Emotional reaction to the US electoral result

[notyoueither]

The reaction in the US and elsewhere is really quite extraordinary.

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Isn't it kind of late to be investing the surpluses?

The boomers start cashing cheques in a few years. Cha-CHING!

And that's a problem that can be dealt with however. Yes, it will be a burden, but it is a bearable burden. There are multiple good strategies to deal with the problem, such as raising the age you get benefits from 65.

In the future we can pass laws, even amendments, to make sure it doesn't happen again.

Again, the issue is that there needs to be a program and will always be a program to help those elderly that need it. Why? Because people decided they don't like large numbers of the elderly to have no source of food, no home, and to die in the streets. It happens some now in America, but much less than it once did. This is a value that people have, a value of treasuring human life and seeking to help it.

There are pragmatic ways to enact this goal, and an non-pragmatic way is to say "let them fend for themselves" because that simply doesn't work well enough. The Government handles such things much, much better than private charity ever did. Yes, the government has problems with spending here and there, but it can and will get better. Laws can be passed to regulate how money is spent; Gore wanted a law passed to make sure money couldn't get taken out of the S.S. fund and spent elsewhere, Kerry wanted a pay-as-you-go law passed. There are was to make the government more responsible, and as the government ages and learns this will improve.

If you don't agree with decreasing the numbers of elderly on the streets, then that is your decisions, your opinion, but don't blame me or anyone else if you are fairly considered rather cold-hearted and uncaring of others.

-Drachasor

[notyoueither]

I largely agree with you, but...

Wouldn't it be better to allow people to arrange their own affairs and have taxation take care of those who fell through the cracks?

An income, or wealth based, test to become entitled to the public program.

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
Quietly happy and relieved.

The number of bristling people around here -- on the web and IRL -- is really quite staggering. I do sympathize with them, I remember how I felt when Clinton won those two times.

...

Of course, I never ran around calling people stupid and threatening to flee the country.

Clinton was pretty moderate, who courted the moderate vote and united people together.

Bush is far to the 'right' (without fiscal conservatism) and won by dividing the country.

The situations are very, very different.

I'd like to stay in the U.S. but if the next president and the one after the next are like Bush, with little end in sight (and I think there will be little end in sight if the next two are like Bush), then I will probably leave the country. It will be moving dramatically away from positions and views I support whereas other countries will be more in line with my values.

-Drachasor

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by notyoueither
I largely agree with you, but...

Wouldn;t it be better to allow people to arrange their own affaris and have taxation take care of those who fell through the cracks?

An income, or wealth based, test to become entitled to the public program.

It would get used by everyone then, since you could spend all of your money and then get into the above program. Rather than encouraging that sort of behavior, it is best to just have a guarantee in (though perhaps the extremely rich* wouldn't have this unless they lost their extreme wealth).

-Drachasor

*And I mean people with millions of dollars and the like.

[notyoueither]

Welfare could work like that. It doesn't though, does it?

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Welfare could work like that. It doesn't though, does it?

No. Welfare for non-retirees needs some adjustments. At the very least it should have New Deal style jobs associated with it; they give you *something to do* even if it isn't needed. Just so that people stay used to the idea of working. (Well, exceptions for those that *can't* work). Then some additional incentive to get a real job.

For retirees, they just need a monthly check, imho, at what age they start to get it and how much they get would vary, of course.

Right now with S.S. you always get money no matter how much you have. Even Bill Gates will get it when he is 65 (or whatever the age is when he reaches it). He'll probably get more than the average person too. A little crazy if you ask me (though it would be crazy for him to start getting checks if he became bankrupt at 80 for example).

-Drachasor

[notyoueither]

You assume people would give up their homes and financial independence to get the cheque.

Have more faith. You're sounding like a Republican.

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by Drachasor


It would get used by everyone then, since you could spend all of your money and then get into the above program. Rather than encouraging that sort of behavior, it is best to just have a guarantee in (though perhaps the extremely rich* wouldn't have this unless they lost their extreme wealth).

-Drachasor

*And I mean people with millions of dollars and the like.

I suspect that the wealth test would be painfully low enough that only the trully needy or lazy would opt for it.

Actually, something like that is already happening with Medicare, with parents signing away their possessions to their children so they meet the means requirement.

[Micha]

Originally posted by Drachasor
No. Welfare for non-retirees needs some adjustments. At the very least it should have New Deal style jobs associated with it; they give you *something to do* even if it isn't needed. Just so that people stay used to the idea of working. (Well, exceptions for those that *can't* work). Then some additional incentive to get a real job.

For retirees, they just need a monthly check, imho, at what age they start to get it and how much they get would vary, of course.
-Drachasor

Good idea. Copied from the German System?

We have exactly that in Germany. It works as long as there´s a large enough base that pays in and only a small remainder in the upper-ages-class that receives. We called it "Generation´s treaty".

Now here´s the problem:
In Western societies, especially those with healthcare programs, the population structure is less pyramidal, rather it equals a vase. There is a growing number of retirees, whereas the number of people paying in is stagnant or (as here in Europe) declining.

Of course you in the USA don´t have to worry about declining birth rates... yet. It will get you too, sooner or later. Although I am a Socialist Democrat, although I believe in welfare and healthcare, I have to admit that it doesn´t work in non-communist countries. It´s just for the fact that most people want their slice and thus pretend to need welfare, while others simply are too lazy to get work. Here in Germany we are in one of the deepest economic depressions because of social security programs starting to no longer finance themselves.

[notyoueither]

It's the twin ***** of progress.

We take care of everyone, and we prolong the lives of everyone. It sounds great. It is great!

It is also very expensive.

[Sikander]

I find Drachasor's resistance to Bush's SS plan to be strange. He wants to set aside money to invest in order to get a better return on it, rather than simply using it to fund current government operations. Which is exactly what Bush proposes.

The current system is a ponzi scheme. It kind of works when the population is growing fast and old people die fairly young. Both of theses factors are trending the wrong way now, which is why the system is in big trouble. Bush proposes individualizing the system, which is to say that instead of operating on a completely aggregate basis it will operate on an individual basis. This will create a short term cost in return for long term stability. In fact it will create a system which will be remarkably stable as everyone will make contributions to their own retirement. Shifts in demographics will not impact the health of the system itself negatively, nor will they provide windfalls for the government to blow.

The short term conversion is going to be tricky without doubt. The longer we wait the more difficult it will become and the more likely a catastrophic financial problem for the government will occur. Fortunately there are some steps we can take to help us make the switch. The first thing we have to do is to make the program a welare program for everyone who is signed up for it in its current form. This means that the wealthy will not recieve SS checks, and the well-to-do will receive reduced benefits. As the elderly are the wealthiest portion of the American public this will thankfully give us a broad revenue source to draw from. I am quite willing and able to give up some or all (depending on what is required) of my benefit in order to put things right. My assumption since becoming aware of how the system worked years ago has been that I can't afford to depend upon it, and I have acted accordingly. Many older people can get by just fine without their SS checks or with a reduced benefit. Despite the image of the poor grandmother freezing to death in her hovel, it is the young who are most likely to be poor and suffering from it.

[Patriqvium]

After answering the poll, I got the Alexander Pope quote "Blessed is he who expects nothing, for
he shall never be disappointed". Couldn't really be more fitting.

[Dis]

Originally posted by Drachasor


It isn't a pyramid scheme. I am getting pretty annoyed with people trying to blow things out of proportion, so try not to be an idiot* and do that.

Secondly, you need to understand how the middle and lower class works and their function in society. They serve the role of keeping the economy going. They get money and then most of them spend the money; they are not good at saving it and spending it helps the economy a great deal. Since there will always be many people that don't save money for retirement, there must be a system to help those people. The only sensible and fair system is one that helps everyone since otherwise it opens itself for exploitation.

Proposing that people "just save their money" simply is an idea that will never work, and historically never has worked. As such I don't think it is a reasonable proposal, since it doesn't deal with the realities of the situation, just like advocating abstinence and only abstinence is a foolish policy.

-Drachasor

Edit: *I do not mean to offend, but my annoyance/anger with misrepresentation is getting the best of me.

actually I have to agree with you. Most americans are not disciplined enough to save their money. I happen to be, but I'm not like most people .

It is beneficial to society as a whole to maintain social security. Sometimes us smart people who know how to invest have to make sacrifices for the betterment of society. That sounds socialist. But maintaining society works in our favour. If our system collapses, we will be in a world of hurt. I've supported socialism in the past, it has many good qualities to it.

[Dis]

Clearly social security needs to be saved. And clearly there is not enough money being put in to social security to save itself. I don't agree with raising the age, because that does not benefit african americans with lower life spans. And it does not benefit me . Males in my family do not live to be that old.

The solution to me seems simple. We take money from other programs to keep social security going. All these years we have taken money from social security to fund other programs. It's time we reverse that trend. Yes it will be painful. But once the bulk of baby boomers die, we really head into a generation that is much, much smaller.

It's time for a little belt tightening of the federal goverment.