OT - Social Security

[Mike in Mystic]

"David Hall" wrote in message news: [e-mail]...

news: SNIP

I essentially agree with you. Something noone in the news has stated or recognized is that thus far the Bush policies have been precisely what was needed at the time and fully meet most economists expectations for what should have been done during a recession. Deficit spending IS a good thing in this situations and it is having exactly the effect that it should. Increases in productivity are entirely ignored by the press, yet they keep harping on the lack of job creation. I admit this is relevant, but it is taken out of context in terms of overall economic growth. Anyway, I want the debt to be eliminated as well, but I think it has to be addressed in terms of the economy as a whole. Simply saying "no deficit spending" is naive and not good economic policy. Protectionist trade policies are also BAD for our economy as a whole. Sure, some people will lose jobs in the US, but if you look at the overall benefits to our consumers (i.e. lower prices, etc.) and the entire economic picture, free trade is a very good thing for us. I have a 6-month old son, so the concerns you state are mine, too. Anyway, my main point is you shouldn't detest Bush for his deficit spending policies - they are appropriate and a good thing. His PROJECTIONS, however, ARE scary. The weak dollar and dependence on foreign capital to prop up our bond market is very troubling. If the Asian bond-holders cash out, we could be heading for the worst recession since the early 80's with mortgage rates in the teens, etc. Getting the debt down in these terms becomes a big priority, one that it seems Bush needs to focus on a bit more very soon. The thing about Bush is that he seems to do what his advisors suggest, and I'm sure his economic team is aware of these factors and will make the appropriate suggestions. But, you never know. But, as you said, there's no way I'm voting for a two-faced "patriot" that has flames coming out of his drawers.

Mike

[Fletis Humplebacker]

"Mark"

Green crackers. I smell green crackers !

[todd]

Then I guess you're missing the point. Most of the congress types will end up not having to count on their retirement plan or SS to be a major source of retirement income because it will represent a small portion of their net worth. So "making them play by our rules" isn't going to change anything. There's only one thing they respond to, and that's getting re-elected. Make them think they won't get re-elected if they don't modify SS, and then it will change. Absent that, I have a deal to make with the gubmint. I'm 36 years old and have been paying (along with my employers), SS taxes for roughly 20 years now. OK, gubmint, you keep all of that money and just let me off this merry-go-round. Let me keep my 7.65% or whatever the percentage is that comes (directly) out of my paycheck each month. I'll add that to my other investments and you'll never hear from me again.

todd

[Bill]

She inherited $500 when Heinz died.

[Bill]

Soylent Green?

[Swingman]

Welp, you guess wrong ... you missed the first point, and haven't been anywhere near it yet.

You can't back that contention up with figures. "Most" of the 535 in congress aren't "wealthy" and will gladly receive their pensions ... a much better deal than you will get with SS..

We been doing it your way for forty years ... hasn't worked yet. Make them eat their own dog food and the menu will change.

Until you show up at the emergency room without the means to pay because your "investments" didn't pan out, then my property tax dollars will have to pay the bill.

[Kevin]

Certainly not picking a fight here but what is meant by the term wealthy or rich? I hear and read this term quite a bit and, given it is an election year, have no doubt that its frequency of use will increase.

So, what is meant by it? Ideally I'd like to know the meaning or definition in terms of both total net assets and annual net income

[Swingman]

Pick your own definition ... I've been putting the tern in quotes because it was NOT a term I used in my original statement.

That said, what would it take for me to consider myself "wealthy"? How about being able to live the lifestyle I am accustomed to, without having to work ... that would be pretty damn close to my sense of being "wealthy", or close enough.

You can be "rich" in a lot of things ... right now I wish we weren't so damn rich in rain so I could spray some shellac!

[Charlie Self]

Well, that's precise enough, but you're a few hundred years late if you think

500 bucks is a lot of money.

Charlie Self "There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured with what is right in America." William J. Clinton

[Al Reid]

I would like to add a request for the definition of the "Working Family" to go with that one.

[Bill]

LOL! $500 Million.

[Bill]

Working Family = any one making minimum wage. Wealthy = any one making MORE than minimum wage.

That's the million dollar question!

I say flat tax and don't worry about defining wealthy.

A friend of ours thinks he's NOT wealthy at $55k. His idea of broke (poor) is that he can't make the payment on his Escalade AND buy a $250k house AND go clubbing every weekend. We believe his perception of wealthy is skewed.

We (a family of four) think the same $55 we made last year is wealthy. And evidently the government does too.

I grew up in a farm house with no glass in the windows up stairs and a mentally disturbed chicken running around the yard. Now, I have the joy of being able to buy groceries at will. Truly. I can't buy groceries without thinking about a time when my free lunch at school was my nutrition for the day. It took my wife 3 years to get me to buy chips and cookies from time to time. I refused to. It was meats and veggies. I still don't eat half the meals I cook, from habit.

It nice to point out from time to time that we have the wealthiest "poor" people in the world.

I'd argued with a neighbor that said "Because of Bush, she couldn't afford to buy her child clothes." I pointed out that evidently clothes we're the worry when she got that fancy Weave, purchased that dime bag and put those $500 rims on her Sequoia (Sp?). Her response was "Well my boyfriend bought those". To which my response was "Sell them and buy clothes!". The rims are still on the suv 6 months later.

It's all in perception.

Now if we're talking stinking ass rich, that's a different story. BUT, I still think a flat tax is the only fair tax. The tax system as it stands now punishes achievement and gives a false appearance of who is wealthy and who is not.

[George E. Cawthon]

In the case of Kerry, "wealthy" is a bit of an understatment!

[Bill]

BTW, to me....$500 IS a lot of money. Wish I had your paycheck.

[George E. Cawthon]

I thought they were green cookies.

[George E. Cawthon]

What makes you say it is a better deal than SS? Did you compare figures for the amount they contribute and receive as compared to SS. SS and Federal retirement are not direct alternatives, they are completely different. Federal retirement is similar to what a corporation pays as a retirement, it is not intended as a back up system like SS is.

[Charlie Self]

If you really want to trade, keep in mind that I lost my job a year ago.

Charlie Self "There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured with what is right in America." William J. Clinton

[Bill]

That's fine, too. I haven't had a paycheck in 5 years. I'm Mr. Mom.

[Swingman]

Read my previouse message with the statistics from the Congressional Reseach Office, then tell me it is NOT a "better deal"

Congress critters got BOTH CSRS and SS.

Again, quoting the CRO:

1. Full coverage under SS and CSRS 2. The "CSRS Offset" plan, which includes both CSRS and SS, but with CSRS contributions and benefits reduced by SS contributions and benefits.
2. FERS plus SS
3. SS alone

"All members pay SS payroll taxes equal to 6.2% of the SS taxable wage base of ($84,900 in 2002). Members covered by FERS pay 1.3% of full salary to the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund. [Congress kicks in 11% of the Members' salary as its contribution]. Members covered by CSRS Offset pay

1.8% of the first $84,900 of salary and 8.0% of salary above this amount into the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund.

[Larry Blanchard]

OK, my last try. All of those assumptions about the number of payers vs the number of payees are ALREADY IN the governments estimates. The question was about one number in their estimating formula that was questioned by an economics professor.

I will post no more on this subject. You may all be good woodworkers, but you either don't understand English, you're just trolling, or you're all preprogrammed to spout the drivel of one side or the other when any trigger word is uttered. Sheesh!