It ain't just corporate America - our lawmakers have devised a scheme whereby they have run up over $4 trillion of debt called "trust funds" that they claim are assets. Same accounting deceitful practices used by Enron. Been going on since FDR.
Doug Winterburn wrote in news:zksBk.16947 $ snipped-for-privacy@newsfe02.iad:
I don't think it was ever a trust fund in the sense of being set aside for the future. That's just ostrich mentality. All it ever was was a way to fund retirements from current workers' income taxes.
And now FICA taxes hould be leveled on ALL income, earned and unearned, so the fat cats pay a little more of the War costs. Although it would mean I would pay more taxes too.
Ohhh, those poor people. They clearly cannot be responsible for themselves and need a huge government to be their daddy ... viva la revolucion comrade. Madison Ave. (and no one else, for that matter) has never managed to entice me into debt far over my head. Ditto most of my friends. However did we manage to do this without the help of Big Brother, I wonder?
What you have witnessed is NOT laisses-faire. A true free market would not be bailing out either the borrowers or the lenders. You and your ilk want to bail out the borrowers but screw the lenders. This is a particularly nasty bit of dishonesty. (Similarly, the bias of the right is to protect the lenders first - also a horrid travesty. Moreover, in many states, some kinds of insurance are mandatory (auto, leaps to mind). When you have government-forced insurance, you no longer have laissez-faire. In general, people love to criticize the defects of *interfering* with laissez-faire, while blaming it at the same time.
Or ... maybe the companies in question really were overvalued and needed the market to correct them. People with your views always make me chuckle. You act as if the short sellers have no market forces controlling stupidity on their part. There is a slight case to be made against naked short selling because it trades "value" without an underlying equity. But shorting as a general trading mechanism is no better- or worse than buying long positions.
Then let me be the first to point out to you that life is not "fair" and in some particular way, neither are markets. A Noble was won years ago (Hayek) for demonstrating that all opportunities to profit in markets come from an *imbalance* in information. (At least, that's how it was explained to me.) Should markets be *honest*? Yup. Should they be transparent? Yup. But markets are never going to be "fair".
At this point, it matters very little who is right or wrong. The Big Government monsters are using this set of events to further Federalize our nation. We have taken another gigantic step into the hell of a collectivist nation - in large part to our own foolish greed as individual citizens who want what we want without caring much whether we are legitimately entitled to it.
I'd be all for that so long as:
1) The money *had* to be used to fund SS/Medicare/Medicaid and any surplus had to be banked and untouchable for other purposes.2) A simultaneous program of phasing out all SS/Medicare over, say, 50 years was implemented to get government OUT of the business of retirement - where it has neither any business nor Constitutional authority to operate.
3) Take the caps off 401Ks and make it clear to people it is their responsibility to worry about their own retirement. Better yet, go to a flat tax like the Fair Tax system and eliminate income taxes altogether.Tim Daneliuk wrote in news:6p1iq5-2572.ln1 @ozzie.tundraware.com:
I think we are much more alike than you suspect. I am for individual responsibility, and I do think those who went in over their head should not come off scott-free (sp?). But I still think the basic mistake for want of a better word is not enough regulation and oversight. In a free market there should be responsibility (enforced or natural) to prevent excesses such as the savings and loan debacle, the dotcom bubble and now the housing and debt bubble. To let the free market correct itself with boom and bust is not good governance.
If by that you mean the future taxpayers that will have to pay increased income taxes to pay off the debt that the trust funds contain as a result of spending the excess FICA taxes today, you are correct - dual taxation.
That will result in running up debt at a faster rate as every excess SS dollar that goes into the "trust fund" is a dollar of debt with interest. When the funds need to redeem those debt bonds, future taxpayers will have to bail out the funds.
>
The "fat cats" are already paying the "war costs".
How exactly does the government "bank" anything?
I'd go for this, but your congress critter wouldn't like the pay cut.
I'm unconvinced by the "fair tax" but your suggestion, taken as a whole, is a lot better than what we have now.
Doug Winterburn wrote in news:u_sBk.24217$ snipped-for-privacy@newsfe03.iad:
Again, no matter what you think the rhetoric implied, retirements ar paid from current taxes, if you really want to have a real retirement, it is up to you, through your union (puke), employer (double puke), 401K, IRA or what have you. SS is just a drop in the bucket, not really enough to live on.
As far as Medicare/Medicaid/health insurance is concerned, I believe that a certain fairly low level should be compulsory. Add-on insurance should be affordable, and available at different levels of benefits and premiums. It should also be underestood that smoking or other dangerous habits should carry a penalty.
If the excess contributions were invested in corporate stocks/bonds rather than government debt, future shortfalls would be covered by the profits of those corporations - such as Exxon-Mobil - rather than taxing future generations a second time for the same purpose.
if you really want to have a real retirement, it is
Agree. That is exactly what I am living on in retirement - the investments I made during my working career. And those investments are also paying my medical insurance premiums with no undue financial pain.
AFAIK, there are only two industrialized nations that do not provide health care and pensions to all. Those are the United States and South Africa.
Tim, I think you've got a bad case of "every one is out of step but me."
Yes, I know - you're going to tell me the Constitution doesn't allow it. I happen to think you're wrong, but if you're right I think the Constitution needs to be changed.
A document written for an agrarian society where life expectancy was 40 or less and the medical establishment didn't even know about bacteria needs to be interpreted to fit today's society.
And yet, a large number of retired people do just that.
Consider, if you would, the situation faced by the retired spouse or parent(s) of a cancer patient when all available resources had been spent on medical treatments.
Consider also what happens when pension fund (of whatever kind) is rendered valueless through no fault of the retiree.
Hmm. Have you ever tried making a list of "dangerous practices"? Off the top of my head...
Smoking Firefighting Motorcycling Holding a microwave transmitter against the side of your skull Entering a conflict zone Entering a disaster zone Teaching in an inner city school Being a student in an inner city school Working in law enforcement Residing in an [earthquake/tornado/flood/hurricane] zone Driving a motor vehicle Consuming alcohol
What is the nature of the penalty you would choose (fine/imprisonment/exile/death/other)?
I think I understand where you're coming from, but I don't think you've thought things through quite far enough...
Morris Dovey wrote in news:48d6743a$0$89876$ snipped-for-privacy@news.qwest.net:
It would put a real crimp in my lifestyle. I hope my other investments don't go the way of my Lehman stock. Not that I would choose single investments for something like my pension.
Note that I also said that affordable health insurance at a certain minimal level should be compulsory, and it should be possible to augment it to one's heart's content. I think that's were we get to the point were individual responsibility needs to take over. At what point is treatment only prolonging life, and who has to decide? Very difficult but necessary questions.
It is always the fault of the retiree (well, almost always). Pension funds should be very diversified. Just Enron stock is criminal - both for the employee and the employer.
Some answers ...
I stopped in 1976
Never done that, unless a oped when I was around 20 counts.
Does a cell phone count?
I work in NY City, in a Veterans Affairs Hospital (but they don't pay me)
Son-in-law teaches Math in Paterson NJ, daughter in a not too much better area. They are enjoying it tremendously, truely! And seeing disadvantaged kids "get it" is a real treat.
That's Raoul
I do that seldomly, and probably should be more careful.
Never in excess. It makes me morose and sick. I guess I'm lucky
Sorry, increased insurance rates or reduced coverage or both, so among your choices, it would be death .
You know or should know that I was born in Holland many years ago, and came to the US in 1969, where I have been in HMOs ever since.
As far as thinking it through, I don't think you can ever think it through completely.
Just because all the kids...
It doesn't. So change it. The instructions are included.
Irrelevant. It was written by some pretty smart dudes, of which there are too few today.
Do you really want Congress owning (all) corporations?
I do not like seeing my freedoms and economic future eroded because people who see things your way are unwilling to follow the law to achieve what they want. We live with a lawless government, a thieving public, and a permanent whining victim class as a result. Oh, and BTW, "we're only one of two nations not offering nationalized healtcare" is the worst of all possible reasoning. You want healthcare to be the same here as it is in Burundi or Senegal? I like our healthcare system - it's just fine with me as it is ... or it least it is better than anything those morons in D.C. could ever do. You want healthcare run with the same effectiveness as the people who scan our luggage at the airport. I don't.
What I meant was that any surplus derived hereby would have to be use to accelerate the retirement of the SS system and /or pay for benefits. It could not be redirected to general budget items. And, yes, the government could "bank" money - they could open a savings account ;)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com PGP Key:
Really? You think Federal regulators are more trustworthy and honorable than politicians and incompetent CEOs??? I don't. With the exception of the military and parts of the DOJ, most government jobs draw people who are *less* competent and would have trouble functioning in the private sector in my observation.
You need to read a bunch of Econ 101 stuff. What you propose is a fantasy: That free markets can be regulated and remain effective/efficient. You CANNOT regulate a financial system of any size without doing great harm to it. The idea that economies can be managed should have died with nauseating example of the USSR, but Western lefties never seem to get it.
>
Wouldn't that be a 180 degree turn-around? Don't corporations own Congress now?
Dave [the Cynic] in Houston
s/luggage/security/
A very bad idea. How much money does that "savings account" have to have in it before it grossly warps the market worse than deficit spending does? How much direct influence does the federal government have to have in the private sector before...
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.