The way things are going, there is a very good chance that come January of 2013, the Republicans will control the entire US government. In particular, the White House will be occupied by someone who understands how business and the economy really work.
And things will change quickly. There will be a wave of hiring as corporations release the capital they have been sitting on, and unemployment will rapidly come down to between 4% and 5%. That will raise the GDP and increase consumer confidence, which will in turn raise the GDP even more. The stock market will go into boom mode, probably reaching 15,000. Banks and other lenders will relax their policies, more buyers will enter the housing market, and many people who are currently underwater on their mortgages will recover at least part of their lost equity. Income taxes will be lowered, so people will have more money in the bank and in their pockets.
Once the Republicans are in charge, life will get a lot easier. Until then, just hang on as best you can and keep your eye on the calendar.
Only Twenty Months Until Everything Gets Better
Only Twenty Months Until Everything Gets Better
Last edited by Andrew D on Mon Jun 06, 2011 5:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason is valuable only when it performs against the wordless physical background of the universe.
Re: Only Twenty Months Until Everything Gets Better
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
~ Carl Sagan
~ Carl Sagan
Re: Only Twenty Months Until Everything Gets Better
Thanks, bigskygal.
As a satire piece, what I wrote is, especially given its dead-pan tone, scathingly funny.
But I did not intend it that way. On the contrary, I am quite serious.
I make no claim to expertise in political prognostication -- unlike some of us, my grasp of realpolitik gets muddied by moral considerations -- but I really think that that is what is likely to happen. If the Republicans win, that will usher in, for most of us, a period of prosperity.
As a satire piece, what I wrote is, especially given its dead-pan tone, scathingly funny.
But I did not intend it that way. On the contrary, I am quite serious.
I make no claim to expertise in political prognostication -- unlike some of us, my grasp of realpolitik gets muddied by moral considerations -- but I really think that that is what is likely to happen. If the Republicans win, that will usher in, for most of us, a period of prosperity.
Reason is valuable only when it performs against the wordless physical background of the universe.
Re: Only Twenty Months Until Everything Gets Better
Ok, I'll bite... WTF Andrew, can you explain further please?
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
Re: Only Twenty Months Until Everything Gets Better
You forgot to mention that they will kill those albatross programs: Medicare and Social Security. Those shiftless retirees will have to get off their lazy asses, oil up the wheels on their walkers and work for a living; paying for their own HI will allow the market to make Medicare just as efficient and cost-effective and universally available as HC is for 0-65 year olds right now.
We will get rid of the poverty index and re-name it a 'work-stimulus program'.
And they'll get rid of that horrible "Romneycare" program in Mass.
yrs,
rubato
We will get rid of the poverty index and re-name it a 'work-stimulus program'.
And they'll get rid of that horrible "Romneycare" program in Mass.
yrs,
rubato
Re: Only Twenty Months Until Everything Gets Better
While it is POSSIBLE that the American Public will assume a "Throw the Bums Out" attitude with respect to 1600 Pennsylvania avenue and the U.S. Senate, that result is by no means likely. It will be difficult to overcome the hundreds of millions of dollars that Left Wing special interests will be "investing" in the coming election, not to mention the entire MSM, the entertainment industry, all of academe, and how many million government employees who will be marching in lockstep in the left side of the road.
Unfortunately for all of us, the greatest mind in the world cannot, by itself, cure a morass of systemic problems, some of which are able to be changed by legislation, some by edict, but most by the American people starting to make different choices about how they live their lives and make their financial decisions.
But what can I say? The Republicans had their chance a few years ago and fell flat on their faces.
Unfortunately for all of us, the greatest mind in the world cannot, by itself, cure a morass of systemic problems, some of which are able to be changed by legislation, some by edict, but most by the American people starting to make different choices about how they live their lives and make their financial decisions.
But what can I say? The Republicans had their chance a few years ago and fell flat on their faces.
Re: Only Twenty Months Until Everything Gets Better
I very much doubt that the Republicans will gut Social Security. The votes of those eligible for Social Security are far too important. After all the posing and pandering is done, the Republicans will do pretty much what the Democrats would do -- the things that are unavoidable, no matter where one sits on the political spectrum.
There are certain demographic facts whose reality is unrelentingly obstinate. They will force us to come to grips with them. It doesn't matter what anyone's politics are. The country could be run by Republicans, by Democrats, by Communists, by Libertarians, by Shining Path Maoists, by Christian Reconstructionists -- whatever.
People live longer now than they used to live. For every person getting money from the Social Security system, there are fewer workers putting money into that system than there used to be. If the system is going to remain solvent, that cannot go on forever. Something has to give.
So the Republicans will do -- or, if they somehow remain in control, the Democrats will do -- what we should have been doing all along. They will raise the age of eligibility for Social Security benefits.
When the system was set up, recipients could expect, on average, a couple of years of benefits. These days, recipients can expect, on average, more than a decade of benefits.
When the system was set up, the population was steadily growing. The fact that the recipient population was growing was not a problem, because the funding population -- the population of workers paying into the system -- was growing. That is no longer the case. The recipient population is growing, but the funding population is not keeping up.
Were it not for immigration, the total population would be declining. An ever-increasing population is, of course, global suicide. So unless someone manages to make two plus two equal twenty-seven, the age of eligibility is going to have to go up.
But even that -- unless we raise the age of eligibility so high that the program becomes effectively worthless for most people -- is not going to solve the problem in the long term. The long-term solution is going to require biting the bullet in a big way: Eventually, we are going to have to stop giving Social Security money to people who do not need it.
And young working people are going to be at the forefront of that. Eventually, they are not going to put up with it any more.
Imagine yourself a young working person in San Francisco. You've done all the right things. You studied hard in school, you busted your ass at a series of low-level jobs, and now you work diligently in the middle-class job that you have earned. Same for your spouse.
You live in a moderate apartment in "lower Nob Hill" (realtor-speak for "upper Tenderloin"). You work well more than forty hours per week. You get a couple of weeks off every year, but you don't have the money to go on vacation (holiday); you just rest up and get ready to go back to it.
Five blocks up the hill from you, a San Francisco dowager is living in a Nob Hill penthouse apartment. She's in her seventies. She doesn't work at all. The income generated by her investments is twice your annual salary.
You don't begrudge her that: She worked hard for it. She and her late husband were a successful partnership that, by virtue of hard work, business acumen, and good fortune, earned substantial wealth. Good for her. You hope that you will eventually be in a similar situation.
But every week, the government takes a chunk of money out of your paycheck to send it to her.
What?
You're busting your ass every day trying to make the American dream come true for you, you're carefully doing without luxuries you could pay for because you're saving for later, and you're being forced to send part of your hard-earned money to someone who, even without it, is better off than you are? What the hell is up with that?
Young working people are not going to put up with that forever. At some point, they are just going to say "no".
"We recognize our moral obligation to care for the elderly among us who lack the means to care for themselves. We're not going to let them starve in the streets, and we don't object to being taxed to pay for their care. We honor the role they played in building the social structure which is the foundation upon which we, in turn, can, by dint of a combination of hard work and natural aptitudes and good fortune, build our own successful lives.
"But we are not going to work overtime to give money to people who are already better off than we are. Keeping the elderly out of poverty is one thing, and we're happy to do our part. But taxing struggling young families to send money to the already wealthy is quite another thing, and we're just not going to do it any more."
Everyone can see that coming. So eventually -- probably after the baby-boomers have mostly shuffled off their mortal coils, when the votes of young working people outweigh the votes of retirees -- the Republicans or the Democrats or whatever party (which may well be a party that doesn't even exist yet) is running the show will get a grip on reality and do what we should have done all along: Social Security will be means-tested.
There are certain demographic facts whose reality is unrelentingly obstinate. They will force us to come to grips with them. It doesn't matter what anyone's politics are. The country could be run by Republicans, by Democrats, by Communists, by Libertarians, by Shining Path Maoists, by Christian Reconstructionists -- whatever.
People live longer now than they used to live. For every person getting money from the Social Security system, there are fewer workers putting money into that system than there used to be. If the system is going to remain solvent, that cannot go on forever. Something has to give.
So the Republicans will do -- or, if they somehow remain in control, the Democrats will do -- what we should have been doing all along. They will raise the age of eligibility for Social Security benefits.
When the system was set up, recipients could expect, on average, a couple of years of benefits. These days, recipients can expect, on average, more than a decade of benefits.
When the system was set up, the population was steadily growing. The fact that the recipient population was growing was not a problem, because the funding population -- the population of workers paying into the system -- was growing. That is no longer the case. The recipient population is growing, but the funding population is not keeping up.
Were it not for immigration, the total population would be declining. An ever-increasing population is, of course, global suicide. So unless someone manages to make two plus two equal twenty-seven, the age of eligibility is going to have to go up.
But even that -- unless we raise the age of eligibility so high that the program becomes effectively worthless for most people -- is not going to solve the problem in the long term. The long-term solution is going to require biting the bullet in a big way: Eventually, we are going to have to stop giving Social Security money to people who do not need it.
And young working people are going to be at the forefront of that. Eventually, they are not going to put up with it any more.
Imagine yourself a young working person in San Francisco. You've done all the right things. You studied hard in school, you busted your ass at a series of low-level jobs, and now you work diligently in the middle-class job that you have earned. Same for your spouse.
You live in a moderate apartment in "lower Nob Hill" (realtor-speak for "upper Tenderloin"). You work well more than forty hours per week. You get a couple of weeks off every year, but you don't have the money to go on vacation (holiday); you just rest up and get ready to go back to it.
Five blocks up the hill from you, a San Francisco dowager is living in a Nob Hill penthouse apartment. She's in her seventies. She doesn't work at all. The income generated by her investments is twice your annual salary.
You don't begrudge her that: She worked hard for it. She and her late husband were a successful partnership that, by virtue of hard work, business acumen, and good fortune, earned substantial wealth. Good for her. You hope that you will eventually be in a similar situation.
But every week, the government takes a chunk of money out of your paycheck to send it to her.
What?
You're busting your ass every day trying to make the American dream come true for you, you're carefully doing without luxuries you could pay for because you're saving for later, and you're being forced to send part of your hard-earned money to someone who, even without it, is better off than you are? What the hell is up with that?
Young working people are not going to put up with that forever. At some point, they are just going to say "no".
"We recognize our moral obligation to care for the elderly among us who lack the means to care for themselves. We're not going to let them starve in the streets, and we don't object to being taxed to pay for their care. We honor the role they played in building the social structure which is the foundation upon which we, in turn, can, by dint of a combination of hard work and natural aptitudes and good fortune, build our own successful lives.
"But we are not going to work overtime to give money to people who are already better off than we are. Keeping the elderly out of poverty is one thing, and we're happy to do our part. But taxing struggling young families to send money to the already wealthy is quite another thing, and we're just not going to do it any more."
Everyone can see that coming. So eventually -- probably after the baby-boomers have mostly shuffled off their mortal coils, when the votes of young working people outweigh the votes of retirees -- the Republicans or the Democrats or whatever party (which may well be a party that doesn't even exist yet) is running the show will get a grip on reality and do what we should have done all along: Social Security will be means-tested.
Reason is valuable only when it performs against the wordless physical background of the universe.
Re: Only Twenty Months Until Everything Gets Better
With respect to Medicare, it really doesn't matter, in the long term, what party is in power. In the end, either we will have a national health-care system or we will be a third-world country.
And again, it will be young working people who will be at the forefront. Young people who are not blinded by ideology of any stripe will look at outcomes. Young people to whom the Cold War is a distant memory -- and who, from their reading of history, will wonder why we bothered to fight a war against a system that was doomed from the outset; why we effectively propped up a system with failure built right into it by giving it an external enemy which it could use to divert its own people's attention from its own internal problems -- who, when someone screams "socialism!" will say "yeah, whatever".
Young working people will look at the money that is coming out of their incomes. They won't care which hand is taking that money out of their pockets; they will just look at the bottom line. And they will look at the world around them. And having grown up in a much more globalized society than existed when old farts like me were young, they will know a lot more about what is going on in other countries than most Americans do today.
And they will be saying "Wait a minute. I pay this amount in taxes, and then I pay this other amount for health insurance. Why? In Denmark and in Sweden and in the Netherlands and in a lot of other places, people pay less in total than I do for the same things. I just pay part of mine to a private company, whereas they pay all of theirs to the government. But they're still getting the better deal.
"Their health care is better than ours: They live longer than we do, they live healthier than we do, and they pay a lower fraction of their GDP for it than we do. Screw this; let's be like them."
There will, of course, be a lot of fighting. The reservoirs of money behind our private health-insurance system are enormous, and the people hugely profiting from that system will wage war financed by all of that money. And for a while, they will probably win.
But eventually, people will just not take it any more. Eventually, the people making fortunes off of the private health-insurance system we have now will run out of spurious reasons why we should not do what the rest of the developed world has long since done. Eventually, all the facades will be ripped away, and young working people will see the naked truth: The only reason to keep a private health-insurance system is to continue enriching those who feed off of it.
And young people --the working people who generate the wealth on which the whole system depends -- will not find that reason enough.
And again, it will be young working people who will be at the forefront. Young people who are not blinded by ideology of any stripe will look at outcomes. Young people to whom the Cold War is a distant memory -- and who, from their reading of history, will wonder why we bothered to fight a war against a system that was doomed from the outset; why we effectively propped up a system with failure built right into it by giving it an external enemy which it could use to divert its own people's attention from its own internal problems -- who, when someone screams "socialism!" will say "yeah, whatever".
Young working people will look at the money that is coming out of their incomes. They won't care which hand is taking that money out of their pockets; they will just look at the bottom line. And they will look at the world around them. And having grown up in a much more globalized society than existed when old farts like me were young, they will know a lot more about what is going on in other countries than most Americans do today.
And they will be saying "Wait a minute. I pay this amount in taxes, and then I pay this other amount for health insurance. Why? In Denmark and in Sweden and in the Netherlands and in a lot of other places, people pay less in total than I do for the same things. I just pay part of mine to a private company, whereas they pay all of theirs to the government. But they're still getting the better deal.
"Their health care is better than ours: They live longer than we do, they live healthier than we do, and they pay a lower fraction of their GDP for it than we do. Screw this; let's be like them."
There will, of course, be a lot of fighting. The reservoirs of money behind our private health-insurance system are enormous, and the people hugely profiting from that system will wage war financed by all of that money. And for a while, they will probably win.
But eventually, people will just not take it any more. Eventually, the people making fortunes off of the private health-insurance system we have now will run out of spurious reasons why we should not do what the rest of the developed world has long since done. Eventually, all the facades will be ripped away, and young working people will see the naked truth: The only reason to keep a private health-insurance system is to continue enriching those who feed off of it.
And young people --the working people who generate the wealth on which the whole system depends -- will not find that reason enough.
Reason is valuable only when it performs against the wordless physical background of the universe.
Re: Only Twenty Months Until Everything Gets Better
Andrew D wrote:Social Security will be means-tested.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
~ Carl Sagan
~ Carl Sagan
Re: Only Twenty Months Until Everything Gets Better
Excellent analysis and essays Andrew, thanks.
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
Re: Only Twenty Months Until Everything Gets Better
Basic behavioral therapy, Gob. In 2008, we were bad little voters, so we needed to be punished. If in 2012, we are good little voters, we will need to be rewarded.Gob wrote:Ok, I'll bite... WTF Andrew, can you explain further please?
There are those who scoff at the idea that the leaders of the Republican party have been deliberately trying to make sure that unemployment does not go down, that the housing market does not firm up, etc. They trot out the usual chestnuts: "conspiracy theory," "class warfare," blah, blah, blah.
But what is astounding is the level of political naivete required to believe that the Republican leaders are not sabotaging economic recovery.
Of course they are. And if the tables were turned, the Democratic leaders would be doing the same thing. The only real difference is that the Republican leaders have been so blatant about it.
One might think that when America is in the worst economic mess since the Great Depression, the top priority of any party -- from those so far on the left as to make The Nation look like a centrist journal to those so far on the right as to make the Minutemen look moderate -- would be to get us out of it.
Or, at least, one might hope that that is the case.
And at the absolute minimum, one might think that the opposition party would at least pretend that solving America's problems is its most important goal.
But the Republican leader in the Senate, Mitch McConnell, let the cat out of the bag. (And it remains to be seen whether the people running the Republican party will ever forgive him for it.) He said, in public:
So what is the best way to accomplish that? Well, it is a long-standing truism in American politics that the President takes the blame for economic woes, regardless of whether he -- or, one hopes, someday, she -- had anything to with them.The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.
If the economy improves, Obama's chances of reelection go up. If the economy does not improve, or if it even gets worse, the chances of a Republican's unseating Obama go up. So if you are a Republican in a position to affect what happens to the economy, what do you do?
And it's not as if it is all evil-minded. There are right-wingers who genuinely believe that Obama and the Democrats are a threat to American values; that if their policies succeed in the short term, the long-term results will be disastrous, and so on. And they believe that so fervently that they are willing to trade short-term pain for long-term gain.
Except, of course, that the short-term pain won't be theirs.
If they were the ones getting the pink slips, if they were the ones facing foreclosure -- well, then it would all be different. Then there would be no question about the proper public policy. Then it would be obvious that the government needs to step in and protect people from economic catastrophe.
But it's not them. It's only insignificant little peons whose lives will be wrecked. And to them, that's just a cost -- a cost conveniently borne by others -- of doing business.
That's how business and the economy really work. And as I wrote before, if the Republicans win in 2012, "the White House will be occupied by someone who understands how business and the economy really work."
Reason is valuable only when it performs against the wordless physical background of the universe.
Re: Only Twenty Months Until Everything Gets Better
Andrew, you've overlooked the easiest enhancement to the Social Security "Trust Fund": eliminate the earnings cap. Tax all regular earnings with no ceiling. BIG boost of revenue, with very little political downside. To most Americans, any income over $100 grand is riches beyond their comprehension. Honestly, other than pure selfishness on the part of Congress, I can't imagine why they haven't done this already.
Even if one accepts the "fact" that Republicans do NOT want to see a miraculous turnaround in the economy in the next 18 months, you presuppose that there is something they could do to improve our economic prospects. Neither you nor anyone else has any clue what that might be.
The Krugman Gambit would be to borrow a couple trillion more dollars (each year), and stimulate the economy through public sector spending. And in fact, if we could sell all those Tbills unemployment would certainly nosedive, but that would be a monumentally stupid strategy.
European-style socialized medicine (no matter what you call it) is simply not an option in the U.S. We have a HUGE industry that has grown up around certain policies, practices, and expectations. Those policies may be stupid, but there are simply too many people vested in our current system to permit it to change: pharmaceutical companies, doctors, hospitals, insurance companies, medical labs, old folks homes. They are all gaming the system successfully, and like it or not MOST AMERICANS LIKE THEIR HEALTHCARE just the way it is.
The other thing is that Americans will not tolerate waiting lists for elective procedures, and they want the best treatments that money can buy, with minimal out-of-pocket expense. With someone else paying for it. Isn't this a Constitutional right or something? Most Americans think so.
There was a story in yesterday's newspapers about a 62 year old guy locally who got a $90 thousand treatment for his prostate cancer, that IS HOPED will allow him to live for an additional 4 months. He freely admitted that although he has the resources to pay for it, he never would have - Blue Cross did, however, thank you very much.
Insanity.
Even if one accepts the "fact" that Republicans do NOT want to see a miraculous turnaround in the economy in the next 18 months, you presuppose that there is something they could do to improve our economic prospects. Neither you nor anyone else has any clue what that might be.
The Krugman Gambit would be to borrow a couple trillion more dollars (each year), and stimulate the economy through public sector spending. And in fact, if we could sell all those Tbills unemployment would certainly nosedive, but that would be a monumentally stupid strategy.
European-style socialized medicine (no matter what you call it) is simply not an option in the U.S. We have a HUGE industry that has grown up around certain policies, practices, and expectations. Those policies may be stupid, but there are simply too many people vested in our current system to permit it to change: pharmaceutical companies, doctors, hospitals, insurance companies, medical labs, old folks homes. They are all gaming the system successfully, and like it or not MOST AMERICANS LIKE THEIR HEALTHCARE just the way it is.
The other thing is that Americans will not tolerate waiting lists for elective procedures, and they want the best treatments that money can buy, with minimal out-of-pocket expense. With someone else paying for it. Isn't this a Constitutional right or something? Most Americans think so.
There was a story in yesterday's newspapers about a 62 year old guy locally who got a $90 thousand treatment for his prostate cancer, that IS HOPED will allow him to live for an additional 4 months. He freely admitted that although he has the resources to pay for it, he never would have - Blue Cross did, however, thank you very much.
Insanity.
Re: Only Twenty Months Until Everything Gets Better
You're quite right about the income ceiling, dgs49. I should have mentioned it. I don't always get everything into every posting, but I have expressed my opinion on that subject more than once. As I posted some five months ago:
But there were institutions with vested interests in preventing us from having a Social Security system at all. And they had boatloads of money too. We got it done anyway.
As to people's contentedness with their health insurance and health care, it's a classic example of the answer's being dictated by the way the questions are framed. If Americans were asked:
I do not share your pessimism about the possibility of changing our health-insurance system. Yes, there are institutions with vested interests in keeping things the way they are, and yes, they have boatloads of money to fight with.There are three things (among many others) that should be included in a deficit/debt reduction plan: (1) Eliminate the obscenely unfair income ceiling on the Social Security tax, (2) subject Social Security benefits to means testing, and (3) slash the military budget to a level that bears at least some rational relationship to reality. Unfortunately, none seems to be getting much serious attention.
-------------------------
First, we should change the grossly unfair Social Security tax. It is astonishingly regressive. The current Social Security tax for most people is 4.20% on the first $106,800 of earnings and 0% on earnings above $106,800. That means:
● A person earning up to $106,800 pays 4.20% of her or his earnings in Social Security tax;
● A person earning $213,600 pays 2.10% of her or his earnings in Social Security tax;
● A person earning $320,400 pays 1.40% of her or his earnings in Social Security tax;
● A person earning $534,000 pays 0.84% of her or his earnings in Social Security tax;
● A person earning $1,068,000 pays 0.42% of her or his earnings in Social Security tax;
and so on.
In short, those who can least afford it pay the highest percentage of their earnings in Social Security tax, whereas those who can most easily afford it pay the lowest percentage of their earnings in Social Security tax. That is madness. We should simply eliminate the income ceiling on the Social Security tax; everyone should pay the full 4.20%.
But there were institutions with vested interests in preventing us from having a Social Security system at all. And they had boatloads of money too. We got it done anyway.
As to people's contentedness with their health insurance and health care, it's a classic example of the answer's being dictated by the way the questions are framed. If Americans were asked:
What do you suppose the poll numbers would show?If you were offered better health care than you have now for less than you pay now, would you accept that offer, or would you stick with what you have?
Reason is valuable only when it performs against the wordless physical background of the universe.
-
Sue U
- Posts: 9090
- Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:59 pm
- Location: Eastern Megalopolis, North America (Midtown)
Re: Only Twenty Months Until Everything Gets Better
The people who are content with their health insurance in all probability have never had to use it -- half the population spends nothing on healthcare each year.Andrew D wrote:As to people's contentedness with their health insurance and health care
GAH!
Re: Only Twenty Months Until Everything Gets Better
If you raise or eliminate the cap on the SS tax, do you then similarly eliminate the cap on the benefit (the max earnings used to calculate benefits is the same as the earnings cap, $106,800/year)?
The Congressional Research Service has recently (Sept 2010) done what looks to be a comprehensive analysis on the costs and benefits of raising or eliminating the tax cap, including the impact on federal revenue. For those who have the time to read it, the report is here (I've only read the summary and skimmed the full report): http://aging.senate.gov/crs/ss9.pdf
The Congressional Research Service has recently (Sept 2010) done what looks to be a comprehensive analysis on the costs and benefits of raising or eliminating the tax cap, including the impact on federal revenue. For those who have the time to read it, the report is here (I've only read the summary and skimmed the full report): http://aging.senate.gov/crs/ss9.pdf
“I ask no favor for my sex. All I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet off our necks.” ~ Ruth Bader Ginsburg, paraphrasing Sarah Moore Grimké
Re: Only Twenty Months Until Everything Gets Better
I didn't read this whole thread, but Andrews original assertion is likey to happen if for no other reason that those holding capitol are holding it because of uncertainty. It is clear that BO has no understanding of capitolism and may even not believe in it, that thown in with huge spending and new unknowns like BOcare make them unsure of taking risks.
I don't give a damn for a man that can only spell a word one way. Mark Twain
Re: Only Twenty Months Until Everything Gets Better
Someone's holding the Capitol? Was there a foreclosure?
And is "capitolism" a style of architecture?
And is "capitolism" a style of architecture?
"Hang on while I log in to the James Webb telescope to search the known universe for who the fuck asked you." -- James Fell
Re: Only Twenty Months Until Everything Gets Better
Aren't smart enough to understand bad spelling?
"I don't give a damn for a man that can only spell a word one way" --- Mark Twain
"I don't give a damn for a man that can only spell a word one way" --- Mark Twain
I don't give a damn for a man that can only spell a word one way. Mark Twain
Re: Only Twenty Months Until Everything Gets Better
I understand it, you just provide too easy a target to resist. You might want to do some work on figuring out why.
"Hang on while I log in to the James Webb telescope to search the known universe for who the fuck asked you." -- James Fell
Re: Only Twenty Months Until Everything Gets Better
A lot of liberals have advocated raising the SS limit (including myself) because the effects are worth it: (from Gwen's link)
http://aging.senate.gov/crs/ss9.pdf
"...
Raising or eliminating the cap on wages that are subject to taxes could reduce the long-range
deficit in the Social Security Trust Funds. For example, if the maximum taxable earnings amount
had been raised in 2005 from $90,000 to $150,000—roughly the level needed to cover 90% of all
earnings—it would have eliminated roughly 40% of the long-range shortfall in Social Security. If
all earnings were subject to the payroll tax, but the base was retained for benefit calculations, the
Social Security Trust Funds would remain solvent for the next 75 years. However, having
different bases for contributions and benefits would weaken the traditional link between the taxes
workers pay into the system and the benefits they receive.
... "
Currently, for the next dollar we make over the cap our income goes up by 6.3%, a significant amount. My wife's income goes up by over 12% because she is in a partnership and when the SS limit is reached they contribute that same amount to her 401K (in addition to their regular matching funds).
It's a good idea even though in the narrow personal sense it would cost us some income. Having a more just society also means having a more peaceful society and that is a benefit that accrues to us all.
SS is already a redistributive system with people getting more back relative to payments at the lower economic levels.
yrs,
rubato
http://aging.senate.gov/crs/ss9.pdf
"...
Raising or eliminating the cap on wages that are subject to taxes could reduce the long-range
deficit in the Social Security Trust Funds. For example, if the maximum taxable earnings amount
had been raised in 2005 from $90,000 to $150,000—roughly the level needed to cover 90% of all
earnings—it would have eliminated roughly 40% of the long-range shortfall in Social Security. If
all earnings were subject to the payroll tax, but the base was retained for benefit calculations, the
Social Security Trust Funds would remain solvent for the next 75 years. However, having
different bases for contributions and benefits would weaken the traditional link between the taxes
workers pay into the system and the benefits they receive.
... "
Currently, for the next dollar we make over the cap our income goes up by 6.3%, a significant amount. My wife's income goes up by over 12% because she is in a partnership and when the SS limit is reached they contribute that same amount to her 401K (in addition to their regular matching funds).
It's a good idea even though in the narrow personal sense it would cost us some income. Having a more just society also means having a more peaceful society and that is a benefit that accrues to us all.
SS is already a redistributive system with people getting more back relative to payments at the lower economic levels.
yrs,
rubato