Politics

[Polish Leppy 22]

Social Security wasn't means teste because besides lifting seniors that really couldn't work anymore of poverty it was designed to get people out of the workforce. The unemployment rate would be insane today if not for SS. The economy because technological efficency, outsourcing, and other factors is having difficulty supporting the current work force.

The elderly had the hiest povert rate in the 1930s. Flash forward to 2013 seniors now have the lowest poverty rate, unfortunately children are now have the highest poverty rate. So regardless of it intention the anti-poverty impact of SS really can't be argued.

I am all for changing benifit calculations or doing other fixes to make SS last longer but I don't see how ending a program that has been so successful is going to fix America. How do expect the economy to support an increase of people working into their 70s when they don't have SS to fall back on when they reach retirement.

There's a crazy idea some have thrown out there called "saving your money for retirement", and miraculously people do this without the help of the federal government. I'm not rich by any means but I'd take it as an insult if the government told me they don't trust me with my own retirement.

 

[MJ12666]

Social Security wasn't means teste because besides lifting seniors that really couldn't work anymore of poverty it was designed to get people out of the workforce. The unemployment rate would be insane today if not for SS. The economy because technological efficency, outsourcing, and other factors is having difficulty supporting the current work force.

The elderly had the hiest povert rate in the 1930s. Flash forward to 2013 seniors now have the lowest poverty rate, unfortunately children are now have the highest poverty rate. So regardless of it intention the anti-poverty impact of SS really can't be argued.

I am all for changing benifit calculations or doing other fixes to make SS last longer but I don't see how ending a program that has been so successful is going to fix America. How do expect the economy to support an increase of people working into their 70s when they don't have SS to fall back on when they reach retirement.

I did say anything about ending the program or changing the benefit calculations. I was just pointing out that based on your earlier statement you did not really know about the origins of the program.

 

[chicago51]

There's a crazy idea some have thrown out there called "saving your money for retirement", and miraculously people do this without the help of the federal government. I'm not rich by any means but I'd take it as an insult if the government told me they don't trust me with my own retirement.

What if I put my money in an IRA and the stock market complete tanks 1929 syle all over again when I'm 64. How do I make that up?

What if my bank fails? FDIC only insures accounts up to $100k. That is hardly enough to retire on. I guess I could have use multiple accounts but there are still issues with money being safe in banks.

I suppose I could keep it in my attic and hope my house doesn't burn down.

I have investment money even though I have a long way to go to retirnement. However it be nice to know I have a guarantee if I work hard my whole life I'll be a little better off than poverty because of Social Security even if the stock market goes to hell or the banking system fails.

 

[Wild Bill]

What if I put my money in an IRA and the stock market complete tanks 1929 syle all over again when I'm 64. How do I make that up?

What if my bank fails? FDIC only insures accounts up to $100k. That is hardly enough to retire on. I guess I could have use multiple accounts but there are still issues with money being safe in banks.

I suppose I could keep it in my attic and hope my house doesn't burn down.

I have investment money even though I have a long way to go to retirnement. However it be nice to know I have a guarantee if I work hard my whole life I'll be a little better off than poverty because of Social Security even if the stock market goes to hell or the banking system fails.

What happens if 6% of my income is taken without my consent and the feds aren't able to pay me when I'm eligible to collect?

I don't take issue with your desire to opt in, I take issue with not being able to opt out.

 

[GoIrish41]

Social Security wasn't means teste because besides lifting seniors that really couldn't work anymore of poverty it was designed to get people out of the workforce. The unemployment rate would be insane today if not for SS. The economy because technological efficency, outsourcing, and other factors is having difficulty supporting the current work force.

The elderly had the hiest povert rate in the 1930s. Flash forward to 2013 seniors now have the lowest poverty rate, unfortunately children are now have the highest poverty rate. So regardless of it intention the anti-poverty impact of SS really can't be argued.

I am all for changing benifit calculations or doing other fixes to make SS last longer but I don't see how ending a program that has been so successful is going to fix America. How do expect the economy to support an increase of people working into their 70s when they don't have SS to fall back on when they reach retirement.

People can discuss it all they want, but SS isn't going to be ended. Any politician who suggested it would be ushered out of office rapidly. If politicians would keep their mitts off of the social security funds, the system would be solvent for years to come.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

People can discuss it all they want, but SS isn't going to be ended. Any politician who suggested it would be ushered out of office rapidly. If politicians would keep their mitts off of the social security funds, the system would be solvent for years to come.

Might work in theory, but I don't trust the self serving idiots in DC. Financially I'm going to plan my own retirement and just be pissed off the whole time that I'll probably never see the money I paid into SS.

"If the federal government were in charge of the Sahara desert it would run out of sand in a few years." --- Milton Friedman

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Gov. Cuomo: Pro-life people not welcome in New York | Fox News

Astounding. So much for tolerance.

Does this include:

military members?
cops?
firefighters?
teachers?
poor people who are Christian and pro choice?

 

[ACamp1900]

Honest question for anyone who agrees with Cuomo: What is so, apparently, unbelievably insulting about a person who believes life is sacred, starts at conception and should be protected?

To be clear: I do not stand 100% with the thought process I am referring to, but it always surprises me how much venom that stance gets from others, like it’s some sub human, indefensible opinion/stance. Also, I do realize pro choice does gets some high levels of flak also.

 

[Ndaccountant]

Honest question for anyone who agrees with Cuomo: What is so, apparently, unbelievably insulting about a person who believes life is sacred, starts at conception and should be protected?

To be clear: I do not stand 100% with the thought process I am referring to, but it always surprises me how much venom that stance gets from others, like it’s some sub human, indefensible opinion/stance. Also, I do realize pro choice does gets some high levels of flak also.

I think his quote sounded/read worse than what it was. I took his quote to mean that extreme views are not wanted. I did not take it to equate that pro-life = extreme, much the same way that pro-choice does not = extreme. I think we can all agree that people that are pro-life or pro-choice can be extreme, but these views are not extreme in of themselves.

As far as your question is concerned, I think any idea that threatens and challenges one's belief can lead to destructive comments, like this one. The irony is that being pro-gay marriage would allow someone to "show" they are tolerant, yet, comments like this do very little to foster tolerance.

 

[chicago51]

Bill Gates: By 2035 there will be almost no poor countries :: La Prensa :: America in English

Hope he's right. Kind of doubt it.

 

[irishff1014]

Bill Gates: By 2035 there will be almost no poor countries :: La Prensa :: America in English

Hope he's right. Kind of doubt it.

That's BS we have cities in the us that can't rebound we will be lucky if we aren't still sliding down hill.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Solution: Let people opt out. For seniors who have built their lives around these promises, let them receive their benefits. Let ANYONE stay within the system for that matter. All I ask for is a way to politely decline future benefits in exchange for keeping my contributions to invest or bury in the backyard as I see fit.

And you know that the wealthy and educated would opt out much more often than the poor, and the program would fall on its face.

What do you do with the millions of elderly now in poverty? Go.

Why, it looks fine to me

This looks to me like a "women entering the workforce and then computers/automation taking its toll" graph.

 

[Buster Bluth]

There's a crazy idea some have thrown out there called "saving your money for retirement", and miraculously people do this without the help of the federal government. I'm not rich by any means but I'd take it as an insult if the government told me they don't trust me with my own retirement.

And people also lose their retirements through no fault of their own. That's why we built a social security net.

No, not my job, but anyone who passed 4th grade math knows those three programs are done come 2030.

Thankfully people who continued their education would know to add on "if they aren't reformed using the series of proposed solutions" onto the end of that.

Not sure where the Glenn Beck thing came from: I don't watch him, listen to him, or have any of his books. I do like Andrew Wilkow, Mark Levin, Mark Steyn, Judge Naopolitano, among others.

What an excellent way to get a balanced view!

 

[Ndaccountant]

And you know that the wealthy and educated would opt out much more often than the poor, and the program would fall on its face.

What do you do with the millions of elderly now in poverty? Go.




This looks to me like a "women entering the workforce and then computers/automation taking its toll" graph.

You are correct on the front end of the graph, but not really accurate on the back end. For the past decade, economists have been calling for the decline of the LFPR due to demographics issues, namely the aging population. So the decline itself is not alarming, but the rate of decline is. The decline is happening much more rapidly than projected (projections have occurred multiple times throughout the 2000's).

So, the elderly are leaving the job market more quickly than projected, right? Nope.

"Since the beginning of the recession in 2007, 2 million fewer Americans are employed. The 25 to 54 age group has seen a decline in employment of 6 million workers. The 55+ age group, in contrast, has seen an increase in employment of 4.8 million workers. Employment in the 16 to 24 group is down by 1.8 million.

The biggest decline in labor force participation rates can be observed for workers aged 16 to 24. In 2013, 55 percent were participating in the labor force, compared to 62 percent in 2003, a decline of 7 percentage points."

The reason for this decline is simple, there are no jobs. Technology certainly has played a role, but we cannot ignore the fact that we have had a tepid recovery with 2-3% GDP growth, which doesn't foster rapid job growth. Combine that with population growth and you can now see why the jobs picture is bleak. We are getting closer to the point where the cyclical unemployment is turning into structural.


Who Is Dropping Out of the Labor Force, and Why? | e21 - Economic Policies for the 21st Century

 

[phgreek]

What if I put my money in an IRA and the stock market complete tanks 1929 syle all over again when I'm 64. How do I make that up?

What if my bank fails? FDIC only insures accounts up to $100k. That is hardly enough to retire on. I guess I could have use multiple accounts but there are still issues with money being safe in banks.

I suppose I could keep it in my attic and hope my house doesn't burn down.

I have investment money even though I have a long way to go to retirnement. However it be nice to know I have a guarantee if I work hard my whole life I'll be a little better off than poverty because of Social Security even if the stock market goes to hell or the banking system fails.

I agree SS should be there for those who've made their contributions....Me...I have a letter that says I'm eligible at retirement for full benefits...have had it for a long time. I'd light it on fire if I could opt out. I'm mid 40s. I neither want, nor need the expectation of SS....but would happily pay if the money was used, WITHOUT EXCEPTION to guarantee the security of retirees in need...but we can't say that now can we?

Politicians and the special interest culture in DC...Criminal Enterprise. Paying SS is like dealing with paying protection money...but w/o the "honor" of the mafia.

 

[phgreek]

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

...come on now. Ever hear of the word context.

Not going to argue with people about social programs, or even where they personally justify them in terms of societal maturity...which hints at evolution AWAY from the more rudimentary conception of what the country was to be...found in its founding documents. IT IS ridiculous to quote the establishing documents of this nation, and somehow claim "THIS SHIT" is what the framers had in mind...

 

[Buster Bluth]

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

...come on now. Ever hear of the word context.

Not going to argue with people about social programs, or even where they personally justify them in terms of societal maturity...which hints at evolution AWAY from the more rudimentary conception of what the country was to be...found in its founding documents. IT IS ridiculous to quote the establishing documents of this nation, and somehow claim "THIS SHIT" is what the framers had in mind...

If context if what you're after, the founding fathers had no idea that the industrial revolution and capitalism would change everything. There was barely a concept of employee and employer as we know it today, the vast majority of (free) people worked for themselves, for family, or small businesses. Today, people like Jefferson would almost certainly adhere to the ideas of Distributism; I think most of them would.

When all of that was written, if you didn't like the law of the local town you could head out west, kill a few natives, and set up shop how you see fit. Their experiences in a society were drastically different than they are today.

 

[T Town Tommy]

If context if what you're after, the founding fathers had no idea that the industrial revolution and capitalism would change everything. There was barely a concept of employee and employer as we know it today, the vast majority of (free) people worked for themselves, for family, or small businesses. Today, people like Jefferson would almost certainly adhere to the ideas of Distributism; I think most of them would.

When all of that was written, if you didn't like the law of the local town you could head out west, kill a few natives, and set up shop how you see fit. Their experiences in a society were drastically different than they are today.

Jefferson didn't believe in that when he was living so why would one think he would believe it today?

 

[Buster Bluth]

Jefferson didn't believe in that when he was living so why would one think he would believe it today?

Do you know what Distributism is? Considering he hated Hamilton's mercantilism and dreamed of a republic of independent and virtuous farmers, again he certainly would believe in Distributism. At least from what I know of the man.

 

[Black Irish]

Did you know that when SS was first implemented individuals would start recieving benefits at 65 but the life expectancy was 62 and there was no "means" testing. So exactly how does this equate to as an anti-poverty program for the elderly?

To answer your first question, yes I am aware about the average life expectancy when SS was established. I'm not sure what you're getting at with that nugget of information or how you think it rebuts anything I said. I am also aware that there was not and is not any sort of means testing for SS. Again, I'm not sure what you are getting at.

As far as how SS equates to an anti-poverty program for the elderly, read the following quote from FDR and pay particular attention to the bolded section.

"We can never insure one-hundred percent of the population against one-hundred percent of the hazards and vicissitudes of life. But we have tried to frame a law which will give some measure of protection to the average citizen and to his family against the loss of a job and against poverty-ridden old age. This law, too, represents a cornerstone in a structure which is being built, but is by no means complete.... It is...a law that will take care of human needs and at the same time provide for the United States an economic structure of vastly greater soundness."
-- Franklin D. Roosevelt, August 14, 1935

 

[phgreek]

If context if what you're after, the founding fathers had no idea that the industrial revolution and capitalism would change everything. There was barely a concept of employee and employer as we know it today, the vast majority of (free) people worked for themselves, for family, or small businesses. Today, people like Jefferson would almost certainly adhere to the ideas of Distributism; I think most of them would.

When all of that was written, if you didn't like the law of the local town you could head out west, kill a few natives, and set up shop how you see fit. Their experiences in a society were drastically different than they are today.

right...so using the constitution's words ie "welfare" in 2014 context is preposterous...

Edit: Not agreeing with distributionism...it is a complex discussion again rooted in their understanding of the world in front of them...

 

[Wild Bill]

The biggest decline in labor force participation rates can be observed for workers aged 16 to 24.In 2013, 55 percent were participating in the labor force, compared to 62 percent in 2003, a decline of 7 percentage points."

The reason for this decline is simple, there are no jobs. Technology certainly has played a role, but we cannot ignore the fact that we have had a tepid recovery with 2-3% GDP growth, which doesn't foster rapid job growth. Combine that with population growth and you can now see why the jobs picture is bleak. We are getting closer to the point where the cyclical unemployment is turning into structural.

This age group is heavily affected by minimum wage laws too. Younger workers lack skills and cannot, generally speaking, produce goods or services worth $8 per hour.

 

[Wild Bill]

Do you know what Distributism is? Considering he hated Hamilton's mercantilism and dreamed of a republic of independent and virtuous farmers, again he certainly would believe in Distributism. At least from what I know of the man.

A cunt hair to the right of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"?

 

[T Town Tommy]

Do you know what Distributism is? Considering he hated Hamilton's mercantilism and dreamed of a republic of independent and virtuous farmers, again he certainly would believe in Distributism. At least from what I know of the man.

So where does Jefferson's Just Theory of War play in to all this under Distributism? And being a slave owner, he must not have subscribed to the theory of the human element of distributism. With that said, it appeared that Jefferson was like most people.... while he supported many elements of this theory, he didn't subscibe to others. To each his own I guess.

 

[GowerND11]

So where does Jefferson's Just Theory of War play in to all this under Distributism? And being a slave owner, he must not have subscribed to the theory of the human element of distributism. With that said, it appeared that Jefferson was like most people.... while he supported many elements of this theory, he didn't subscibe to others. To each his own I guess.

But didn't Jefferson treat his slaves particularly well? (In context of the time and in comparison of peers) And didn't he also envision a nation without need of slavery in the not too distant future, seeing slavery as a necessary evil for the time to be abolished later?

 

[Ndaccountant]

But didn't Jefferson treat his slaves particularly well? (In context of the time and in comparison of peers) And didn't he also envision a nation without need of slavery in the not too distant future, seeing slavery as a necessary evil for the time to be abolished later?

He liked Sally Hemings so much, he had six children with her!!

 

[Buster Bluth]

A cunt hair to the right of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"?

Uh, no. Distributism was created by the Catholic Church as a socially just economic system to attempt to solve the problems of capitalism and socialism/communism. If capitalism is bosses' ownership, and communism is government ownership, distributism is employee ownership. That, of course, is simplifying it greatly.

Distributism seeks to raise the individual's wellbeing by favoring policies that spread ownership (and the rewards of ownership) to a larger number of people. Jefferson wanted to make North America, at a minimum, one great big land of independent farmers. Each family owns their farm, so each family benefits according to their own merit. Capitalism, of course, leads to an oligopoly in nearly all industry. Said food system is controlled by five enormous corporations, and the 1% get far more rewards than the employees (which is just in that scenario, I would agree).

Distributism is a credit union as opposed to a bank.

I was just thinking about my family's business, which turned 102 years old a few weeks ago, and how it applies to us. We run a road construction company, and use 8-10 dump trucks. We of course own these trucks, but it's pretty common for men to own their individual truck and subcontract to X company in a given year. That would be Distributism's answer to ownership. Be your own boss and live on your terms.

Jefferson is of course the biggest hypocrite of the founding fathers, being both the greatest (in my opinion) and the most flawed. Naturally he failed the slavery question, and even his own executive power beliefs during his Presidency. But I think, considering his desire to empower the individual, that he'd be saddened by today's inequity and favor policies of Distributism.

Distributism has nothing to do with taxing the 1% and giving (I.e. distributing) the money to bums simply for existing. So calm down people haha

 

[phgreek]

I

Uh, no. Distributism was created by the Catholic Church as a socially just economic system to attempt to solve the problems of capitalism and socialism/communism. If capitalism is bosses' ownership, and communism is government ownership, distributism is employee ownership. That, of course, is simplifying it greatly.

Distributism seeks to raise the individual's wellbeing by favoring policies that spread ownership (and the rewards of ownership) to a larger number of people. Jefferson wanted to make North America, at a minimum, one great big land of independent farmers. Each family owns their farm, so each family benefits according to their own merit. Capitalism, of course, leads to an oligopoly in nearly all industry. Said food system is controlled by five enormous corporations, and the 1% get far more rewards than the employees (which is just in that scenario, I would agree).

Distributism is a credit union as opposed to a bank.

I was just thinking about my family's business, which turned 102 years old a few weeks ago, and how it applies to us. We run a road construction company, and use 8-10 dump trucks. We of course own these trucks, but it's pretty common for men to own their individual truck and subcontract to X company in a given year. That would be Distributism's answer to ownership. Be your own boss and live on your terms.

Jefferson is of course the biggest hypocrite of the founding fathers, being both the greatest (in my opinion) and the most flawed. Naturally he failed the slavery question, and even his own executive power beliefs during his Presidency. But I think, considering his desire to empower the individual, that he'd be saddened by today's inequity and favor policies of Distributism.

Distributism has nothing to do with taxing the 1% and giving (I.e. distributing) the money to bums simply for existing. So calm down people haha

...Would Jefferson see things the same in 2014..."distributism" as applied to the founders seems to be a backward looking label for things they did simply because they suited the time...the difficulty is always having to do with discerning true governing principle from thoughts and actions that were bounded by what was real and that they could conceive at the time...

 

[Buster Bluth]

...Would Jefferson see things the same in 2014..."distributism" as applied to the founders seems to be a backward looking label for things they did simply because they suited the time...the difficulty is always having to do with discerning true governing principle from thoughts and actions that were bounded by what was real and that they could conceive at the time...

Agreed.

 

[Black Irish]

I

Uh, no. Distributism was created by the Catholic Church as a socially just economic system to attempt to solve the problems of capitalism and socialism/communism. If capitalism is bosses' ownership, and communism is government ownership, distributism is employee ownership. That, of course, is simplifying it greatly.

Distributism seeks to raise the individual's wellbeing by favoring policies that spread ownership (and the rewards of ownership) to a larger number of people. Jefferson wanted to make North America, at a minimum, one great big land of independent farmers. Each family owns their farm, so each family benefits according to their own merit. Capitalism, of course, leads to an oligopoly in nearly all industry. Said food system is controlled by five enormous corporations, and the 1% get far more rewards than the employees (which is just in that scenario, I would agree).

Distributism is a credit union as opposed to a bank.

I was just thinking about my family's business, which turned 102 years old a few weeks ago, and how it applies to us. We run a road construction company, and use 8-10 dump trucks. We of course own these trucks, but it's pretty common for men to own their individual truck and subcontract to X company in a given year. That would be Distributism's answer to ownership. Be your own boss and live on your terms.

Jefferson is of course the biggest hypocrite of the founding fathers, being both the greatest (in my opinion) and the most flawed. Naturally he failed the slavery question, and even his own executive power beliefs during his Presidency. But I think, considering his desire to empower the individual, that he'd be saddened by today's inequity and favor policies of Distributism.

Distributism has nothing to do with taxing the 1% and giving (I.e. distributing) the money to bums simply for existing. So calm down people haha

I'm a relatively informed Catholic and I've never heard of this. I'm not saying you're wrong, just that this is news to me. Can you direct me to some sites/books/articles that can flesh out the intellectual history of this? Thanks.