Romney to pick Paul Ryan for VP

Johnny Abruzzo

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

pandora wrote:

Look at the disability fraud in our country... healthy people collecting Social Security
years before they should.

This fraud and feeling of entitlement has grown out of control
this is ruining it for those who honestly need help.

Something has got to give and it should be the scammers and those who feel they are entitled
simply because the rich have more.
Entitled and they don't need to work or help our society at all, just drain it.

OK. that's a valid point. (although I wonder if this is another silly Chicken Little story like "voter fraud" where less than one case per election per year per state has ever been found.)

So... how does cutting off the entire program and the vast majority of people who are NOT scamming the system and then giving that money to a billionaire to put in his bank account solve that problem?

Social Security Disability is very difficult to qualify for. I don't think it's known to have any meaningful level of fraud, except random cases that probably show up on Fox News. There are people with "diseases" who qualify for it who ought to be able to work (someone in my family has "diabetes" and receives SS disability, which is ridiculous). But it's not fraud, just a weird definition of "disability."

Disability fraud is much more prevalent in things like union and public pension plans.

And, I am a retirement plans actuary, and no, Social Security is not going bankrupt. This is right wing scare talk. When they say the "money will run out" that simply means a percentage of benefits (say 75%) could be paid as opposed to all the benefits. The problem is far from insurmountable and could easily be solved by a bipartisan commission, if such a thing existed. I would suggest a slight reduction in the COLA (cost of living allowance) and an increase in the Wage Base (pain from both sides).

Medicare is a different kind of monster, but I don't think handing a voucher to an old lady and saying "Go find your own insurance Grandma" is the way to fix it.

Jason P

inlet13 wrote:

I watched this Sunday morning. It made me laugh out loud. Reminded me of MT:

Maddow vs. Lowry on Meet the Press:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wj6RymfWTTM

I didn't know that Obamacare was being financed by $700B in cuts to Medicare.

Ryan proposes changes to Medicare ... Obama actually cuts $700B from Medicare ... :think: ... and this means ... :think: ... that ... :think: ... Ryan hates the poor and elderly! :wtf:

polaris_x

inlet13 wrote:

It's also much easier for someone with wealth to lose more wealth. Stocks, bonds, etc. have not done well recently. The average "rich person" is declining in terms of what they bring in, just like the poor.

Further, not only is there a trade-off (to growth) within the redistribution that you so highly covet. There's deadweight loss, and I'd say a lot of it involved. Government is inherently inefficient and wastes money.

Tie two and two together here. According to you, the rich are bad because they can invest in stocks and bonds, etc and that would make them make more money. I respond - they can also lose that money. Moreover, that money is used for something - what? Business activity including jobs. Poor need jobs. And even if the poor don't take that particular job, maybe a middle class person does. That middle class person's job becomes available - a poor person could get it. This gets at the economic tradeoff aspect.

i don't see how you can say government is inherently inefficient ... the US gov't is extremely inefficient but like we've argued in the past - i believe that is intentional ...

polaris_x wrote:

Those countries rank high on indices created to make "socialist" countries look good. I'm sure you disagree, but whatever. As has been argued in the past the HDI is heavily bias - "a country of immortals with infinite per-capita GDP would get a score of .666 (lower than South Africa and Tajikistan) if its population were illiterate and never went to school" ..."Scandinavia comes out on top according to the HDI because the HDI is basically a measure of how Scandinavian your country is."

soo ... you disagree and your proof is comng up with a country of immortals!? ...

so, how would you measure standard of life? ... i'm not sure any measure you can come up with that is gonna put america on top ... unless it's related to arms expenditure per capita ...

Johnny Abruzzo

Cliffy6745 wrote:

But you know what. FUCK THAT MICHELLE OBAMA TELLING ME WHAT TO EAT

Hear hear.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/disapproving-michelle-obama-to-be-printed-on-all-f,10209/

inlet13

polaris_x wrote:

i don't see how you can say government is inherently inefficient ... the US gov't is extremely inefficient but like we've argued in the past - i believe that is intentional ...

You ever go to a post office? Or have you ever had to get your drivers license? Trust me - it's inefficient. I don't think it's intentional, I think it's they have no motive to continue to get customers. They are a monopoly of sorts. They can what they want.

You can believe what you want. I'll continue to say government is inefficient. Moreover, the larger a government gets, the more inefficient it becomes. Government doesn't have a goal like:

Maximize Profit....

It has no incentive to minimize costs and maximize revenues. Instead, if anything, it maximizes labor. It's not efficient. It just grows and grows and grows.... like a weed, with big leaves stealing light from what's beneath.

polaris_x wrote:

soo ... you disagree and your proof is comng up with a country of immortals!? ...

so, how would you measure standard of life? ... i'm not sure any measure you can come up with that is gonna put america on top ... unless it's related to arms expenditure per capita ...

There's no perfect statistic for this, but whether you like it or not, the most "used" statistic is GDP. Per Capita GDP is probably the best proxy we have. Everything else involves bias of some sort. The index you cited, most certainly does.

Johnny Abruzzo

inlet13 wrote:

You ever go to a post office? Or have you ever had to get your drivers license? Trust me - it's inefficient. I don't think it's intentional, I think it's they have no motive to continue to get customers. They are a monopoly of sorts. They can what they want.

I know the stereotype of the DOT, but the last several times I had to update my driver license I was in and out in minutes.

Prince Of Dorkness

pandora wrote:

I beg to differ but I guess we can just keep raising taxes on the working class to cover
it anyways right?

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2012/02/14/ ... e-thought/

a perfect example of right-wing scare tactics. That article was written by guys from The Motley Fool. They're a company that convinced people with little or no economic understanding that they could make a fortune on the stock market. They're kinda "pump and dumpers," if I understand... people who make money by convincing you that you're going to be broke at 60 if you don't buy their expensive service where they suggest which stocks you should buy.

The user Johnny Abruzzo here actually works with it every day and made a post that sums it up... the scare tactics you've fallen for are made up.

You need to stop being so gullible.

And you clueless tag of "keep raising taxes on the working class to cover it anyways right?" just shows that you weren't and aren't paying attention. We've been talking about lowering the tax burden on the middle class and making the mage-rich pay their fair share.

Please try to keep up.

polaris_x

inlet13 wrote:

You ever go to a post office? Or have you ever had to get your drivers license? Trust me - it's inefficient. I don't think it's intentional, I think it's they have no motive to continue to get customers. They are a monopoly of sorts. They can what they want.

You can believe what you want. I'll continue to say government is inefficient. Moreover, the larger a government gets, the more inefficient it becomes. Government doesn't have a goal like:

Maximize Profit....

It has no incentive to minimize costs and maximize revenues. Instead, if anything, it maximizes labor. It's not efficient. It just grows and grows and grows.... like a weed, with big leaves stealing light from what's beneath.

... why would the gov't have a goal of maximizing profits? ... that makes no sense ... sure, if you nationalize something like say oil or the rail system - maybe driving revenues is important but for the most part - gov't is supposed to deliver services efficiently ... again - i can see how you can look at the US gov't and say it's inefficient but you've got nothing to say that gov't is inherently inefficient ...

inlet13 wrote:

There's no perfect statistic for this, but whether you like it or not, the most "used" statistic is GDP. Per Capita GDP is probably the best proxy we have. Everything else involves bias of some sort. The index you cited, most certainly does.

GDP!?? ... well ... obviously, you know I wouldn't agree with that ... but even so ... looking at the gdp per capita statistics and you see similar countries at the top of the list ... look at all the countries ahead of the US ... all of scandinavia except iceland ...

Johnny Abruzzo

polaris_x wrote:

GDP!?? ... well ... obviously, you know I wouldn't agree with that ... but even so ... looking at the gdp per capita statistics and you see similar countries at the top of the list ... look at all the countries ahead of the US ... all of scandinavia except iceland ...

GDP is just a stat to make Scandinavia look good, right? Along with bullshit like, um, life expectancy. :?

polaris_x

Johnny Abruzzo wrote:

GDP is just a stat to make Scandinavia look good, right? Along with bullshit like, um, life expectancy. :?

if only they would measure access to cheap, highly processed bad for you "food" ... U S A ...

RW81233

Polaris why isn't Iceland ahead of the U.S.?

Indifference

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

The Fixer wrote:

I don't understand why a fixed tax rate for all can't be implemented. why penalize people for being successful?

I'd be fine with that.

At the moment, people who make $12,000 per year are paying a higher rate than Mitt Romney. And with the Paul Ryan plan, Mitt's taxes will go down to nearly nothing.

.

I'm curious the source for this charge given nearly 1/2 the population doesn't pay FEDERAL Taxes. Yes, there is payroll, state, excise, sales, etc. that most everyone pays.

polaris_x

RW81233 wrote:

Polaris why isn't Iceland ahead of the U.S.?

i'm guessing because they are still recovering from the shambles of 2007 ... they deregulated the banking industry and they all failed ... if you go to the HDI scale ... they are ahead of the US when you factor in inequality ...

having just gotten back from iceland - the place is awesome ... everyone is friendly and smart ... yeah, there's only 300,000 people there and jobs are hard to find for some but everyone has food and access to education ... much easier when you aren't spending all that money bombing other countries ...

cincybearcat

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

a perfect example of right-wing scare tactics.

Both sides have gone to exclusively using scare tactics. The dems want to scare the elderly into thinking they will be left to die under republican government, the repubs want to scare the elderly that there won't be any money to pay for their care and they want to scare the tax payers that the $ is being wasted and they are paying in for a benefit they will never receive.

Well, that last point is probably very true for some of us.

mikepegg44

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

pandora wrote:

I beg to differ but I guess we can just keep raising taxes on the working class to cover
it anyways right?

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2012/02/14/ ... e-thought/

a perfect example of right-wing scare tactics. That article was written by guys from The Motley Fool. They're a company that convinced people with little or no economic understanding that they could make a fortune on the stock market. They're kinda "pump and dumpers," if I understand... people who make money by convincing you that you're going to be broke at 60 if you don't buy their expensive service where they suggest which stocks you should buy.

The user Johnny Abruzzo here actually works with it every day and made a post that sums it up... the scare tactics you've fallen for are made up.

You need to stop being so gullible.

And you clueless tag of "keep raising taxes on the working class to cover it anyways right?" just shows that you weren't and aren't paying attention. We've been talking about lowering the tax burden on the middle class and making the mage-rich pay their fair share.

Please try to keep up.

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/41644

CBO projects that the DI trust fund will be exhausted in 2017 and that the OASI trust fund will be exhausted in 2040. Once a trust fund's balance has fallen to zero and current revenues are insufficient to cover the benefits that are specified in law, the corresponding program will be unable to pay full benefits without changes in law. The DI trust fund came close to exhaustion in 1994, but that outcome was prevented by legislation that redirected revenues from the OASI trust fund to the DI trust fund. In part because of that experience, it is a common analytical convention to consider the DI and OASI trust funds as combined. CBO projects that, if legislation to shift resources from the OASI trust fund to the DI trust fund was enacted, the combined OASDI trust funds would be exhausted in 2038.

projections are just that, projections...hardly super reliable...but I do think it needs reform if it is to stay a solvent program.

cincybearcat

polaris_x wrote:

having just gotten back from iceland - the place is awesome ...

At risk of derailing the thread, that is cool. I've started thinking about a vacation to Iceland...hopefully in 5-10 years.

peacefrompaul

mikepegg44 wrote:

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

pandora wrote:

I beg to differ but I guess we can just keep raising taxes on the working class to cover
it anyways right?

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2012/02/14/ ... e-thought/

a perfect example of right-wing scare tactics. That article was written by guys from The Motley Fool. They're a company that convinced people with little or no economic understanding that they could make a fortune on the stock market. They're kinda "pump and dumpers," if I understand... people who make money by convincing you that you're going to be broke at 60 if you don't buy their expensive service where they suggest which stocks you should buy.

The user Johnny Abruzzo here actually works with it every day and made a post that sums it up... the scare tactics you've fallen for are made up.

You need to stop being so gullible.

And you clueless tag of "keep raising taxes on the working class to cover it anyways right?" just shows that you weren't and aren't paying attention. We've been talking about lowering the tax burden on the middle class and making the mage-rich pay their fair share.

Please try to keep up.

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/41644

CBO projects that the DI trust fund will be exhausted in 2017 and that the OASI trust fund will be exhausted in 2040. Once a trust fund's balance has fallen to zero and current revenues are insufficient to cover the benefits that are specified in law, the corresponding program will be unable to pay full benefits without changes in law. The DI trust fund came close to exhaustion in 1994, but that outcome was prevented by legislation that redirected revenues from the OASI trust fund to the DI trust fund. In part because of that experience, it is a common analytical convention to consider the DI and OASI trust funds as combined. CBO projects that, if legislation to shift resources from the OASI trust fund to the DI trust fund was enacted, the combined OASDI trust funds would be exhausted in 2038.

projections are just that, projections...hardly super reliable...but I do think it needs reform if it is to stay a solvent program.

Or just let people plan their own retirement...

mikepegg44

peacefrompaul wrote:

Or just let people plan their own retirement...

that means you hate old people and autistic children. you bastard

cincybearcat

I have a question about SS...

Does anyone really believe that a program enacted in 1935 will really serve the people of today? It seems to me that changes to these types of programs should occur, hell, should be mandated after a period of time. Instead we scare the bejesus out of people so they don;t want anything to change. All we do is increase the age when you can start receiving it.

Really, same could be said for everything. Why is it a given that military budget must continue to go up and up and up? People are so afraid of losing "theirs" that we never get efficient, we just add on to whatever the program of yesteryear we are talking about.

Indifference

peacefrompaul wrote:

Or just let people plan their own retirement...

But what happens to them when they don't?