Mccain takes lead over Obama

[MobBoss]

which is why he lost to Bill Clinton.

Bush Sr. lost to Clinton because he broke a critical campaign promise. He didnt keep his "No New Taxes" promise and it cost him the election.

 

[Princeps]

You consider social security run well? Really? Wow.

Social security, the one has is forever sucking up more and more of our GDP and running out of money fast? Your kidding right?

That's the usual Pinochetian propaganda.

The social security administration has very low administrative costs, it doesn't have to spend on marketing and it's simple. There's no way a private company could compete with it and business knows it. Social security is functioning well, and it's not "running out of money fast". The other programs attached to it are costly.

of course, it's near impossible to find a dissenting view on Social Security's "imminent collapse" anywhere in the press.

Wrong. The government doesnt run those corporations.

No, but they still wouldn't exist if the government couldn't manage anything well.

His point was if they government was better at running the US Postal Service,

The government isn't that bad at it either.

Also, many of Bush pro-business projects have included support for businesses because they can't compete with the federal and state governments, so they need help from Bush and his pro-corporate cronies.

 

[Labtec600]

Princeps, how old are you?

I think you're either young or very naive.

Do you really think that the trillions of dollars the the goverment will bring in with Universal Healthcare is going to all be spent on the program? No. The goverment will take some of that money and just waste on some stupid program or some stupid pork barrel spending. Or how about the idea to send out millions of dollars worth in letters telling people that they will receive a rebate check? Thats not wasting? Hell, I got that stupid letter the same damn day I got the check.

You really think the Post Office is ran well? You know how many things I have lost? The post man cant even match address on the letter to my mail box.

DMV? Is that run well? You're going to tell me that you're in and out of there in 5 minutes?

The VA hospital? How well was that run? Remember that story that came out about it?

And the Universal Healthcare that Obama is pushing will not be cheaper. First, he is giving "the option" of having it or not. And by option that means you're going to be forced to pay for the UC system...on top of the deductions you get for the one you already have.

Doesnt sound like much of a choice.

Oh yeah, thats right. We wont pay anything for it because the "rich" and "corporations" will all pay for it, right?

And the numbers make no sense. Obama stated that the program would cost 50 to 65 billion a year. There are 300 million people in this country. That leaves $216 per person with this system. Oops. Looks like we're going to have to hike those taxes already.

 

[MobBoss]

That's the usual Pinochetian propaganda.

Pinochet wasnt American.

And its not propaganda. Politicians of all colors continually lament how the program is underfunded, ill run and due to turn belly up in iminent fashion. Of course, no one is willing to do a thing to fix it since they perceive it will cost them votes.

The social security administration has very low administrative costs, it doesn't have to spend on marketing and it's simple. There's no way a private company could compete with it and business knows it. Social security is functioning well, and it's not "running out of money fast". The other programs attached to it are costly.

Uhm. No. From the Social Security Admins own website:

The financial condition of the Social Security and Medicare programs remains problematic. Projected long run program costs are not sustainable under current financing arrangements. Social Security's current annual surpluses of tax income over expenditures will begin to decline in 2011 and then turn into rapidly growing deficits as the baby boom generation retires. Medicare's financial status is even worse.

The annual cost of Social Security benefits represented 4.3 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in 2007 and is projected to increase to 6.1 percent of GDP in 2035. The projected 75-year actuarial deficit in the combined Old-Age and Survivors and Disability Insurance (OASDI) Trust Fund is 1.70 percent of taxable payroll ($4.3 trillion in present value terms)

The projected actuarial deficit in the OASDI Trust Fund over the infinite future is 3.2 percent of taxable payroll (1.1 percent of GDP), or $13.6 trillion in present value terms.

It kind of hurts your arguement when the people who actually run the program dont agree with you.

And if social security worked half as well as you think it did there would be no need for optional retirement plans or 401ks.

of course, it's near impossible to find a dissenting view on Social Security's "imminent collapse" anywhere in the press.

What part of the SSA itself saying the program is not sustainable did you not comprehend?

No, but they still wouldn't exist if the government couldn't manage anything well.

Of course they would exist. For the same reason they do now. There is a market for them to exist.

Your opinion of how the government works is rather childlike to be honest.

 

[JollyRoger]

Yeah, it's been one long great depression since social security was enacted.

 

[I'm Cleo!]

"Not sustainable" doesn't mean it's going to collapse; it just means that with the current level of funding, it can't maintain 100% of the benefits it's scheduled to pay out in like 50 years. Moreover, the $13.6 trillion number is when it's calculated to infinity. Social Security is sustainable with a small increase in taxes or a small decrease in benefits. It's done a tremendous job of keeping the elderly out of poverty for over 70 years. The American people understand that, which is why it's the "third rail" of American politics.

Cleo

 

[El_Machinae]

SS has generated a significant amount of sustainable wealth in the countries which have enacted those types of policies. The average citizen is much wealthier than they would have been if there hadn't been SS for all those years.

 

[Archbob]

Too bad there won't be anything left in SS by the time I retire in 40 years. Is SS worked so well, I wouldn't even be bothering with 401k.

 

[Princeps]

Pinochet wasnt American.

And its not propaganda. Politicians of all colors continually lament how the program is underfunded,

The anti-social security crowd has the same goals as Pinochet, to rob Americans of their economic security. So yes, it's pinochetian propaganda.

Also, most politicans who speak out against the program are the republican cato-crowd. The program continues to have strong support all over.

I never said that Social Security didn't have funding problems. I said that's its better run than any private company.

What part of the SSA itself saying the program is not sustainable did you not comprehend?

You distort what they are saying. All studies suggest that social security needs renewing for it to function in the future -- that is, some more funding or slight decrease in benefits -- but no radicals measures. Privatization of the program, for example, would be catastrophic. SC isn't sustainable at the present rates, but that doesn't mean it's collapsing.

Of course they would exist.

Of course they wouldn't exist. Don't be absurd. None of the businesses would exist without government protection, bailouts, handouts, government enforced copyrights and so forth. Google "the conservative nanny state".

Your opinion of how the government works is rather childlike to be honest.

Your sinister distaste of "government" is far more absurd.

 

[I'm Cleo!]

Too bad there won't be anything left in SS by the time I retire in 40 years.

Too bad that's not true. There won't be anything left in the Social Security trust fund, but Social Security will still be paying out ~70% of current benefits if no changes are made at all. If some minor tweaks are made right now, it can meet current obligation levels when you retire.

Cleo

 

[Merkinball]

A lot of those costs have to do with the fact that the system isn't universal and publically run. - Princeps

What exactly are you suggesting here? Please. Take your time.

They're pretty good at running institutions like the social security administration and ... yes, universal health care coverage. - Princeps

Social Security is nothing but bloat and you know it. Who cares about savings when it comes to not advertising? The idea that the administration of social security is cheap is laughable. The idea that any government beauracracy will function more efficiently than a corporate environment is just utterly absurd Princeps. It's free money. That's what a government job is. Saying that social security is administrered efficiently is like saying that one guy holding a stop sign, one guy digging, and six guys watching it all happen is efficient construction of roadways.

What's the purpose of Social Security anyway? If Social Security is so great, then why are their so many mutual funds and 401K's in this country? I'm pretty sure it's because any common idiot knows that Social Security sucks. Except maybe the 50% of America that is bottom feeding suction eel. They all say, "Oh nooooeessss! Don't takes mah soshul sekyerity frum me!!!"

FedEx was the result of a government granted Small Business Loan.

You mean that s--t got paid back yo? I don't care about government loans. I care about the fact that the US Postal service was over a billion dollars in the hole just last quarter. JUST LAST QUARTER!

One functions privately and is hurting, but still has its head above water.
The other is a government entity and can suck up as much money as it so desires.

 

[I'm Cleo!]

What's the purpose of Social Security anyway?

To keep the elderly from dying in poverty. And it's done exactly that, very well.

Cleo

 

[El_Machinae]

The side effect has been fairly awesome (and unforseen) wealth creation

Too bad there won't be anything left in SS by the time I retire in 40 years. Is SS worked so well, I wouldn't even be bothering with 401k.

???

Ideally, if you're smart, you're going to be so wealthy when you retire that your continued taxes (dividend income, etc.) will actually override any funds you're getting from SS. That's the goal you should be shooting for. You'll get $X k dollars from SS, but because you were wise, you're paying more than $X k anyway.

It's a safety net, not a retirement plan.

 

[Princeps]

What exactly are you suggesting here? Please. Take your time.

Universal coverage, at the least.

Now here's a good link for the issue of costs:

http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepayer_faq.php#raise_taxes

Also, you can make a conservative "the lesser evil-ish" argument for universal coverage: http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/12/a_conservative_case_for_univer.html

The idea that the administration of social security is cheap is laughable.

No it's not. Social security has cheap administrative costs, it's simple and it doesn't have to spend on marketing (which are quite substantial for private businesses). And it doesn't need to make a profit (which is yet another cost on the consumer). Now the fact that medicare and medicaid are expensive is another issue entirely, and it has more do with a poor hybrid of corporate-state mechanisms (combining the worst of both worlds) and with the fact that the Federal government isn't allowed to use its enormous bragaining power to make drugs cheaper.

The idea that any government beauracracy will function more efficiently than a corporate environment is just utterly absurd Princeps.

Only in the conservative fantasy land the private sector is full of competitive and innovative solutions for all the world's problems.

Corporations are purely profit driven, secretive totalitarian institutions that care nothing for the long-term health of its customers: the profit is made somewhere in between illness and death. A public health care system could have entirely different incentives and have better programs: which is the reason, btw, that even the supposedly "laissez faire paradise" of Hong Kong has universal health care.

And one can make a conservative argument for universal health care coverage here.

What's the purpose of Social Security anyway? If Social Security is so great, then why are their so many mutual funds and 401K's in this country?

Social security is (much like) an insurance system designed to keep the elderly from dying in poverty. Before social security, 2/3 of American elderly lived in cold hard poverty, after it was implemented, the figure quickly came down.

I'm pretty sure it's because any common idiot knows that Social Security sucks.

Then why does it have such strong support?

You mean that s--t got paid back yo? I don't care about government loans. I care about the fact that the US Postal service was over a billion dollars in the hole just last quarter.

No need to scream. Obviously the post office, being a public institution, functions differently from a private business and it is funded differently. The USA is also a very large country, so I don't know what's so awful with over a billion, to me it seems quite modest.

 

[El_Machinae]

I'm pretty sure it's because any common idiot knows that Social Security sucks.

Apparently so. Do your friends think it sucks too?