|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Pyongshin Sangja
Joined: 20 Apr 2003
Location: I love baby!
|
 Posted: Sun May 01, 2005 7:14 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: |
| Compare that to the cost of a day in the hospital these days. What is the cost of one aspirin? Isn't it around $5.00? A gallon of gas is above $2.00, up from 50 cents. A can of pop is a dollar or more. |
In Canada that aspirin is free. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
R. S. Refugee
Joined: 29 Sep 2004
Location: Shangra La, ROK
|
| Posted: Sun May 01, 2005 7:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Blind Willie wrote: |
| funplanet wrote: |
| liberals believe the money you earn belongs to the gov... |
Can you provide a quote or some statistics for that? |
Rush bloviated it. What more proof do ya need, pilgrim? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
some waygug-in
Joined: 25 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sun May 01, 2005 9:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
A critique of Bush's plan:
http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-vpduo014241079may01,0,4039033.story?coll=ny-editorials-headlines
On Social Security, Bush distorts.
May 1, 2005
Say this, if nothing else, about President George W. Bush: He's persistent, if not downright stubborn.
That was certainly on display Thursday night in one of his rare prime-time news conferences. With his poll numbers falling and his pet project, privatizing aspects of Social Security, not gaining favor with the public, he decided to bring his case directly to the people.
Bush was obviously trying hard and appeared much more comfortable in front of the television cameras and the Washington press corps than he used to be. But he's still not making the Social Security case on substance. And for good reason: The facts are not with him.
There is an essential dishonesty in Bush's message on Social Security: that, as he put it, there's a bunch of IOUs in Washington filing cabinets that will not be redeemed. That is, the government won't make good on its promise to pay Social Security benefits to younger workers.
But we're talking about the credit of the United States of America here. To suggest that the government will not honor that kind of commitment is absurd. This country has never defaulted on its debt and certainly would not on a matter of this importance. It's a bit like the now-debunked argument that Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction posed an imminent threat. Only, this time we see through the deception.
Also, Bush's plan to create personal accounts has nothing to do with the long-term viability of Social Security. Indeed, attempting to transition to his system would only make matters worse. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rather_Dashing
Joined: 07 Sep 2004
|
| Posted: Mon May 02, 2005 3:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
Social security is headed for collapse, but not for another 40 years.
Social security benefits have been rising at the rate of wages, and not prices. This means it's becoming a welfare program because as any economist will tell you, wages far outpace the growth of prices because of productivity increases.
Some-waygukin, that article is 100% useless. No economic theory, no statistics, just tired old left-wing rhetoric.
When Social security first started, the average life expectancy was 63! You only got benefits when you turned 65, two years after you were expected to die. Now people live to be about 75 years old... are we starting to see the problem here?
Bush paying off his buddies, lol. More mindless conspiracy theories. GG. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Mon May 02, 2005 7:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| But we're talking about the credit of the United States of America here. To suggest that the government will not honor that kind of commitment is absurd. This country has never defaulted on its debt and certainly would not on a matter of this importance. |
As far as I know, the first part of this quote is correct. The US government has not defaulted on a loan from any financial institution, here or abroad.
But we are not talking about money borrowed from a bank. We are talking about payroll taxes deposited by workers and the matching funds deposited by the employers. That money was not kept in a steel safe anywhere. And everyone knows this.
What those IOUs represent are the funding for benefits promised over the past however many years. Bush is already talking about reduced benefits. In other words, he is talking about defaulting on the promise made to the American people.
There is no hidden agenda. For decades, the conservative wing of the GOP has said the only real purpose of the federal government is to pay for defense. All other spending, specifically social spending, should be at some local level, whether that be state governments or company pension plans. Taxes should be cut so there is no temptation for the feds to spend on 'welfare programs'. The GOP has disliked Social Security since the program started up 70 years ago. They were angry at Eisenhower for not dismantling Social Security (it was their first opportunity to do anything about it), and they were upset at Nixon and Reagan for failing to do anything.
A major part of the GOP plan, under Reagan and Bush, has been to raise defense spending while cutting taxes. Look at the deficit under Reagan and Bush. The poster who mentioned that the private accounts don't address the problem is correct. But he didn't mention that the $2 TRILLION dollars the government would have to borrow is part of the plan to so financially strap the government that Social Security would have to be radically reduced.
I won't go so far as to say the war in Iraq is a plan for a long-term military committment so there won't be any money for social spending. I can't prove it. But I suspect it. There has been no tax cut the Republicans don't like, no weapons program too expensive--think Star Wars or whatever they are calling it these days, no social program they do like. They do not disapprove of social engineering as long as the goal is to recreate the America of the robber barons (1890's).
The poster who said the breakdown won't occur for 40 years is correct. The time to begin to fix the problem is now. I said 'begin'.
Probably the greatest Republican victory in my lifetime has been the creation of an atmosphere of distrust of the government in terms of social security. Lots of younger people don't believe the Social Security program will be there when they retire. They are right to be nervous about it. The reason they should be concerned is because the GOP wants to destroy the program. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
some waygug-in
Joined: 25 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon May 02, 2005 3:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Rather_Dashing wrote: |
Social security is headed for collapse, but not for another 40 years.
Social security benefits have been rising at the rate of wages, and not prices. This means it's becoming a welfare program because as any economist will tell you, wages far outpace the growth of prices because of productivity increases.
Some-waygukin, that article is 100% useless. No economic theory, no statistics, just tired old left-wing rhetoric.
When Social security first started, the average life expectancy was 63! You only got benefits when you turned 65, two years after you were expected to die. Now people live to be about 75 years old... are we starting to see the problem here?
Bush paying off his buddies, lol. More mindless conspiracy theories. GG. |
Did you read the whole article?
I am not saying I disagree with you. I am no economist (I am an honest man) 
Now, having said all that, there is some merit in aspects of what the president had to say Thursday night. Yes, Social Security does have to be shored up for the future. Yes, indexing future benefits is a concept worth considering and should not be dismissed out of hand by Democrats or anyone else. And, yes, some kind of personal account might be desirable - but as an add-on to the current system, not a substitute
Tell me why you think this is useless? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Tue May 03, 2005 9:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
even Roosevelt suggested that SS was not meant to be "permanent." I want a choice where my money goes, what is so wrong with that? if you are too stupid to educate yourself financially then fine, let the gov baby sit you...me, it's my money first and foremost therefore I should have a say what to do with it...
liberals believe the money you earn belongs to the gov...everyone else who has half a brain and can think KNOWS it is their money...you earned it, not the gov
|
I want to reply to some of what funplanet said.
Remember when Social Security started? It was in the Depression. Without going into what caused the Depression, I will say it wasn't the decisions made by the factory workers, it wasn't the farmers deliberately causing the Dust Bowl. No amount of 'financial education' could immunize regular people against its effects. 30% of the people were unemployed through no fault of their own. This was not a temporary thing. It was not a local thing. You couldn't wait a couple of months for it to get better. Packing up and going to California to pick fruit was about all a lot of people could do.
We don't have depressions anymore. We have recessions. The media changed the name so we wouldn't feel as bad. None have been as severe since the 30's but that is no guarantee the next one won't be. Just consider possibilities. The federal deficit for example. China, Taiwan, Japan and Korea hold a huge share of it. Suppose one or two of them decide to dump their holdings? Refuse to take dollars in payment for our trade deficit. Or what about a massive earthquake in California or some other major natural disaster--like that mountain side in the Canaries falling in the ocean and wiping out the east coast? How about a war in the Middle East that cuts off oil supplies? What about a panic on Wall Street that goes longer than a few days? A terrorist attack on a nuclear plant? A dirty bomb in Times Square.
Surely you get the idea. No one can prepare themselves completely. But only 4% of us live on the land now. We can't plant gardens and wait it out. We live in a post-industrial world over which we have almost no control.
I have nothing against private retirement accounts. Everyone should have one. They are necessary. But you have no guarantee whatsoever that when it comes time to cash in that the markets will be up. True, the market goes up over time, but that doesn't do you any good if you're 70 and the market goes down for four or five years, or longer. Think about the people who lost so much in the dot.com crash.
Company pension plans are great, too. I know someone who worked for a great company. As part of his pension plan the company gave stocks. He retired at 50 with more than a $1 million dollars. My mom was not so lucky. She worked at a company that didn't have a pension plan for most of the time she worked for them. She gets a whopping $42. 85 a month from them. She worked the same years and, I think, just as hard as the guy with a million bucks now. Ask your grandparents about their medical costs. Are you saying it's luck of the draw if you have to eat dog food when you retire? Wasn't Enron in on draining corporate pension funds?
I'm sure you're aware of how hard it is to get a good paying job these days. But the people who work them still need a place to live, buy clothes for the kids, pay for gas for the car no matter how much it costs, and buy health insurance. At lower than average income there just isn't much money left over to put into savings. Even at average income there isn't much left over till the kids are grown and gone. By the time people can start saving significant amounts of money, they are in their 40's.
FDR understood something very important. He understood that with the modern economy it wasn't possible for granny to come live with the kids and sit in her rocker in the front parlor till she died. He understood that we are all in this together. Social Security provides one part of freedom and as the guys in the military like to say, "Freedom is not free."
You talk about rights. Its time you thought about obligations. You may be immoral enough to only think about yourself, but I doubt your parents brought you up that way. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
