Guns, Social Security, Food Stamps
1. We are advised to NOT judge ALL Muslims by the actions of a few lunatics, but we are encouraged to judge ALL gun owners by the actions of a few lunatics. Funny how that works.
And another statement for consideration--
2. We constantly hear about how Social Security is going to run out of money. How come we never hear about welfare running out of money? What's interesting is the first group "worked for" their money, but the second didn't.
Finally ..
3. The Food Stamp Program, administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, is proud to be distributing this year the greatest amount of free Meals and Food Stamps ever --- to 47 million people, as of the most recent figures available in 2013.
Meanwhile, the National Park Service, administered by the U.S. Department of the Interior, asks us "Please Do Not Feed the Animals." The stated reason for this policy is because "The animals will grow dependent on handouts and will not learn to take care of themselves."
Ignatz 
JeffersonRepub 
Calico696 I always wondered why we drive on the parkway and park in the driveway. Jumbo shrimp is another one and why do they put Honorable before crooked Politicians.
jerseycash5You should't judge anyone by what they are. Judge them as who they are. The Muslim next door could be your best friend. The Muslim across the street might throw rocks at your car. Will you stop being the best friend of the one because of the other? We had a Gay thread that had a lot of opinions. One person wanted to judge all Gays because of the actions of one. We should not judge anyone because of the actions of one.
Hopefully you will never need help from the governement. I hope you never lose your job. I hope you keep your health. If both of those go the wrong way, I hope government programs help you until you get on your feet.
singlemaleinnj yeah, how about it, right ? where are all the free government guns?
the government hands out food-stamps, medicare , section 8 housing and obamaphones (free cell phones for the poor),
where is the form for the free government gun handout?
when is Mayor DeBlasio going to address this 'gun inequality' issue? when is obama going to speak off the record about fixing this 'gun inequality' problem?
BrotherDog 
GC "Hopefully you will never need help from the governement. I hope you never lose your job. I hope you keep your health. If both of those go the wrong way, I hope government programs help you until you get on your feet."
I never lost my job, in fact at one time I had three jobs to keep the boat afloat. My health has not been exactly stellar, but I am thankful for what I have.
I have to much pride at this time to depend on the government.
What we need is a government that will do away with NAFTA
"I hope government programs help you until you get on your feet"
Please with a view like yours I don"t want you to "hope" anything for me.
Bella76 "I hope government programs help you until you get on your feet."
This is a big part of the issue. You statement is the intended purpose of government aid. Unfortunately, there are too many who make a lifetime out of it. Aid is supposed to be a temporary solution, not a steady pay check.
singleguy Spoken like a true Democrat. Where is my powdered milk and velveeta cheese ?
Old Gent I recognize that the OP is not really looking for serious answers.
But as to the third point, I kind of like it! Clever, and contains truth.
jd2 "When is Mayor DeBlasio going to address this 'gun inequality' issue? when is obama going to speak off the record about fixing this 'gun inequality' problem?"
That is the BEST post I've ever seen on HL!
Also...when is Obama going to talk about the "war on gun owners"? I'm having trouble affording my ammo. I think the government should pay for it.
emily1 "The War on Guns" - PERFECT!!!!
And, I predict the "war on guns" will have the same effect the "war on drugs" has had:
NADA!!! (because in the end, we AIN'T givin' 'em up)
Civil rights (and therefore equality protection) only matter when they aren't "scary".
Mark Mc. 
Firefly Government aid is intended to be just temporary help and I understand many people abuse it, but there are many people that don't and really need it.
Should the hard working people who have hit hard times suffer and not get temporary assistance because of a few bad eggs?
No one is immune to unexpected circumstances, which can lead to poverty... unless you have millions in the bank.
Yes, Firefly this is a really dead horse.
positive First of all. I am a Ronald Reagan Republican. Second, I have seen what can happen when people get older. They need Medicare, Social Security, County Transportation and the rest. I live it everyday. Watching a loved one being ill and needing these things. Nancy Reagan wants stem cell research. So do I.
Some of you think it will never happen to you. Trust me. Just don't get old and don't get sick. I am not talking about the game players. There are millions of them. I am talking about senior citizens who need help. Maybe I should have stated that in the begining.
One more thing. Do any of you so called elitists have children? When you become old and sick, can you count on them? Think really deep down, can you count on them. My Mom gave birth to four. However she has only one. That is me. Look in the mirror and ask yourself. When you are old and sick, can you really count on your children. Don't lie to yourself either. If you lie to yourself, you will just cry a lot later. At a nursing home a nurse praised me for what I do. I said thank you. She started to cry. I asked why. She said she has three children and she knows now that when she gets older and sick, she will be totally alone. Ask yourself that question. Can you count on family? Think about it. I know the answer. Its NO. Trust me. The answer is NO!!!!
In 1984 I was 18 and I was so proud to vote for Ronald Reagan. I've never voted for a Democrat. But just like Nancy Reagan, some of my views have changed.
The bottom line is, don't get old and don't get sick. And if you do, don't ask the government to help you. Your morals will prevent that. Don't ask your children to help you. They won't. Trust me. I have even more refreshing stories I have heard in nursing homes. I bet you can't wait to get old and sick and end up in a nursing home.
I was no ttalking about the young and healthy getting government assistance when they should be working a job. I was talking about the older folks who are sick and alone.
Just had this convo the other day, I agree 100% with everything the op said, never ever ever have you ever heard of welfare funds running out or having a shortage, makes me wonder why I bother going to work everyday when all I see is other people benefiting from my hard work, yet I have to worry that I won't have a pension I was promised , paid into, and worked hard for
Bryanblue I don't think anyone really disagrees with you positive, but if the data on the sites below is even remotely close, fully 12% of the $3.7T 2014 budget will go to welfare programs alone. That's $444 billion, or approximately $1400/year for every man, woman and child in the US - just for welfare!
http://www.usfederalbudget.us/federal_budget_fy14rs12012n#usgs302
http://www.census.gov/popclock/
I certainly understand helping our neighbors who are in trouble, but IMO the trends really are getting out of hand and as a country we really should be looking more closely at all of this.
justintime JIT- I never looked at the numbers before until now. That is quite disturbing and the first thought that comes to mind... is that our infrastructure needs serious rebuilding.
I agree it is messed up, but I blame the big wigs for it. The citizens who rely on "Big Brother" are just monopoly pieces (victims) in Big Brother's game.
Simple solution to thwart the abuse of welfare and other assistance, drug tests!!!! If I have to pass one to keep my job that supports the lazy then they should pass one to receive these benefits, this has been proven in Florida
I agree with singleguy about the fact that most kids and grandkids today will not be there for them when they get sick. But you can be sure they will be there to get the money , house and all the jewelry they can sell to the gold shops.
jerseycash5 - Your milk and cheese are right next to the Bentley and Ferrari your company bought you with the Golden Parachute you got when you were a Wall Street CEO. ;-)
Social Security is sort of a trust fund with moneys coming in and out. As a fund, it can run out of money.
Welfare expenditures come out of the general treasury. It's just a bunch of expenditures, not a fund. As such, there is no money that they can run out of! Congress can of course reduce or eliminate the expenditures.
This is an apples to oranges comparison. Sorry.
Sad to say that I have sold the Bentley on craigslist and the Ferrari is next. The insurance costs and jealousy just isn't worth it. If anyone is selling a used car that is good on gas let me know. Im looking to spend no more than $2,500.
Darrin It's all about dependency, the more people that are dependent on government for anything, the more votes that party will get to stay in power and continue the dependency. How about making it a condition of being able to vote that you not be on any form of government assistance that you don't contribute to?
sam Darrin - You will need a lot of popcorn. I have a tendency to go through a whole bag with just one of his posts, as they can take quite awhile to read.
So you don't want gun owners to be changed based on the actions of a few. Understandable.
But you DO want to judge all welfare recipients based on the actions of a few. Don't you think that's a bit hypocritical?
MB It's so easy to be anonymous these days, and disconnected people can behave in ways they know aren't right, because no one sees. Think about it, if you fell on hard times and had to rely on a family member, your pride would most likely make you take action get back on your feet as fast as possible. When a handy government check comes in the mail, why bother?
Would an obese person order 4 double cheeseburgers if they had to walk into the fast food place and stand in line around other people? Maybe not, but its so easy in the drive through where no one is looking.
And many people do things on the internet they would never want anyone to 'see'.
Old- fashioned personal responsibility and caring within families and communities would go a long way to decrease government handouts.
hktownie @MB
"But you DO want to judge all welfare recipients based on the actions of a few. Don't you think that's a bit hypocritical?"
If you are referring to my post please go back and reread it. Then point out to me where I judged welfare recipients.
"Simple solution to thwart the abuse of welfare and other assistance, drug tests!!!! If I have to pass one to keep my job that supports the lazy then they should pass one to receive these benefits, this has been proven in Florida"
really it has been proven in FL??? You realize the courts ruled it unconstitutional right?
Florida passed a law (HB 353) requiring all applicants for TANF benefits to be tested. Applicants must be notified of the drug testing requirement at the time of application, and are required to pay for the test. If they test negative the applicant will be reimbursed for the cost by adding the amount to their benefit check. If an applicant tests positive the applicant is ineligible for benefits for one year, but can reapply in 6 months if he/she completes an approved substance abuse treatment program. A parent's positive test result does not affect the child's eligibility for benefits; however, any benefits received must be disbursed through a protective payee who must also pass a drug test. The Governor signed the bill on May 31, 2011 and went into effect on July 1, 2011. Florida’s law is the first since Michigan’s pilot program was challenged in the courts and ruled unconstitutional in 2003. The American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit to stop the bill from being implemented. A federal judge ordered a temporary injunction and Governor Scott has appealed the decision. In February 2013, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the lower court's ruling to halt enforcement of the program.
http://www.ncsl.org/research/human-services/drug-testing-and-public-assistance.aspx
darwin Not sure how they can rule it unconstitutional as long as it's in conjunction with something that's voluntary.
No one is requiring them to sign up for welfare, same as no employer is requiring anyone to apply for employment. If an employer can require a drug screen as a condition of employment, why can't the government require it as a condition of collecting welfare benefits?
ianimal i agree and i am not saying i am i opposed to drug testing for welfare.. i'm for drug testing for anyone who takes government $, including teachers, mayors, police, etc.
i was just pointing out Bryanblue might not want to use FL as an example where it's "proven"
Everything seems to be unconstitutional except the fact that a bunch of law abiding, hard working, legal citizens being milked dry of their money for a bunch of ne'er do wells. Sigh.....
"Simple solution to thwart the abuse of welfare and other assistance, drug tests!!!! If I have to pass one to keep my job that supports the lazy then they should pass one to receive these benefits, this has been proven in Florida"
A major problem with this idea is that drug testing isn't particularly reliable. A positive result HAS to be confirmed by a different type of test. Ultimately it is very costly.
In the Florida case mentioned above only about 2.6% had positive results (I couldn't find how many of those were confirmed and not false positives) and most were for pot (now legal in many places). Florida taxpayers spent $118,140 to reimburse people for drug test costs, at an average of $35 per screening. The state’s net loss? $45,780 and that’s not counting attorneys and court fees and the thousands of hours of staff time it took to implement this policy. The law also didn’t impact the number of people who applied for benefits.
RAD 401k's were probably invented to replace the social security my generation and those thereafter will not get. Personally I do not enjoy a handout of its at the cost of grief for others, I would assume any normal human being would that same way also. Its sad but true what the OP posted.
icicle Really darwin
anyone who takes government money should take a drug test. I take Social Security and I take every veterans assistance I'm entitled to. I put my life on the line for this country more times than I can remember and now you want people like me to take drug tests. If we receive money from the government how quickly people like you forget, I know veterans who are on welfare housing assistance food stamps wasn't sacrificing body parts and being shot enough. Now you want them to take drug tests I consider myself very fortunate. That I was in a lot of firefights and our platoon was ambushed more than once and I come home virtually without a scratch. When so many others didn't and now you want us to take a drug test. What I would like to say to you would be deleted if I wrote it down. There are over 100,000 veterans on welfare I will volunteer to take you to a VFW post or veterans hospital. And let you explain to them how they all need to be drug tested if you're getting any money from the government
And what are you going to do in the states that allow medical marijuana. If you're on welfare you see a doctor and he write's you a prescription for medical marijuana will you lose your welfare. If a doctor deems it necessary for you to take it to you want the state to play Dr. and say no you don't need. And what about the states that marijuana is legal if someone who is receiving welfare test positive for marijuana will you have there welfare taken away even though you have no proof that any money thay received from welfare was used in buying the drug. I would myself consider alcohol a far more dangerous drug than marijuana. So should we test welfare recipients for alcohol to. A lot of you seem to think you know it all so how do we fix these problems. and to the idiots who were saying don't judge all gun owners by the actions of a few. When the actions of a few kill people and when the actions of a few people abusing the welfare system doesn't yes we should judge
Personally, (home again ugh!) I think they should test for nicotine. One of my friends is "poor." Her mom get's section 8 that pays her entire rent except for $60 a month for a whole big house right here in town. They get food stamps and their electric is paid. That's all good, but I get a little riled up when I see her mom spending so much on cigarettes. For a pack a day smoker that's like over $200 a month. She also goes out to the bars (her mom, not my friend lol!) all the time (like every Fri and Sat night) and goes to concerts and has a great time. Her boyfriend (who also smokes and drinks) who lives there doesn't really "live there," if you know what I mean, because he makes a ton of money and if section 8 found out his income would be counted and they would be WAY over the limit. He makes more than my dad who works 2 jobs.
If my dad and other hard-working people like us are paying for these people's food, rent, electric, gas, healthcare, etc., I find it really in poor taste for these people to be able to buy cigarettes, alcohol, pot (or other drugs), go to bars and have live-in's making good money but hide it from the government. Seems they should be a little more appreciative and at least make it look like they really need the help.
Maybe it's just me...
Sorry Oldred, i wasn't clear, i was more talking about salaries, and benefits that they did not pay into.
SS, unemployement are benefits we paid into and are entitled to.
thanks for your service
emily1, I agree! The 'secret live in' has always been a hot topic for me. For years I went to work and payed for a sitter for my kids. Meanwhile my neighbor and her live in employed boyfriend collected from the government and had 3 kids spaced 4.5 years apart. Just as the oldest would become school age she would have another one.
I only got to spend weekends and holidays with my children, she got to be there for them all day every day. Even though I know I did the 'right' thing, I missed out on spending more time with my kids during those special years when they were young. And my taxes helped to pay her welfare.
Yeah and my mom and dad are up every morning at 5:30 am and work like crazy. My friend wakes her mom up when she get's home from school at 2:45 pm.
Personally, I think if you are getting all your bills paid by working people like you, hktownie and my parents, they shouldn't be allowed to sleep all day and then get up and smoke and watch tv. I believe they should have to do something like work at the library, help at the municipal building, clean up main street, help out at their local school -- something!
It just seems really weird that the government should pay all your bills so you can do NOTHING all day. Call me crazy.
I'm all for WORKfare not welfare.
If I had lost my job, or come on "hard times" and the govt said "hey, we know it;s tough out there, listen- we'll pay your bills for a year if you do this job for us"....street sweeper, park mower, garbage can changer, crossing guard, WHATEVER- I would just be HAPPY to have the helping hand and HAPPIER knowing I was EARNING it.
why is so hard to follow.. i apologize i am posting while working. let me explain it in detail
IF you work for the government, ie politican, teacher, town employee, cop, fireman... i feel you should be drug tested, just like those of us in the private sector have to..
IF you collect food stamps, welfare you should be drug tested to ensure the $ you are collecting is not funding your drug habbit
If you need to collect unemployment, SSI, SS, programs that you paid into then it's your $ and you don't need to have a drug test
hope that cleared it up. Again thanks for your service oldred
darwin,
you do know, technically the money you get while on unemployment is MUCH MORE than you actually paid in, right? Also, the money you are getting from SS isn't money YOU paid in, it's the money today's contributors are paying in.
Not disagreeing with you- I'm all for drug testing to receive federal funds. But when looking at it factually, there is a reason to drug test for UI, SSI, and SS as well, by those standards you posted.
technically JR, But unemployment, SS, SSI is sort of like an insurance premium. you pay a "small" monthly premium in the event you need the service. of course you don't get to choose to pay it.
"Meanwhile my neighbor and her live in employed boyfriend collected from the government and had 3 kids spaced 4.5 years apart. Just as the oldest would become school age she would have another one."
Sorry but i'm not following your math problem you gave us.. 3 kids/ 4.5yrs apart. just as her oldest became school age she had another? So if her oldest turned 5 then she had a 4th kid?
I certainly don't. Being self-employed, I not only have to pay it, but I have to pay DOUBLE- it's like paying the employee's AND the employer's share... they call it the "self-employment tax"... and here's kicker.... being self-employed, I am not eligible to receive UI if I have no work.
Paying into a system- twice as much as most people- and I'm not even allowed to use it. How's that for "fair"?
Darwin, I think she meant 4.5 years between each kid, meaning newborn, 4.5, 9, 13.5, etc...
Okay darwin you still haven't answered my question about our nations veterans who have fallen on hard times and are taking from all you hard workers out there. Who couldn't be bothered to serve your country like I said before I will take you to go talk to unemployed welfare taking foodstamp using proud veterans and explain to them why you think they should be drug tested. tell them that you thank them for the service but if you want to dime out of me go in this jar so I can have it tested first before you get any money
"...you do know, technically the money you get while on unemployment is MUCH MORE than you actually paid in, right?...
Not necessarily. My dad has been working since he was 11 (paper route, farm-hand) and worked his way up till now. I can only imagine how much he and his employers have paid in to unemployment, disability, SSI, etc and he has only used it once for 4 months. Plus, unemployment runs out - you can't be on it for the rest of your life like disability, welfare, section 8, food stamps, and all that stuff. It's totally different.
Ignaz, I think you have a point here and I somewhat agree. However I also see a need for some of these programs to help those that find themselves in bad situations, but are trying to improve themselves and need TEMPORARY help. I also see how for many, this has become a lifestyle choice passed on from generation to generation.
I don't know how we would fix the problem however other than hiring thousands of Investigators to track each Welfare recipient to insure these are legitimate needs, which would probably cost more than the program itself.
I would guess it might help to put a time limit on everyone going into these programs and after a period of time, say a year, they have to prove the need to stay in the program for the next period of time, but again, what proofs would be required?
It would be great if someone a lot smarter than I am ran for a national office and could come up with the answers.
boobalaa JR
You need a basic understanding of how NJUCI (that's unemployment compensation INSURANCE) and social security benefits work (darwin and emily1 get it. In NJ, each and every employer is required to pay into an account specific to that employer, an amount determined by the experience rating of the employer, So, the higher the layoffs and benefits paid, the higher the rate the employer has to pay. The employee contribution is minor and has a specific % and amount each employee contributes. The state pays the UCI benefits but charges the employer account accordingly. Yes, many employer and state accounts are broke because of the federal extensions but the employer accounts will all have to eventually replenished by virtue of the higher rates employers will have to pay. As far as social security is concerned, I, like the vast majority of baby boomers paid into the system for years and years and maxed out on contributions for many with all such withholdings matched by employers. I've run the numbers (I have an MBA) and what I now receive works out to less than a 4% annuitized return on 46 years of contributions. I sure as hell wish I had been able to accumulate MY contributions in my own accounts, I'd be earning a lot more than I get now. So, JR don't be so damn presumptuous to suggest that I get a drug test to receive social security payments from a fund that I fully paid when it's obvious that you do not know what the hell you're talking about.
OldSam,
I have been thinking about this... using SS as an example, I guess it would depend on how long you paid in, and how long you collected. If you paid in for 20 years, then retired at 65 and live to 95, collecting for 30 years, you would be receiving more than you put in. Conversely, if you put in for 45 years, retired at 65 then died at 66, obviously you wouldn't get all your money "back." So I guess it would depend. Not sure how you could apply that...
...drug tests required as soon as you run out of "your money" and start using "the people's money" I guess...lol
And how about addressing the inequity of MY situation? As I said- I pay in BOTH SIDES of UI... and can NEVER collect, so long as I remain self-employed. I see that as even LESS "fair" than asking recipients of govt funds to take drug tests. Even if I stay clean, I don't get a cent.
"Okay darwin you still haven't answered my question about our nations veterans who have fallen on hard times and are taking from all you hard workers out there".
Lets not talk about answering questions, you of all people. I asked you on two previous occasions when did you serve, what years were you in Vietnam, what unit were you with,what operations did you take part in, what area were you in, I corp. 2 corp. 3 corp.,? how about the battalion, company, platoon. In my opinion up to this point you disgrace the people who died there.
Walter Mitty seem to ring a bell?
I don't think our veterans should BE on food stamps, section 8, welfare or any of that. My opinion is there should be something different for them to ensure that they are taken care of. If I were a Vet I would feel like crap to have fought for my country only to lower myself to be on food stamps and welfare. I would call it something different and I would make the criteria different - because they ARE different.
I don't think you can compare an American Veteran with some of the scuzballs that work the system every which way and smoke, drink, don't work - but have a giant screen tv and a fridge full of beer who are nothing more than low life scuz. And to those who have bleeding hearts - wake up...there are a lot more of the latter than you think!
I feel you fight for our country because you believe in protecting what we believe in. If your objective was anything else shame on you.
tried popcorn, then beer. Now I need to go to the liqueur store to get something stronger...
Ideology is the key - some people tend to be always helped by others (read workers comp fraudulent claims, food stamps, 8-th section housing, and the like) and it's a norm to them. The number of these people is increasing. This ideology also applies to the problem with elderly folks without help from their offsprings...
Endless topic...
Pyc Welfare/foodstamps/etc. exist because we, as a people, elected to have a fund to help others when needed, temporarily, or when circumstances resulted in an inability to attain the basic needs... the IDEA of these government support systems is valid.. as a child, my dad, who had just started a new job, and was, thus, between insurances due to the requirement that he be at his new job for three months before being eligible for insurance, broke his leg. As an auto mechanic with five children, who worked seven days a week to support his household, being out of work was a disaster. The state we lived in had an "emergency medical benefits" system, which stepped in and provided his medical care and allowed for our family to temporarily receive welfare benefits, food stamps and the wonderful "surplus food" that was given out - (I actually loved the peanut butter, it was "natural" with no added sugar/salt!!). This allowed him to recover, and six months later he was back to work and no longer needed assistance. Had this not been available, we might have lost the house and been in dire straits. THAT is what these programs can do - help hardworking families who run into overwhelming circumstances, and help those unable to work for medical reasons. I completely agree, though, that there are those whose "job" is to be on disability/welfare/foodstamps. I have worked since I was 12 - put myself through advanced education, while working and it infuriates me to hear of and/or meet folks like this - and I do know some personally. Women on welfare who have children at just the right number of years apart so that they are not required to work really upset me - why do they get to stay home full-time with their kids while most families require two incomes in order to survive?? I suspect, however, that the numbers of people taking advantage of the system are not as great as reported. There are requirements for work/work training, and I have also met a goodly number of families who receive benefits temporarily with the goal of becoming self-supporting. I just wish that there were better means to regulate benefits - I don't think that drug testing would do much - though I appreciate the sentiment.
pmnsk Remember Ignatz, he was drafted. He went because he was forced to, not because he wanted to. Either that or go to jail. It had nothing to do with love of America. He's a bragger, nothing else. Not all draftees are like him. He is the only veteran I know who brags and brags about what he did in Vietnam. I have never NEVER heard any other vet carry on the way he does. Men like him are why I am dead set against the draft. I want men or women to freely volunteer to serve our country and protect it. Freely volunteer to protect our God given right to freedom. Volunteer for love of America and keep us ALL safe from harm. I have 9 veterans (4 draftees, 5 enlisted) in my family and none of them act like that. And I personally know hundreds of vets, and none, NONE of them brag. I do however agree with one thing. All of our vets need and should be treated better by our Government.
auntiel Oldred I'm sorry I struck a nerve with you. I never singled out Veterans, you did. And btw in case it matters to you I tried to enlist but failed the physical. I also grew up in basking ridge walking distance to the Lyons VA hospital and volunteered there from age 14-17. No doubt some Veterans suffered when they got back. I still remember certain patients we had to subdue every July when the VA had fireworks because the sound would cause flashbacks.
So to officially answer your question, I think Veterans should be treated differently then the general public. Programs such as training, job placement should be in place for those who served so they are not depended on welfare, food stamps, section 8. It would be great if states set aside housing solely for veterans were required to hire certain % of veterans
I hope I addressed your concern
Ignatz Don't forget some of us were drafted. In my case being blind in one eye. It was not by choice but we served our time. Volunteer's deserve special treatment. IMO
How can you be drafted being blind in one eye?!?!?! Serious question, please, do tell!
I was Drafted to report on a certain date. In the mean time I had an accident and lost my eye. They gave me a 6 month deferment to heal and drafted me anyway. I was a warm body and didn't have to wink to shoot.
JR, I just thought of another story of fellow in my Company with one leg shorter than the other. We called him stump jumper. He could hardly run. Each draft board. Had a section with a number to fill from an area. Some times you got the short stick because of numbers. Another fellow was one of seven kids. The first thing the army did was pull all his teeth they were so bad.
WOW... draft requirements must have changed since WWII.... my dad tried to enlist before WWII had even started (he just wanted to get away from home), and they wouldn't take him because he was too skinny- didn't weight enough. He was told to eat bananas and drink bacon grease to gain weight. He did it- went back- and still wasn't heavy enough, but they let him in anyway (faked his weight on the form)...
Now, I realize there wasn't a war on at that time, but this was 6 months before Pearl Harbor... you would think they knew something was coming, with the war in Europe already in full swing. I'm truly shocked that you were drafted, and the guy with the short leg.
I think my mistake was doing to well on the pre tests. In basic training I was first in final testing and got a 4 day pass. My Sargent was wounded and on R & R from Korea. I figured this stuff may save my life some day and took it seriously. Like everything in life, who you know helped with draft boards. I know a young fellow that just graduated High School and all he wanted to do was be a Marine. You wouldn't believe all the testing of all kinds that he went through to even be accepted for training. That's why I respect todays volunteer's.
For those who think they "paid into" the system and that's "their money" they are "getting back"...
http://blog.heritage.org/2014/04/11/washington-post-op-ed-didnt-pay-shes-right/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social
It is their money, and it is not, that is the problem. First, the funds are not depleted. We are running in the red (shelling out more than we take in) but there are still funds in the kitty from our contributions and previous generations. And last year was actually a better year than most, we even took in more SS than we spent. However, we still run in the red each year for most of the accounts.
First, these are "insurance" funds and like all insurance, there can be winners (live long and prosper) and losers (die young, stay pretty, and thank you for your donation). You pay in for your entire working life in order to take out for your entire retired life; it's a gamble (like any form of insurance) as to how that will work out.
Problem is that the system has become unbalanced since we live longer and we have rampant inflation for medical goods and services. So the gamble has become clearly against the house.
So we need to fix the system, make the house solvent again, and, indeed, younger, healthier, folks will pay more. Why? Because we live longer and there is rampant inflation for medical goods and services so the "insurance" to cover those has to get more expensive. It's more that than ---- young people must pay more to cover those old folks. No, it's more like, young people need to pay more to cover themselves due to rising costs and longer lives.
The fixes:
- Pay more
- Work to lower price for medical, at least lower the inflation
- Get less
- Reduce any fraud or stealing
By get less I allude to things like means testing, later start times, etc.
We have some time on SS, Medicare is really hurting now. In general, we have been paying more in than getting for SS for a number of years so SS funds might last till 2033. We only started running in the red in 2010, last year I don't think we were in the red for that year but generally in SS, more and more get more out than they paid in. Just not as an immediate danger as Medicare. Medicare is basically on life support today and while it should last till 2026, the erosion rate is growing rapidly. This fund needs re-engineering ASAP.
http://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/
mistergoogle JR, I wonder if those figures count the employer contribution as well as the employee. Also what rate of return are they basing it on?
Joe M MG - Social Security is a gamble, and I wish I could leave the poker table.
Go ahead and keep the money I've "lost" so far, but quit making me go all-in. I could personally find much better insurance providers for my 6.2%.
No idea. But the whole point is, really, that it's been a ponzi scheme from the beginning. Especially with people having fewer and fewer children, the entire system is doomed to fail. Those who think they put in x-amount of dollars and get back their x-amunt of dollars, are incorrect. Most people get back more than they ever paid in, when considering all the funds (SS, DI, Medicare, etc)
And I'm not sure if all the money goes into the general fund, but I have always heard the SS money DOES go into the general fund, and can be spent by DC lawmakers, who put an "IOU" in it's place.... and IOU that never gets paid.
It's an unmitigated disaster.
I just a read a scary article about the devaluation of the american dollar over the past one hundred years. Basically, we have a dollar that is becoming worth less and less and other countries turning to the Euro now. As the dollar loses it's worth, people in the US become poorer and poorer. The amount of food stamps and government programs is going to increase because people are not going to be able to afford the inflation of the American dollar. My work requires me to go in people's homes and the people that are living on SS and welfare, that do not have side jobs, are really struggling. I think that we often see people exploiting the system and assume that everyone is. Anyone that is living solely on government programs is barely surviving.
JMC "but there are still funds in the kitty from our contributions and previous generations."
Actually, there are only Treasury Bonds in the kitty - no actual funds. When SS dips into the kitty they need to first *sell* those bonds back to the US government, which we all know doesn't have the money itself, who then borrows from the Fed to get the cash. IOW, keeping the SS system going is really about additional federal borrowing to get the actual funds. At this point in the game, the reality is that SS is generating additional Federal debt regardless of what the books say.
Remember my story , that back in High school I said it was a ponzi scheme and was Poo,Poed, LBJ stole it for his great society. Looks like the IOU's are worth less.
Keep the presses rolling, It's only paper.
Wow, interesting points in a very muddy area.
JIT --- you're right, you're wrong and often very close.
Ponzi scheme, not really. A Ponzi's main point is that you are paying something for nothing. The second point is to keep the Ponzi afloat, you take incoming money and disperse it as if it was profit, dividends or interest. The only similarity is that our entitlements are indeed a pay-it-forward intergenerational insurance program but hardly paying something for nothing. A better description: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/is-social-security-a-ponzi-scheme/2011/08/25/gIQA2t0dcL_blog.html
Where does the SS inputs get invested? Not exactly given to lawmakers to spend as they will. Social security funds are put basically into T-bills. So we invest it in our self so you are kinda right that lawmakers take a loan from Social Security just like they would from China to fund our budget (if loans are needed which they seem to always be). For SS, or any investor, Treasuries are about as safe an investment as exists in the world. As for Mark, who says he can do better, I really doubt you can find a safer investment that returned 3.79% in 2013 (key word being safer) like we got on our SS Treasuries (if is that high because we have been buying them for a number of years) or a better, more efficient, insurer. Yes you can find fraud but insurers don't post their dirty laundry and their costs of doing business are much higher. As to the risk of investing all our SS into ourselves, yes, there is a dark side but I will let JIT take that one on --- it's long. But the risk is not the return nor basic security of the investment. It's trickier.
As to the devaluation of the dollar, again I will let JIT take on the general topic, he has taught me much there, but in regard to SS, at 3.79% interest our investment is staying ahead of inflation so it's basically ahead of valuation fluctuations. And no way is the Euro better, safer, or even in the same ball park. No way.
Back to JR's conclusion that we are taking out more than we put in. That's the definition of running in the red so yes. For SS, the first time this occurred was just a couple of years ago and we ran in the black, I think, last year. But you have to think about it: when we started SS, we began payments to retirees before those retirees ever paid one dollar into the system. That's gonna put you in a deep hole to begin with, so in the early years of course you got more than you paid. So we have mostly been paying it forward from the very beginning. However, for SS, today, on average you get less than you paid in. Medicare is a different kettle of fish and in the red enough that combined, the two funds are in the red.
Here's the short form description: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/feb/01/medicare-and-social-security-what-you-paid-what-yo/ . You can go to the source for the detailed view.
So like I said, we need to re-engineer these programs and no way about it: we will pay more and get less. That's the cost of living longer and hyper-inflation for medical services. We're not going to shorten our lives, if we can help it. We can work on healthcare costs, and ObamaCare is not an answer for cost reduction. But even if wildly successful, we will still pay more and get less. That's the nature of insurance given those changes in the equation.
Still, the programs have been wildly successful and I believe they can be re-engineered to serve us in the future once Washington quits using them as a political poker chip. I don't see privatization or any other alternative as being a better process to provide a basic safety net for our retirees.
PS -- agree 100% with JMC that these programs are safety nets and anybody who expects to live the good life solely on them is smoking something.
So misterg, you say I'm wrong but then agree with what I wrote? How do you figure that one?
From what I know, there's not an incorrect word in my post about SS. If there is, please point it out.
What I said is that in order to make SS payments the SS fund must sell treasuries. Do you disagree? If so, please explain.
I then said that in order for the US government to buy those treasury bonds from SS the US government must then sell some to the Federal Reserve to get the actual cash for SS recipients (because the US is still "in the red" running deficits and still borrowing money every year just to keep the government going). Given the current economic environment, the US must take on MORE federal debt just to make SS payments. Do you disagree? If so, why?
Note I'm not talking about interest rates, value of the dollar, or "the full faith and credit of the United States". I'm talking very simply about what must happen for all SS recipients to get their checks. Today.
On a slight tangent, I've mentioned this before but I'll do so again to continue the point. When the debt ceiling crisis was going on a few years ago, what was it that our President said would happen if the debt ceiling were not raised? He said SS recipients would NOT get their checks. How could that possibly be unless my assessment is correct?
SS was going broke in Reagans term. Till that time I qualified for top money. Since he raised the donation limit I never was close again.
JMC, you've begun talking about a really big subject. It's been discussed here before - see here for a decent sample:
http://www.hackettstownlife.com/forum/362891#t363740
The entire thread was a good one, read through it if you have time. Then google the site for Federal Reserve for some other threads (some good/ some bad).
over the last 100 years gold was better than these paper investment instruments that have eroded in value over the generations,
paper money is cheapened by inflation, gold had done well holding it's relative value better over the same time period (last 100 years)
They are reengineering by trying to go after the siblings of dead parents that were over paid. You know in my day the government could force me, a man, to contribute to my parents care, if they received public ascendance up till I was 50 years old. Thank goodness My parents survived, but In my cousins family the kids never talked again when the Daughter would not help voluntarily. She was single and sure capable.
What I find scariest about all of this, all of our opposing points aside (altho many of our opposing points aren't as opposing as the used to be, as we all learn more)...
This system IS doomed to failure. One day, people will not get their checks. Then what? Seriously- it's not a light matter; if people don;t get their checks, and the dollar and/or US currency is basically worthless, that would mean food stamps and other public assistance becomes virtually worthless. Then what?
There's going to be millions of pissed-off, desperate, armed, people. Forgive me for think so far into the future on this one, I'm not really concerned whether *I* will get any SS by the time I retire, I'm concerned whether we will have a functioning country by then, or what it might have turned into. The recent Nevada ranch standoff has shown, at least somewhat, when you get the people pissed off enough at the government (regardless who was right or wrong, and to what degree)- what can happen... imagine if these people's means of their very SURVIVAL stopped. Those who depend on the govt for their livelihood are going to be EVEN MADDER than than rest of us when the well runs dry. And left unchecked, this well will most definitely run dry.
We can only delay the inevitable for so long. And I (and millions of others) are against the old saw "raise taxes to fix it", when we see how the corruption and mismanagement of funds is what helped get us here in the first place. On many levels, with many issues, the days where the people "will have had enough" seem to be fast approaching.
The more people learn how corrupt their govt is, the less chance there will be of a peaceable solution. At a point, you go from the MLK method (talk, civil disobedience), to the Continental Congress' method: war. I know some of you think I'm crazy for even considering such a thing could happen, but after this Nevada thing... I'm more convinced than ever: that could have very easily turned into Lexington & Concord. If the BLM had fired a shot, it would have been an all-out battle. And once citizens start getting killed by govt (regardless of who's right or wrong), all hell is going to break loose.
After reading more about the Nevada thing, and seeing that even tho Bundy is a bit of a wack job (I really don't full understand where he's coming from), the govt handled the situation poorly- right up until they pulled out, which was the RIGHT decision. I kept thinking about Capt. John Parker at the battle of Lexington (the "shot heard round the world")...
"Stand you ground. Do not fire unless fired upon. But if they mean to have a war, let it begin here."
One shot will be all it takes. Once that pot boils over, there's no getting the water back into it.
(sorry for the tangent; my point is, this stuff REALLY needs to get fixed ASAP- SS, the Debt, the militarization of our police forces, govt corruption, all of it.... because the water is getting near the boil)
"If the BLM had fired a shot, it would have been an all-out battle." Would of happened if one of the 60 armed civilians on horseback parading around fired one too.
I actually agree that it could be kind of like L&C since what was really a little gunplay ultimately forced a major war although not quite in an immediate or linear fashion. L&C did not force the CC to declare war; the CC actually responded with yet another wimpy proposition for peace through representation to the King, the ole Olive Branch Petition that professed our loyalty to the English system of government. The King rejected it and basically said "hang the perpetrators." THAT forced the CC to prepare for and declare war. Why not, they were going to be hanged anyway. Point is that we were really in a box before we declared war and tried everything to avoid it even after guns were fired after L&C.
The point is I agree that a loose shot would cause a bunch of useless deaths with far reaching effects. But would it be the end of it all or would we just kill some innocents, confiscate his property, and resolve any criminal actions by either side in court?
Yes there are millions of guns and lots of pissed off people. It's some rough economic times which fuels the need for scapegoats and boogeymen. Picking an evil target as the reason for our ills versus admitting that we all are in this together and we are all the combined reason for our status is always a convenient emotional release versus doing the hard work of rolling up our sleeves and getting it done. We scapegoat the government, unions, teachers, welfare recipients, the rich, the corporations and basically anyone we see as causing our pain. And indeed there is much to be worked on and government is not working; Congress, for example, has been asleep, on purpose, for over three years.
But we are a nation of laws and hopefully will retain that even if and when violence does become the purposeful or accidental temporary solution to our pain.
But Social Security and Medicare are fixable, can be re-engineered to work, and we need some sort of safety net for our seniors. No one has proffered a better solution.
In honor of TAX DAY: where your money is going
(I cannot vouch for the accuracy of it, as everyone and their brother has their own spun numbers for this sort of thing, but I'll bet it's close.)
JR: it depends on the inputs. If the inputs are Federal Income Tax dollars, then no.
If the inputs are your payroll taxes and income tax, then yes. (given the same caveats you just put on it.)
In my mistergoogle fashion, here is the long form: http://www.cnbc.com/id/101581525
I wonder what, EXACTLY, "treasury" means in the chart on the CNBC link?
Otherwise, the pic I posted appears pretty accurate, with roughly 50% of every dollar going to entitlement programs.
Yup it does.
To one extent that's a good thing that most of our tax dollars go directly to helping senior citizens get food, heat, shelter, and heath.
Am I wrong?
To better understand the picture, you need to look at the inputs (see picture). Against the 49% entitlement (actually not all the entitlements, just SS and Health (Medicare, etc.), is 34% incoming from payroll tax. Thus the issue really is the 15% which is currently due to Medicare, not Social Security. So that's the 800-lb gorilla on the table that needs re-engineering ---- now. SS is still in the hallway waiting to come in and actually was in the "black" last year. (Source: OMB, National Priorities Project)
Defense is the other magilla on the table at 18% (which is way understated when you consider all the other quasi-defense dollars like the "aid" money we give to Israel and other countries that is turned into guns and bullets and sure looks like defense) and when viewed against the income tax dollars coming in where it is budgeted from, it's really huge.
But wait ---- there's more. At the NJ level, we pay the second highest state tax in the nation. Only NY beats us by .3%. We also put in the second highest amount, on average, of all the states to the Fed under Federal Income taxes at about $6,550 per family. Now I wouldn't mind paying if my mass transit was like Disney, my roads were like glass without tolls and tie ups, and criminals were always caught in the act :>)
So now, all of a sudden, the majority of people receiving "entitlements" are the poor seniors? When did that happen? Convenient how you leave out all of the welfare recipients (and all the entitlements that go along with that.)
Characterizing the "entitlement" population as poor old decrepit seniors who need our help is beyond propaganda, bordering on untruth.
ah, the BLM... such wonderful "stewards" of the land....
http://www.examiner.com/article/report-blm-destroyed-tortoise-den-shot-prize-bulls-destroyed-water-tanks
Jr says: "So now, all of a sudden, the majority of people receiving "entitlements" are the poor seniors? When did that happen? Convenient how you leave out all of the welfare recipients (and all the entitlements that go along with that.)"
Uh.... it's your dollar bill graphic (well probably it's the Heritage Foundation's if you had sourced it correctly, ahem), that talks about SS and Healthcare as adding up to 49% which you conveniently coined as entitlements . On the dollar bill, welfare and other entitlements are hidden under the other categories. So I think the convenience was yours.
But yes, most of the entitlements are from payroll taxes and most go to seniors because the BIG numbers are SS (vastly senior) and Medicare (mostly senior) So sorry, but true since those numbers dwarf the other entitlements you like to harp on about.
But if it helps, food stamp and housing assistance are probably around 3%; unemployment insurance about 2% ---- so not really whoppers against the gorillas we have been talking about. In terms of Defense dollars that's probably just a couple of tanks, a covy of stealth bombers, a monthly check to Karzai, and a Pentagon ashtray :>)
Hope that clarifies your post :>)
The graphic appeared here (probably elsewhere as well)
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-04-18/18-stats-prove-government-dependence-has-reached-epidemic-levels
Even if the data points are off 25% the trend is still quite disturbing.
The real gorilla in the room is not recognizing *why* there are sooooooooo many of us that need assistance in the first place and that simply finding more and more creative ways to pay for that assistance is not the answer.
As a society we continue to look for quick, easy, palatable band aide solutions because they make us feel good. What about the root causes, the reasons why so much assistance needs to be given? Not addressing the true problems and simply voting over and over again to "borrow money into existence" or to further tax everyone in ever-more creative ways just to paper over our problems is a serious issue for our national psyche.
"Throwing more money at the problem" hasn't helped yet... so I don't know how throwing EVEN MORE money at it is going to help either. As JIT says, the problem isn't that we don't have enough money (and need to raise taxes to generate more money to pay for it all), it's that the bill has gotten SO DAMNED HIGH. It's about time we stop treating the SYMPTOM (not enough entitlement funds) and start addressing the INJURY (too many people on entitlements, and WHY that is).
and no- I'm not saying "kick everybody off the entitlement programs"... but obviously the trend of growing entitlements cannot be sustained, nor should it be- we should be cutting spending, repairing the economy and the dollar, increasing jobs (substantially), so people can actually get off entitlements.
After 6 years, it's clear the current administration's plans for "fixing America" aren't working- with more people on entitlement programs than ever in history, and economy that isn't improving (at least not significantly).
For a guy who does not like to spread fear and loathing......
Yes I think everyone can agree Medicare needs resuscitation ASAP and that SS will need help shortly. And yes, as more people grow older, live longer, and health care costs continue to exceed inflation rates by miles, people will need to pay more.
But to not expect government payouts, government borrowing, etc. to increase a lot during the greatest recession since the great depression seems silly versus asking what would have happened if we didn't do what we did.
And to concept of "riddled" with fraud is numerically incorrect. Yes there is fraud, yes we should attack it, but riddled --- hardly. Big numbers I am sure, but we probably suffered more fraud during the war in Iraq.
Trend is disturbing? Is it disturbing that people live longer, that medicine to cure ills is better? To me, the root cause of the trend is good news, the disturbing part is the inability of Congress to take action to re-engineer these systems. One side says don't touch, the other says destroy. Neither are good answers.
Social Security was in the black with last years payments; needs tweaking but seems workable. Medicare is broken and needs massive re-engineering now plus if we don't tackle health care inflation as the root cause, we will never fix this one. Welfare at the Federal Level is a 3% budget item, when using the dollar bill version that includes payroll taxes and programs. UI is about 2% but some of that is payroll supported too.
I think also your post MAY include a bit of a mismatch of State and Fed; the Sessions CRS report is the basis for some and it alludes to State outlays but does not include State taxes for some of its ascertains.
Unprecedented government spending to help those hurt by recession? Not really. We just went through the largest recession since the Great Depression which was 1929 - 1939. Before the Great Depression Coolidge and Hoover kept government spending and programs very low, one of the reasons we went so deep into depression. As the Depression continued, low and behold government spending skyrocketed (see chart). So seen it, felt it, been there before. And they were not fighting all those wars that we have been, and while tapering off, continue to do so. Funny how the fear and loathing piece left out defense spending which not only is HUGE, but much of the wars were OFF the books, i.e. not budgeted nor any spending controls whatsoever. Buy hey, they're saving our freedom, let's look at the welfare rats and old folks.
To me the point is: we are living longer, we are inventing more cures to help us live longer, healthier lives ------ we need to re-engineer programs that support that, i.e. SS and Medicare to fit this new paradigm.
So sure, fix the fraud, reduce the 80-plus programs, simplify and streamline the system. But don't scare me with how HUGE welfare is and how "RIDDLED" it is with fraud cuz it just ain't so. And if the author (not JIT) is going to throw fear and loathing, then look at the big picture, the root cause and suggest some remediation's.
JR, it's not even the administration that's at fault. It's the fault of our monetary system that every politician leverages so that they *can* take the easy way out of any problem by easily papering it over. Remember, every administration since Nixon has increased our borrowing in the name of economic growth. The trend is clear and undeniable.
And just what is it that prevents our economic system from crashing? Economic growth (or more simply, continually creating more debt to be able to pay the interest on previous debts - something that must happen in a debt-based economy). The question then becomes how to keep growing while not allowing debt to consume us? That's where the politicians have screwed us, by exercising limited or no restraint. The last several years the private sector economy crashed, so in order to save the economy the government more or less had no choice but to step in and take over a significant portion of GDP to compensate. Personally, I'd rather we had a crash and dealt with it instead of perpetuating a system that, by mathematical design, must inherently fail.
As an example, it was predicted that Obama will, at the end of his term, have added more to our national debt than any one single president before him - combined. Time will tell if that proves to be true, but consider that the same thing can almost be said about Bush. IOW, the trends are leading us in one and only one direction.
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/FYGFD
The real question is how can that be controlled to be kept beneficial for the average citizen rather than the top 1%?
It's not the fault of Obama or Bush or Clinton or Reagan. It's all of them. It's all of us.
jobs, jobs, jobs, where are the good paying jobs?
not enough to go around, that's why
+1 JIT
Personally, I'd rather we had a crash and dealt with it instead of perpetuating a system that, by mathematical design, must inherently fail.
Saving jobs was just a way to buy votes. Certianly not for the good of the country. Free market is taking a chance. There are winners and loosers.
Yeah, take the crash. Do you even realize what would have crashed?
The dollar for one.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2010/07/stimulus_0
misterg, so percentages are to be ignored, especially when the clear trend is that the percentages have been increasing with barely a blip to show any kind of reversal?
I get your perspective, I really do. You want to use the government to "make things right". In fact, you leave the impression that the only solution you know is to throw the force of government at problems. Seriously though, every data point in aggregate correlates with the ever-increasing trends I point out regularly. How can you be so dismissive of them? The trends won't change just because you want them to, will they? It requires some sort of corrective action to abate the trends. What you continually propose is the opposite - to keep the trends going, escalating them in fact.
All in all, I truly believe that you don't think the "solutions" you push for are harmful or contribute to our problems. Yet the correlation is there. Can you really deny that?
We're at a point in our history where we need to correct the imbalances, which I think you agree are immense. Doing more of the same only pushes us farther up the curve, further away from the "lower pain" solutions, with absolutely zero stabilizing effects. In fact, the more we escalate the more "assistance" is needed to keep our economic system going. That's what the trends are screaming misterg. They really are.
Take the Dow Jones for instance. It's great that it keeps going up, taking our 401k's with it.
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/DJIA
(chart to be removed on April 25th, 2014)
Selecting the MAX time frame and take a look at what our generation is accustomed to. Of course no one wants that party to end! But how is that possible? What's been driving the upward trend in the DOW? What's been driving GDP? Heck, what's been driving the upward trend in everything?
Debt. Loads and loads of debt. Why is it difficult to accept that at some point we are going to look at that debt and just say no, we're not going to take it any more.
It's already happening, as you know, and can be seen yearly it seems whenever there is a discussion about the debt ceiling. Add in credit card debt, student loan debt, auto debt, mortgage debt, and the like and at some point more people will ask the question: Are we really more wealthy or is it just a temporary situation where we are borrowing for today and pushing the costs onto the backs of the generations to follow?
Honestly misterg, I think you already know the answer but, like the rest of us, don't want to know the consequences that must come from it. Thus the desire to "keep the party going". At all costs, apparently, even if it means the consequences come later and will be even more severe.
So what is your answer JIT? So far you have only said in this thread that the trends are bad so let it crash. Got any other ideas? Because to just say that entitlements, other government programs, and even the DOW are as perennially harmful as you believe is just not historically accurate.
YES, I do think a system of insurance for old age where you pay-in during younger years and take out during your declining years makes sense and YES, I want to see the government control it because I trust them more than a business-for-profit model in this case. Got a better idea, or any idea for replacement or should we just let it crash?
Same for Medicare except here we have comparative studies that shows the government is better than the free-market in managing the system.
I am not dismissive of the issues with SS and Medicare; I do not believe we need to escalate the current problems, of course fraud should be punished. I have said we need re-engineering on these systems and next generations will end up paying more. Why --- because they live longer and population growth is tapering. Most people know that re-engineering means less whether through means-testing, later payout dates, etc. But until I see you and anyone else come up with a better, viable solution, YES, I think "let it crash" is a grim solution that is not socially viable and will cause unnecessary pain to individuals, if not our entire economy at a macro level.
And YES, I do think a welfare system of providing assistance, as in a hand-up not a hand-out is a good idea especially in times of economic distress. Got a better idea or just let them hit the bricks or go to Church?
Do we have systemic problems, the debt through constant borrowing being one of the biggest. You betcha. Not only did we need to borrow our way through the recession but as you note, we have been borrowing wildly since Reagan. Should we never run a debt? Of course it's OK to run debt at times. Should we measure debt in a lump sum as most of your laments do and then talk about the beauty of percentages while showing a Dow Jones chart for total market values, not percentages. Hmmm. Actually I think you know that my preferred measurement for debt-risk is debt as a percentage of GNP, not aggregate debt which is somewhat meaningless as a metric. And yes, that percentage is way bad right now, almost as bad as after WWII where, as you know, I have repeatedly said it will take us 35-years or so of hard work to get to a reasonable debt level. We need hard work from Congress and the people who elect people to Congress. It would be nice to get started because I, for one, am tired of hearing that borrowing is down because we are borrowing less than last year.
And yes, I do think our problems are grand, and the time to begin to fix is now, but I do not agree that the answer is let it crash but instead I think our systems that have served us well for decades for are mostly fixable through re-engineering. Social Security inputs started in 1937, first payments in 1940 ---- you want to let a 74-year old success crash or do you have a better solution? Medicare started in 1966 --- you want to let a 48-year old working system crash or do you have a better solution? Our welfare state started in 1930, crash or alternative solution?
And as far as the DOW, and 401's, while I agree that there's an imbalance in investment availability, this is a light-years different issue than entitlements so not sure where you're coming from there except the specter of doom scenario. Instead of doom, I see problems and opportunities to fix said problems within the general structure of the current systems. What replacements do you suggest or is it time we let it crash and "roll our own?"
"As a society we continue to look for quick, easy, palatable band aide solutions because they make us feel good. What about the root causes, the reasons why so much assistance needs to be given?" - JIT, above.
How about a possible root cause that, if true, will make us feel really bad? Here's one:
In nature, we have "natural selection". Darwin introduced us to this. To put an American spin on this, Abraham Lincoln, in describing the frontier region where he grew up, said, "the Lord spared the fitten and the rest He seen fitten to let die."
What if, by sparing everyone we can through aid, over time more and more cannot survive without it? Until there is inevitably a cataclysm of some kind?
Do we feel bad now? Maybe this is nonsense?
Misterg, the first step in fixing any problem is recognition. Wouldn't you agree?
All I've been doing is trying to bring recognition of the true nature of our problems to the forefront. I've said all along that I don't have the answers, but I've also said that I rarely see anyone discussing the real issues. Instead, most people want to discuss surface or tangential issues, or just deal with the symptoms of the larger problem.
The only doom and gloom here is the lack of recognition of reality. Your choice is to "fix" what we already have, which is perfectly fine. But why get upset when I remind you that the "solutions" have only made the underlying system worse? You know they have, and you freely admit that you only hope that everything will turn around. What does that mean, anyway, turning things around? It means growth through more borrowing (specifically in the private sector). That's it, in a nutshell. BTW, who "wins" when borrowing increases? the top 1%, of course. But that's for another discussion.
And the trends I post don't indicate why they continue, only that they have. I've also said that the trends must continue just to sustain the current system, so it makes sense that the government picked up the "slack" during the last several years. If it hadn't done so things would definitely been different today.
This isn't 1933. The built-in restraint system of a gold backed currency is no longer with us (we have NO restraint system at all today). And as you remind us every so often, we've never been here before and therefore today has no direct bearing on what has happened previously. Which is precisely why I say to look at the trends, to see the direction we're headed.
jd2, I am in no way saying to disband our systems of support. But is it wrong to point out the levels of support we see today, the fact that our support systems take fully 69% or so of our national budget Like I said, I don't pretend to have the answers but I would like to see a dialog that results in those answers. The national dialog IMO isn't even scratching the surface - all we seem to do is bash each other for not adhering to our "teams" views.
JIT, I wasn't taking issue with anything you said. I was just alluding to a possible "root cause" which no one, including me, would like to be true, since it has no acceptable solution.
Oh thank goodness JD2; I was going to bring up timing, you know Easter et al.
JIT: Yes, I agree that to fix a problem you need to recognize it, ahem. To say I have picked the wrong problems, am not discussing the real issues, or I am just dealing with assumptions and therefore lacking the recognition of reality is both presumptuous as to your own perfection and just tacky as to targeting my potential imperfections. In other words, a high brow low blow.
So you have got some bad trends, you can't see solutions, you actually don't want to let everything fall apart, you would have been willing to let the economy crash in 2008 for the sake of saving it, and you feel the gold standard embraces self-restraint. Besides the trends and not wanting everything fall apart where we agree ---- sure, I can't agree with you on much else nor do I think your structural fixes would cure all ills. For example, the individual pain with letting it crash in 2008 probably would have seized the entire world economy putting us in an economic black death which would have been far worse than capitalizing on our good credit and taking a loan to float us through. Personally I think we saved the world and now we need to fix that. For example, the Gold Standard, IMHO, is much more risky than our fiat monetary system. I applaud Nixon's bravery and foresight.
At one point you also merge our household debt trend with the specter of Federal debt trend as if they are in the same place and share the same trends. Well, we all know where the Federal debt is. But household debt has been going down since 2008 and only in the 3Q2013 did a rise matching all the way back to 3Q2007 in percentage growth and still ending at 9% under our 2008 debt totals. Apparently the trend for household debt is different than Federal debt and people have been lowering debt not raising.
And when you say "trends," I tried to indicate that recent "trends" in SS and Medicare not only are different from each other, but given SS's incredible long history of success, which would have started by definition on a negative trend, ----> I think this alone bucks your gloom and doom about fixing things.
Sure the aging and medical inflation issues are affecting both Medicare and SS, but I still say they are fixable, they are not necessarily "debt machines," and we just need to re-engineer. Unlike you, I think I have a workable solution.
Yes, I agree the national debt is bad both in aggregate (your favorite metric), and as a percentage of GNP (my favorite metric); and as you point out, no one has bucked this trend beyond a few --- "but we are lowering the yearly increase." I do not believe that all debt is evil, but at this point, IMHO, adding national debt is evil given the debt's current load. So on this one we agree. And I fear the people voted to resolve this problem have failed miserably. But the answer is not slash n burn, not a balanced budget amendment (except perhaps for a few years to get us started), but to continue the reduction in debt increase with a healthy target for achieving a balanced budget.
Likewise, I found the Sequester to be a great start and if makes me cry to see both sides, having passed it, blaming the other for the results and continuing the chip away at the cuts. A pox on them.
So we have some agreement, but mostly not and I bristle at your admonishing me and others for having a lack of reality.
No admonishment misterg. Perspective. I don't know how else to say it, except that I've been asking an intelligent poster to take a step back and open his mind to view things from a wider perspective. I can't do it for you ya know.
As for the rest of what you wrote, the one and only answer continues to be to watch the trends - in ALL aspects of our society, not just those you wish to pick and choose.
To put this as simply and as direct as possible, it's my opinion that our collective mindset (yours in particular, which happens to coincide very nicely with the majority view of our society today) has been driving the ever-increasing trends. You see "loose" policy as not only right, but as the only possible way to get what you want (hint - the reason for our differing perspectives IMO), and you view any type of restraint as evil, viewing those who push restraint as an option as evil-doers. Stop it, OK? We're all on the same side here.
Can you honestly look at all the trends I've pointed out (especially concerning our debt based economic system) and see a way to change them for the better? I don't, because the very basis of our economy is debt. Ignoring that fact means ignoring potential solutions. No matter how you feel about this, we're on a trajectory that is mathematically unsustainable unless something changes in the underlying system - the very system no one wants to talk about. I'm sure you'll take solace in the fact that the system may end after you've departed this world, but what kind of people are we if we are that irresponsible to those who come after us?
This is all very frustrating. We've been playing the game the way you want misterg and where are we now and what direction are we headed? The trends tell us where we are, of course. The very trends you always want to ignore.
Happy Easter.
Societal collapse is where we are headed. I can't see any other resolution. You can only tax people so much (to "fix" the problem"), and then THAT ALSO becomes a CAUSE of societal collapse.
IDK when it will happen, but the hole we have dug seems to me to be too large to climb our way out of, unscathed, at this point.
Atlas seems to be poised to shrug, imo.
Amazing how you always start on a happy note and then proceed to a "I'm right, you're wrong" section sprinkled with little jabs like: "step back and open his mind."
Fact is again, yes I see the debt as bad. Yes, it has been bad for years and there is little sign that either party wants to fix it. Not sure if it will pass to later generations or we will pass before that; it's bad.
Most of the rest of what you are saying is poppycock. I do not favor "loose" policy, who would ever concede to that point and your characterizing it as such is ludicrous. I do not "pick and choose" trends any more than you do and certainly don't mistake household debt for federal debt and conclude the trends are the same. I do not view restraint as evil, I think I have been pretty clear about the need for federal debt restraint, nor would I characterize folks arguing for restraint as evil.
And I have been talking about changes to the underlying system, I just don't agree with the drastic measures of "letting it crash" and return to the gold standard as viable solutions. On both I do not see many agreeing with you, and most disagreeing.
So personally, I do not think you are always right and I am always wrong. Nor the opposite. And I do think my solutions are workable versus your pandering to the fear and loathing of unsustainable trends backed by little in the way of hope, solutions or remedies.
The prisoners, get three hots and a cot,free medical, education,and any operation they need covered by medical.So when things get real bad,have a family bank robbery,and the whole family is covered!See how simple it is.Oh yeah, we pay for that,but , but ,enough said !
Lobo I said "Happy" Easter misterg, not "miserable" Easter. ;-)
I do believe that you should go back and read everything you've written here on HL as that is the only way I (and others) can conceive what you think. Your written history serves as the record here dude, so I don't know how you think you can get away with distorting the truth about your "true conservatism" when in fact the exact opposite is (and has been since you've been posting) true based soley on the solutions you propose.
No matter. My standard response is "see the trends". Nothing else to say, really.
Have a nice day, spend it with the family instead of here on HL.
Commenting is no longer available.