My distinguished colleague from West Virginia

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Oerdin
I do know what one person calls pork often is considered a vital project by others.

I knew you wouldn't disappoint.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


IIRC, Congress was controlled by the Democrats during the 80s. As much as I'd like to put the blame for things on Uncle Ron, he couldn't have achieved anything without his good buddy Tip O'Neal and Senator Keating.

God it's good to have the Dems back in. They are overdue for a good bashing on my part.

Equal opportunity

[Dinner]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I knew you wouldn't disappoint.

Read the whole thread before quoting one sentence out of a dozen posts.

[Drake Tungsten]

Yeah, I dislike Soc Sec regressiveness. But looking at history, it definitely did good.

So has the military.

[Jon Miller]

When was I attacking military spending?

JM
(of course, a good chunk of it could be spent on better military projects.. )

[Drake Tungsten]

A good chunk of Social Security is wasted on people who don't need the help.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Oerdin


Read the whole thread before quoting one sentence out of a dozen posts.

Well I loved the post where you attacked CAGW as somesort of right-wing group but it was too long to quote.

[Straybow]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Social Security's regressivity was a deliberate sabotage by Republicans back in the 80's. They put an income cap where people only paid into SSI for the first $70k or so and then none of the rest of their income was taxed. Stop the free loading by removing the cap and you almost single handedly end the Social Security "problem".

Wrongo. In the '80s congress raised the cap from somewhere around $27k to $70k. SS contributions have always been regressive because they were posited as a kind of forced retirement savings.

By raising the cap above the level of proportionality with payouts they made it less regressive.

[Straybow]

Originally posted by Admiral
So I admit to being a bit of an idealist, but the Democrats have lately become deficit hawks, and know that they have to differentiate themselves from the GOP status quo. The Republicans, meanwhile, may take their defeat as a call to go back to their roots, which is small government, which is less pork.

Pfft. Democrats making noise about the deficit does not equal a change in their modus operandus.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Straybow

Originally posted by Admiral
So I admit to being a bit of an idealist, but the Democrats have lately become deficit hawks, and know that they have to differentiate themselves from the GOP status quo. The Republicans, meanwhile, may take their defeat as a call to go back to their roots, which is small government, which is less pork.

Pfft. Democrats making noise about the deficit does not equal a change in their modus operandus.

Zactly. If they were fiscally minded the intent would not be increased spending at the expense of increased taxes merely reduced spending. Something which has yet to be uttered from the Dems.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
If Social Security goes, the whole system will be going with it. The problem isn't systemic, it's demographic. That problem doesn't go away just because you switch to a private retirement system from a public one. If there aren't enough people to pay into SS, then there aren't enough people to keep stocks afloat.

People have this binary thing about SS. Either it stays as it is, or its going, and will give nothing to the current generation.

If you cut benefits, or raise retirement ages, you can make massive changes to the solvency. Its having the political will to do that, and to balance that appropriately against revenue mechanisms, thats the tough nut to crack.

Remember, back when FDR passed Social Sec, it was NOT expected that most people would retire at 60, and then collect till theyre 90. Retirement ages were later, and life expectancy was shorter. SS was to help you mainly IF you lived an unexpectdedly long life. Thats why its social INSURANCE - to insure you against something that wasnt a certainty.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
A good chunk of Social Security is wasted on people who don't need the help.

cause its not an antipoverty program, ya know. Though moving in that direction may be one way to keep it solvent.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
When was I attacking military spending?

JM
(of course, a good chunk of it could be spent on better military projects.. )

I'm all for a runaway, bloated defense Budget. Hell, I think we should edge back up to 10% during the Eisenhower era.


Of course, I'm a tiny bit biased.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
cause its not an antipoverty program, ya know.

Actually it is, and the most successful anti-poverty program we have. However, as Drake says, a lot of people who don't need it get it. That's probably actually a good thing, since if only poor seniors got it, it would have been cut back or killed some time ago.

[Berzerker]

A good chunk of Social Security is wasted on people who don't need the help.

And then there's all those people who die before getting what they paid in...