responding to you, just looked confusing with the quotes.  And spasticity <> bistiza
10/25/2012 12:07 PM
Posted by spasticity on 10/25/2012 11:26:00 AM (view original):
billyg, as someone already pointed out that post was not responding to you, just looked confusing with the quotes.  And spasticity <> bistiza
yeah i had pretty much figured that out by the end, i had actually started to respond to your post and i was liek man this guy sounds JUST like bistiza, but then i realized at least one paragraph was you quoting him, and i couldnt even keep my eyes open so i just went to bed. for what its worth, having seen you post elsewhere, i was pretty sure it wasnt you once i realized that you had quoted bistiza, explaining why you sounded so much like him there :)
10/25/2012 1:21 PM
"Based on everything I've seen from credible sources plus my own financial analysis, it is quite possible the only way I'll ever get to retire (and actually be able to afford to live when I do) is if I manage to win the lottery, because there won't be enough social security, medicare, and other programs to go around by the time that happens - and that's even if they still exist at all."


I don't know what "credible sources" you are referring to but the chance of SS going under is virtually nill.   There will be changes but it isn't going away.  Most likely the following things will happen (and probably all should happen):

The starting age will go up tp 70
The cut off for taxable income will increase from the current level of $110K
Benefits will be reduced by 3% or so.
10/25/2012 1:30 PM
trentonjoe,

Some of what you say about social security is true. The starting age is likely to increase. Taxable income is already set to increase. And benefits will be reduced.

Representatives from social security have publicly said they expect the funding to drop enough that by 2037 they will have enough funds to provide about 75 percent of benefits. That's not a 3 percent drop - it's 25 percent. That's social security itself saying this, and I believe it's an optimistic outlook full of spin.

I think the starting age should NOT increase. If people in the past got benefits at 65, so should everyone going forward. It's not right to ask some people to pay into the system for longer than others, or to take the other approach, it's not right to ask some people to receive benefits later than others.

I think the taxable income should be unlimited. You earn the income, you pay the social security tax on it. There is no reason why those making more than X dollars should pay no tax on money they earn above X. 

Ideally, benefits should never be reduced and should probably increase. If you're going to charge everyone 6.2 percent normally, that amount should provide for a better benefit than many people are currently getting.
10/25/2012 1:50 PM
Those projections by SS are if NOTHING changes.

The starting age needs to increase because people live longer.   When it was originally created in the 1930's the formula they used was basd on  paying people for 7 years.   I don't know what the average payout is now but it is sure longer than 7 years.

Also, SS was never intended to allow people to retire wealthy.  It was suppose to be a safety net for the old and POOR.
10/25/2012 2:05 PM
I agree social security isn't intended for you to retire wealthy. However, it is designed to provide an income during retirement so that you can live during retirement.

My opinion is who qualifies shouldn't be based upon projected length of payout but upon how many years they've PUT IN to the system. Once you pay into social security for X number of years, you can retire and get paid regardless of your age or how long you might live.

Oh, and to let you know:

Social security is actually NOT "supposed to be a safety net for the old and poor". You're thinking of Supplemental Security Income (SSI), which falls under the umbrella of social security but is based upon income and has other qualifications. Two different programs.

10/25/2012 2:33 PM (edited)
SSI is for the disabled.

Social Security was designed to allow people to retire.   The poverty rate for elderly Americans in the 1930's was around 50%.   The initial design was to allow people to retire and not live in poverty.

The shift from a rural to urban society caused this.
10/25/2012 2:51 PM
Why should there not be a cap on income taxable for SS purposes?  The idea of Social Security is to force people to save money for retirement, essentially.  That's very simplified, but you can boil it down to that without losing a lot.  Government-mandated and government-run retirement savings program.  Why should they collect an unlimited amount from people who are the least likely to need it anyway?  It's not really intended to be a wealth-redistribution program, although to a lesser extent it obviously still works that way with the people who actually get taxed on $110K per year paying in more for what they'll later get out than the people who make $30K per year and pay very little but still receive payments.
10/25/2012 8:23 PM
Posted by coach_billyg on 10/25/2012 5:15:00 AM (view original):
Posted by isack24 on 10/24/2012 10:29:00 PM (view original):
Sorry for starting this.  Shouldn't have derailed whatever this thread was any further.  Not the forum for it.
just that time of year. in a few weeks, we will have a new president, who has less to do with our daily lives than we all make it out to be (well, i didnt mean to say obama would lose, just the election will be over). and we can go back to not caring. its the american way, is it not? get up in arms without the follow through?

just curious really, does spasticity = bistiza? not that it much matters... we all get too sucked into this **** that we ultimately have no ability to control and then go back to our lives with hopefully no impact on any relationships - not worth hating one another over **** we just cant change. (and i do mean hopefully, my mother in law told my wife a week ago she viewed me in a totally different light, i.e. much less respectfully (she REALLY respected me previously, and me her, shes a great woman) for being liberal. i assume in a few weeks it will blow over)
Billy G-- You let me down-- I read all your posts to learn about the game but the statement, "its the american way... get up in arms but no follow through-- is most definetely not an American Way.  It may be the baby boomer generation's way and it may even be their kids' way, but definetely not the American way.
   You do (and all of us) have the ability to change it, its just that we won't because we know it would be work and would lower our standing of living.  If we all cared more about our great, great granchildren and didn't believe the Republicans or Democrats spin, we would do something about it-- at least by not voting for anyone with a r or d next to their name.  Do you truly believe that your grandfather thought that spending years away from his family was good for him?  He did it for you, hoping you would do the same for your offspring, and rather than making sacrifices ourselves for their good, we try to put enough money away for them to be "set", without understanding economic and specifically inflation issues.  
   When I worked for a senator, I was shocked by the game that these guys were playing.  They would bash eachother over issues and divide the hell out of everyone on specific, heart-wrenching issues, but they were best friends as soon as the cameras went off.  They took care of eachother and their friends and didn't give a **** about the country as a whole and I could give you numerous examples.  I once got a illegal alien citizenship (not a green card but actual citizenship) in less than a day because he worked for one of our biggest donors.  You can say that is impossible but trust me, it happened.  When will American's realize that our parties are dividing us and conquering us for their own gain and the gain of their rich friends.  And I am in that latter group as I can make one call and have a sit down with many decision makers that most American's will never have a chance to influence.  Is that because I have good ideas or sign checks?
   I freely admit that I, like all of us, am a hypocrite and part of this system but am hoping that as others realize what has happened in the last 30 years, we will all get fed up enough to no longer vote for anyone that has ever served as a republican or democrat and get back to electing people who are American citizens, not whores of the rich and foreigners.
    
10/25/2012 8:28 PM
Posted by Trentonjoe on 10/25/2012 2:33:00 PM (view original):
SSI is for the disabled.

Social Security was designed to allow people to retire.   The poverty rate for elderly Americans in the 1930's was around 50%.   The initial design was to allow people to retire and not live in poverty.

The shift from a rural to urban society caused this.

Trenton-- I think if you look, you'll see that SSI goes to more than just individuals with disabilities.  Even if that were the case, 40% of American's now qualify and our great lawyers are doing everything they can to increase that number.  Again, social security is broken into different sections and you will see the first failing of it in the year 2018 or 2019.  Does that mean retired people won't receive benefits - No.  But does that mean that there will need to be significant cuts for those receiving some kind of government aid, most definetely Yes. 
   Take a group of poor people and give them everything they want for thirty years.  Then start taking some of that away and see what happens.  There are plenty of historical examples that help predict the outcome.

10/25/2012 8:51 PM
Are you saying 120 million people qualify for SSI?   I have a hard time believing that...

Since  only about 5% actually receive, I find it really hard to believe it.

I did look it up and SSDI goes to the disabled (and funded by the SS  payroll tax),  SSI (which is paid by "general revenues") goes to the poor, blind and disabled.  Some people (people who have paid in) are eligible for both.
10/25/2012 9:06 PM
Bistiza-- Thanks for the Marx support.  I grew up very far right (and still am connected on that side of the fence) and was shocked by how much sense Marx made.  Because the Russians used his work, marxism and his insights in general are trounced on by baby boomers programmed to think his thoughts would destroy the world.  Here is the best example of how smart Marx was and sorry to be long but I think you'll get a kick out of it.  Also, although it reads as a judement, I assure you it is not, as I fully comprehend I am part of the continuation of a system that is designed to relegate all but the richest of the rich into forced labor.  (By the way, many slaves had a better standard of living relative to their owners than many workers in America do today--I propose that is because they didn't have TV to distact them and would have risen up against their owners if they had to live in a situation that many of us face today.)
    An owner owns a tree that stands in the forest.  What is it's value?  It really has little to no value.  And Marx understood that.  If it is cut down for firewood, it has value, and the person who cut that down and sold it was the person or entity most responsible for adding value.  If it is cut down to make furniture, the logger and the woodworker added most of the value.  Marx believed that those who added value (the workers) should be rewarded for adding that value.  The owner has nothing without the workers, unless he becomes the worker himself, so why would he get a larger share or even an equal share to that of the person(s) who are adding value?  Doesn't sound anything like giving people money or wealth redistribution to me, but rather just fair and just.   
   All of the economic systems prior to Locke and Marx had some form of this "kingdom" mentality involved.  I own the land and I'll give you what you need to survive as long as you do what you are told.  Both Locke and Marx understood that wasn't fair or just and that if people were smart, they would use their numbers to take (if need be) what they needed.  
   Along comes America with the closest thing to Locke and Marx's ideas.  While the rich still got rich, the gap between the owners and the workers was the smallest it had ever been in the history of recorded time.  Even 50 years ago, one man could work and provide his entire family with enough to live well.  Buth then the rich (as Thomas Jefferson and James Madison predicted) got greedy and realized that they could "sell" the American public on globalization.  This allowed for them to shift much of the wealth in the middle class out of real money (gold, silver, etc) and into fake numbers on paper (401k's).  People love to see their fake numbers go up and up and so everyone bought on and invested in the destruction of the nation.  If GE stock went down, there was pressue for it to go up and the way it goes up, is to remove wealth from America's middle class (real wealth) and replace that with fake numbers.  The way to do that has been to lower costs and you do that by shipping work overseas.  It worked out great for the rich, as they made a whole new class of foreign elites, who owe their success to the American leaders who shipped that wealth their way.  Of course, they are only too happy to share the wealth and that is why so many of our leaders spend more of their time in foreign countries than they do in their home district.  If you think that is preposterous, just call your local senator's office and ask.  The same is true of our industry leaders as well.
   So, what Marx aimed to do was to remove the power of the elites by adding value to the workers.  He never said that people that don't work should get paid, in fact, he was actually saying the exact opposite.  He was saying the elites (who do very little real work) shouldn't get the lion's share of the profits. 
   What I find so funny (so that I won't cry) is how many Americans have been tricked into seeing Marx as wicked with an argument that is really just a complete lie.  When I finally convinced my Dad to read Marx (and it took some convincing because he thought he was going to turn red and go to hell just for reading him), he was shocked to find that he agreed almost completely with everything Marx had to say.  The reason for this is that Marx's ideas are fair, just and just make good common sense.  
   That is why I get so defensive when I see people bashing that or continuing the lies that our government started some time ago to scare regular citizens who were getting "too rich" back into a place where they could be controlled by the King and his friends.  If baby boomers want to die ignorant, I am fine with that.  Their legacy is already written as the generation in the history of the world provided the best situation to make a positive impact for their community, country and the world.  Their legacy will show that they instead decided to get stuff, to the detriment of their community, country and world.  They also proved that Karma exists, in that most of them (this is true) are on some form of prescription drug for some kind of ailment and they get to look forward to years of "managed care" where again, someone who cares nothing of them and is paid minimum wage will be responsible for their standard of living while their children blow through the wealth they scalped from many generations worth of work.  If they live long enough, they may even get to see what happens when those "fake numbers" are spent through and the realization that we now have a completely fake economy causes the dollar to crash.  
10/25/2012 9:13 PM
Posted by Trentonjoe on 10/25/2012 8:51:00 PM (view original):
Are you saying 120 million people qualify for SSI?   I have a hard time believing that...

Since  only about 5% actually receive, I find it really hard to believe it.

I did look it up and SSDI goes to the disabled (and funded by the SS  payroll tax),  SSI (which is paid by "general revenues") goes to the poor, blind and disabled.  Some people (people who have paid in) are eligible for both.

Yes, that is what I am saying and you are correct in regards to SSDI and SSI.  Right now, most of the people who are eligible for SSI don't even realize it, as they could be eligible based off of their own situation or that of their parents. (I am eligible).   It is this "untapped" market that brings about the flood of lawyers paying millions of dollars (I don't know how much, probably more?) on advertising to capture a percentage of that market.  Kind of scary when you imagine that even if they (the lawyers, doctors, insurance companies,social service agencies, etc) capture half of the actual market, there would be about a 900% increase in payouts in that system. 

10/26/2012 6:50 AM
No offense tbird, but I always find it very sad when people who are obviously very intelligent get so caught up in arguing about how evil the system is that they start to stop making sense.

And this is just a small thing, but I don't know what you mean by

I freely admit that I, like all of us, am a hypocrite and part of this system but am hoping that as others realize what has happened in the last 30 years, we will all get fed up enough to no longer vote for anyone that has ever served as a republican or democrat and get back to electing people who are American citizens, not whores of the rich and foreigners.

Who are we electing that aren't citizens?  Nobody who isn't a citizen is eligible to run for office.  Obviously you don't mean it literally, but we've been voting for Democrats since the second presidential election in American history.  We all know Washington didn't like it, but ever since he left office we've had a bipartisan system with about 2 presidential elections worth of meaningful tripartisanship.  Moreover, deeply studying history (IE via the primary documents) indicates that since about the 1810s everybody has been convinced that the country is going off the rails, that only recently things have started to fall apart, that we had to get back to the way our parents and grandparents did things to protect our future.  So far the country has kept on going strong.  That's not to say that there isn't something to be said for this logic - certainly there are ways in which we could improve by mimicking earlier generations.  Certainly a little more fiscal responsibility out of the federal government would go a long way, and I'll be the first to admit that I think this would work better with a 3rd-party candidate.  It's hard for either major party to raise taxes or cut spending, it's political suicide.  An independent president with no long-term political agenda his might be able to muster the bipartisan support for a balanced budget.  After all, if you really get into a position where neither party is exclusively to blame, who are you going to vote out of office?  Of course, those are the kind of things that can lead one of the parties (traditionally, whoever isn't the Democrats) to be replaced by a different party, so maybe there's still a lot of fear, but at least it's less than what you have to deal with if you're the party with the president in the White House.  I mean, we had a balanced budget during the Clinton administration, but that was largely a product of the fact that the economy was experiencing unsustainably fast growth during that period.  Outside of periods of similar growth we're not likely to see a lot of balanced budgets unless something gets shaken up, the best we can realistically hope for within the current bipartisan system is maybe a 50-60% reduction of the defecit over a decade, then you hope it holds steady for the next few decades and ultimately allow the debt to shrink through inflation...
10/26/2012 6:53 AM
And just one more aside relating to the passage I already quoted - I would STRONGLY argue that our elected officials were most "whores of the rich" in the first 30 years of our nations existence of any point in American history.  Also much moreso in the 1880s - 1920s than now.  More now than in the 1930s through '70s or '80s, maybe, but certainly not the worst it's ever been...
of 9
All Forums > General Discussion > Non-Sports > OT- North Carolina and Duke in a mess

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.