GOP's Immigration Bill

[5thYearSooner]

Here are the details.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/nov/26/gop-immigration-bill-keeps-the-well-educated/

[okie52]

Here are the details.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/nov/26/gop-immigration-bill-keeps-the-well-educated/

I have no problem with offering well educated immigrants a green card.

[5thYearSooner]

I have no problem with offering well educated immigrants a green card.

Me too. This is going to be interesting.. to see if Democrats will support this. Especially eliminating the diversity visas and increasing high skilled employee visas. Diversity Vs Skilled labor

[SoonerorLater]

We need a moratorium on immigration. We have well educated US Citizens that can't find a job even in highly skilled disciplines. To allow immigration to continue at any level just cuts the incentive for US students to pursue math and science if US companies can import foreigners to undercut wages. Under no circumstances should we ever again allow unskilled or semi skilled workers into this country. Too many people here now.

[KantoSooner]

Embargoing immigration and/or greencards does nothing to help US workers over the mid- or long-haul. We live in a global economy; stopping free flow of labor simply puts the country that does so at a disadvantage vs. the rest of the world.
We need to improve our schools and vo-tech training and then tell our citizens to get out there and 'root hog, or die'.

Here's a brief example: in 1970, the entire silicon industry in the world was based in California or Phoenix or Dallas. Period. Nowhere else. We as a country limited visas for qualified engineers and taxed the hell out of the companies in California. Today? No silicon industry in California whatsoever. Oh, Intel has an old broken down research facility (all the real stuff is done in Oregon) and AMD has an old plant. Dallas still has TI, but they've decided not to manufacture chips anymore, except for military, they outsource the rest. Phoenix still has an industry with robust local government support. The overwhelming balance of the world's silicon business? Taiwan, Korea, Japan, China, Singapore and Malaysia. Hundreds of thousands of $80,000~150,000/year jobs. All gone.

Great results when you try to wall industries off from global competition.

[5thYearSooner]

I agree with most of your views except "US companies can import foreigners to undercut wages". There are labor laws to make sure that a non US citizen is being paid on par with a US citizen for the same skill set and location. I agree they get work done cheaply by outsourcing but that's what the tech companies want.

[5thYearSooner]

KantoSooner,

Even if there is skilled work force here, the companies will still outsource. Green cards to international student graduates is a tricky problem..if you don't give green cards they will go back to their countries and compete against US companies. And hence the companies here want them here to work for them instead of working against them.

[KantoSooner]

Here's the deal on salaries. While it used to be true that you could hire engineers cheap in China (I hired a good friend, Phd in Material Science, bi-lingual, 25 years experience for $15K per year in 1992 (he retired at around $125,000/year 15 years later), it is not so anymore. You pay about what you would here for good guys. The untrained and two year grads are another story, but 'fab operators' (the people who run the machinery inside the chip plants) are making no more than 10-15% less than they would here...in a lower cost of living location.

My point was that when you isolate US industry in an attempt to save 'good jobs' for Americans, you create US industries that either off shore themselves to keep up or simply bow out of certain segments, abandoning those industries completely.

You can place reasonable restrictions on immigration and/or work permits, but walling the country off is a non-starter.

[5thYearSooner]

The interesting thing here is that Republicans(who are perceived anti immigrant) are supporting it while Democrats are against it.

[KantoSooner]

Not such a shock: you're talking about only 55,000 visas a year under this program, 0 of which are 'fresh' and only offering the them to Phds. Who'd have a problem with letting Phds move here. (David Duke aside).
You'll find a bit livlier conversation when we get down to discussing the 10-20-30 million illegals, the family member rules, temporary manual laborer permits and the like.

About the only rational overall plan I know of is to go back to the 'W' Bush plan, slap a coat of paint on it. Hell, call it 'Obamigration' for all I care if that helps to pass it. It was fair, balanced, in the national interest and comprehensive. And by so doing, get this canker off of the national debate.

[SoonerorLater]

My larger point regarding immigration and it's evil twin off-shoring is, it doesn't work to the benefit of the US citizenry as a whole. The globalist argument as it's presented to the US people requires intellectual dishonesty.

Its "post hoc ergo propter hoc". They would tell you because we are merged into a global society we need to adapt to embrace globalist trade policy. These are the same people who merged us into the global workforce in the first place. Foreign policy should benefit Americans first, foremost and always. With regards to labor we don't do that.

[SoonerorLater]

The interesting thing here is that Republicans(who are perceived anti immigrant) are supporting it while Democrats are against it.

By the way I am definitely not a Democrat.

[okie52]

Not such a shock: you're talking about only 55,000 visas a year under this program, 0 of which are 'fresh' and only offering the them to Phds. Who'd have a problem with letting Phds move here. (David Duke aside).
You'll find a bit livlier conversation when we get down to discussing the 10-20-30 million illegals, the family member rules, temporary manual laborer permits and the like.

About the only rational overall plan I know of is to go back to the 'W' Bush plan, slap a coat of paint on it. Hell, call it 'Obamigration' for all I care if that helps to pass it. It was fair, balanced, in the national interest and comprehensive. And by so doing, get this canker off of the national debate.

Fair? Fair to whom?

[FaninAma]

Open up the borders completely. Let the illegals come across at will. Let them compete with our poorest for jobs and social services which includes a lot of Latinos and blacks. Lets hear what they think of softer immigration policies then.

[KantoSooner]

My larger point regarding immigration and it's evil twin off-shoring is, it doesn't work to the benefit of the US citizenry as a whole. The globalist argument as it's presented to the US people requires intellectual dishonesty.

Its "post hoc ergo propter hoc". They would tell you because we are merged into a global society we need to adapt to embrace globalist trade policy. These are the same people who merged us into the global workforce in the first place. Foreign policy should benefit Americans first, foremost and always. With regards to labor we don't do that.

If you truly think that 'joining the global economy' was a choice, please feel free to 'save game' and go play the version in which the US builds a big wall, sits inside with its hands over its ears going, "I can't hear you", and tell me how that works after 50 years.

The global economy has been a massive boon to the US and our population. In constant dollars, we pay far less for everything we buy than we did in 1960, or in 1940 or in 1920 or in 1900 and so forth. All due to industrialization and the globalization that it drives and that drives it.

Multiple generations of US diplomats and poltiicians have 'gotten' this and have built institutions like the IMF and World Bank that are wildly slanted in our favor, they have built legal structures that invite global capital to our country to provide the money that builds our companies.

The only Americans who feel the global economy is not fair to us have to be people who won't be happy until we enslave the rest of the world. Sheesh, folks, we have to play fair at least some of the time or the rest of the planet might stop subsidizing our lazy asses, take their ball and go home.

Oh, and if you lost your job in the terry cloth factory in Sakerlina, go retrain, be willing to move and don't aim at 19th century jobs in the future.

[Midtowner]

The only Americans who feel the global economy is not fair to us have to be people who won't be happy until we enslave the rest of the world. Sheesh, folks, we have to play fair at least some of the time or the rest of the planet might stop subsidizing our lazy asses, take their ball and go home.

I might really buy this if other countries would play fair as well. China's constant theft of intellectual property is pretty unnerving. I'm not unrealistic about our participation in the global economy, but we need to look out more for our own.

[SoonerorLater]

If you truly think that 'joining the global economy' was a choice, please feel free to 'save game' and go play the version in which the US builds a big wall, sits inside with its hands over its ears going, "I can't hear you", and tell me how that works after 50 years.

The global economy has been a massive boon to the US and our population. In constant dollars, we pay far less for everything we buy than we did in 1960, or in 1940 or in 1920 or in 1900 and so forth. All due to industrialization and the globalization that it drives and that drives it.

Multiple generations of US diplomats and poltiicians have 'gotten' this and have built institutions like the IMF and World Bank that are wildly slanted in our favor, they have built legal structures that invite global capital to our country to provide the money that builds our companies.

The only Americans who feel the global economy is not fair to us have to be people who won't be happy until we enslave the rest of the world. Sheesh, folks, we have to play fair at least some of the time or the rest of the planet might stop subsidizing our lazy asses, take their ball and go home.

Oh, and if you lost your job in the terry cloth factory in Sakerlina, go retrain, be willing to move and don't aim at 19th century jobs in the future.

International Trade and Globalist Trade Policy are two completely different things. If you want to convince me that American workers cost more than near slave labor on the other side of the world (some places) it won't take much. I will stipulate that importing stuff made by cheap labor results in lower priced goods. No dispute but at what cost? To me it should be obvious that if you are in a global pool than you need to be dealing with countries that play by the same rules.

Our whole economic process cause dislocations in the system. Yes we may get cheaper goods but in the process we end up with more people unemployed. In our society whether I agree with it or not, we will end up paying more in social spending either through direct taxation or through inflation which defeats the entire purpose of low cost foreign labor in the first place.

And NO we don't pay less for everything than we did in 1960, 1940 etc. If you are talking about the aforementioned imports than yes. (by the way, price without regard to relative time adjusted state of the art quality, is meaningless) Then again you need to look at the other side of the ledger and see the geometric rise in social spending. They aren't unrelated. If the US couldn't send out checks through various programs and agencies to defacto bribe the newly found poor and displaced workers then you would see a massive revolt in this country.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

We need a moratorium on immigration. We have well educated US Citizens that can't find a job even in highly skilled disciplines. To allow immigration to continue at any level just cuts the incentive for US students to pursue math and science if US companies can import foreigners to undercut wages. Under no circumstances should we ever again allow unskilled or semi skilled workers into this country. Too many people here now.

The problem is, most of them are old and drawing SS and Medicare.

[olevetonahill]

The problem is, most of them are old and drawing SS and Medicare.

That they worked and Paid i on 40 + years as opposed to those who sit on their *** and expect things handed to em

[pphilfran]

The problem is, most of them are old and drawing SS and Medicare.

65 and older - 40 million drawing SS
Disabled under 65 - 14 million
Other 8 million

Number of people on food stamps - 47 million

[pphilfran]

There is probably some duplication between the groups...but we have 100 million, one third of the population, drawing some type of government payment...staggering if you think about it...

[SanJoaquinSooner]

That they worked and Paid i on 40 + years as opposed to those who sit on their *** and expect things handed to em

Now vet, of course many of them paid into it. Not all. And many not as much as they end up drawing. Otherwise it wouldn't be going broke.

[olevetonahill]

Now vet, of course many of them paid into it. Not all. And many not as much as they end up drawing. Otherwise it wouldn't be going broke.

Ill garendayumTee you that EVERY one drawing SS Disability OR retirement has Paid into the system
Unless its Their Kids drawing Survivors benefits In case of the workers death or 1/2 benefits if they are children of A disabled worker.That only counts IF the WORKER had underage kids at the time of death or Injury. Otherwise a Worker who Dies at the age of say 64 and has never drawn a dime His family gets 255 towards burial expenses. (Unless that has gone up in the last few years)

Do the Math bro
Pay into something for over 40 years then on average draw against thot for 10 or less on average
This **** of People drawing Social Security for 40 years is very rare
Get up in the morning and Check the ages of folks that died.
Round here the average is about 67
That means they MAYBE got to draw for 2 years

The Reason and the ONLY reason SS is going broke is because back in the late 60s Congress found a way to raid the fund and put back IOUs So they could Fund their "Great ****ing Society"

Seems the Teamster's did that with their retirement and got sent to prison

Im kinda fed the **** up with People acting like those who Draw Social Security are a bunch of welfare dead beats. Its THE ONLY segment of socity that gets a Check from the Gov. that moren likely they have paid a hell of lot more in than they will EVER get back

[SanJoaquinSooner]

That they worked and Paid i on 40 + years as opposed to those who sit on their *** and expect things handed to em

Dude One works forty years, retires at 66, and draws $2500/mo for 10 years until he dies, drawing $300,000 (unadjusted for COLA). Dude One was single so that's the end of the show.

Dude Two works forty years, retires at 66, and draws $2500/mo for 10 years until he dies, drawing $300,000 (unadjusted). But Dude Two has a wife who never contributed to SS. As a survivor she starts drawing $2500/mo for 10 more years until she dies at age 86 for a grand unadjusted total of $600,000.

Dude Three works forty years, retires at 66, and draws $2500/mo for 10 years until he dies, drawing $300,000 (unadjusted). but Dude Three has a wife who never contributed to SS and is ten years younger than her dead husband. So as a survivor she starts drawing $2500/mo for 20 more years until she dies at age 86 for a grand unadjusted total of $900,000.

One can presume each dude and his employer paid the same amount into the system.

So vet, does Uncle Sam think the wife of Dude Three earned that extra $600,000 because she agreed to bang an older dude?

[olevetonahill]

Just ****ed up ALL your math



What is the average monthly Social Security benefit for a retired worker?

The average monthly Social Security benefit for a retired worker was about $1,230 at the beginning of 2012. This amount changes monthly based upon the total amount of all benefits paid and the total number of people receiving benefits.


Oh and as far as Cola go, There have been 2 in the last 4 years counting the one coming up of .017 %
which comes to 20 bucks of which They gonna keep 5 for Medicare increase so the folks are only gettin 15 more bucks a month

You need to argue with FACTs bro

My main deal here is that a Lot of you are trying to equate the Social Security recipient to some No good worthless bum who never worked, That aint right and YOU know it.

[Chuck Bao]

The Reason and the ONLY reason SS is going broke is because back in the late 60s Congress found a way to raid the fund and put back IOUs So they could Fund their "Great ****ing Society"


Just ****ed up ALL your math

...You need to argue with FACTs bro...

<Snicker> Raiding? Really? Dude, where do you think your Social Security contributions should be kept? In a mattress? In a mason jar buried in the back yard? US government IOUs have been one of the safest investments over the last 60 years and realistically it is THE only viable option for the size of the Social Security Fund.

I mean that it would be great if the Social Security Fund could hedge against inflation by investing in commodity futures. But, those markets are so wonky and volatile and manutipulated that it wouldn't be prudent or even excuseable when it all goes wrong and it would at some point.

Deposits at individual private banks? Ahem...too big to fail and moral hazzard to boot.

Foreign currencies? Yeah, not a chance in hell.

You could even argue that the Social Security Fund should be allowed to buy, develop and lease property. I'm pretty sure that before the first brick was laid that brickbats would fall from all directions. I can just hear the refrain of "Crowding out the market".

[olevetonahill]

<Snicker> Raiding? Really? Dude, where do you think your Social Security contributions should be kept? In a mattress? In a mason jar buried in the back yard? US government IOUs have been one of the safest investments over the last 60 years and realistically it is THE only viable option for the size of the Social Security Fund.

I mean that it would be great if the Social Security Fund could hedge against inflation by investing in commodity futures. But, those markets are so wonky and volatile and manutipulated that it wouldn't be prudent or even excuseable when it all goes wrong and it would at some point.

Deposits at individual private banks? Ahem...too big to fail and moral hazzard to boot.

Foreign currencies? Yeah, not a chance in hell.

You could even argue that the Social Security Fund should be allowed to buy, develop and lease property. I'm pretty sure that before the first brick was laid that brickbats would fall from all directions. I can just hear the refrain of "Crowding out the market".

Im not going to argue with an economist, Even tho I think you are simplifying this way too much.

After all My entire point has been that the average WORKER has paid into this system. They HAVE earned what they get , They are NOT ****in welfare bums sittin on their asses expecting a handout, They simply want what they Worked and paid in.

Where as the SSI/Medicade folk never have

[rock on sooner]

SJS's premise that the women never paid into SS is valid ONLY if they
never worked at all. If they drew a paycheck of almost any size, then
they paid into the system.

As to the fed using SS as a piggy bank, they have. To the tune of $2.6
trillion over the years. The issue isn't just the number of people receiving
gov't aid, it the GOVERNMENT receiving aid from SS. If the funds are used
as intended, there is no shortfall. Since that isn't the case, then the cap needs
to be raised and those funds separated from any use other than SS recipients.
And, yes, it can be legislated...remember Gore's campaign about a SS lockbox?
Nobody has the guts to do it, though. jus my opinion...

[olevetonahill]

SJS's premise that the women never paid into SS is valid ONLY if they
never worked at all. If they drew a paycheck of almost any size, then
they paid into the system.

As to the fed using SS as a piggy bank, they have. To the tune of $2.6
trillion over the years. The issue isn't just the number of people receiving
gov't aid, it the GOVERNMENT receiving aid from SS. If the funds are used
as intended, there is no shortfall. Since that isn't the case, then the cap needs
to be raised and those funds separated from any use other than SS recipients.
And, yes, it can be legislated...remember Gore's campaign about a SS lockbox?
Nobody has the guts to do it, though. jus my opinion...

Thats my Point Bro
Its NOT Gov. AID.
These people PAID into the system expecting the Gov. to honor ITs promise.
Naive I know,

[okie52]

Thats my Point Bro
Its NOT Gov. AID.
These people PAID into the system expecting the Gov. to honor ITs promise.
Naive I know,

Not enough **** raised every time they raided it. Just kick the can on down the road.

[KantoSooner]

Mid,
Theft of IP is a fascinating issue. Who used to be kings of this? The Japanese. Who is about as aggressive in supporting IP law today? The Japanese. Difference? Now they have patents, too. We're seeing Chinese companies start to squawk as the Vietnamese, Russians and others pirate their IP. It's a cycle. Yes, we need to vigilantly protect our inventions (I tend towards using as much 'trade secret' as possible as most patents can be circumvented), but we also need to understand that the global economy is a full contact game. It's a nasty business, but beats the hell out of war. And once everyone has skin in the game and is playing by reasonably fair rules, then they have less motive to go to war.
This is what we've done brilliantly with China.

Soonerorlater,
I would suggest you check out, in constant dollars and in purchasing power parity, what things cost in the past. We live FAR more materially rich lives than our forebears at any time in history AND have greater personal financial security.
I personally don't buy a distinction between international trade and whatever you mean by 'globalist trade policy'. When you decide to trade more or less freely, you end up in the same place.
As to the social costs of buying more efficiently from abroad, I'd suggest a reread of Adam Smith or Von Hayek. Trade barriers or attempts to 'manage' an economy or trade do far, far worse over time.
Our social costs have risen, over time because we, as a society decided that we were tired of watching the unfortunate in our midst starve on the streets. (Interesting to look at the numbers of bodies that the NYPD collected each morning from the streets of NYC in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Dead due to exposure and malnutrition.)(And, on a personal note, you might think that walking around dead bodies each day on your way to work would be simply impossible; that somehow a population WOULD find a way to ameliorate this situation as a matter of fundamental priority. Not so. Living in Lagos, Nigeria several decades ago, we'd see people dead of disease or starvation on the sidewalk on our way to school and my sister and I, along with the rest of the throng would simply walk around them. You get used to it. We could go back to living that way.)
Global trade has not been a zero sum game. It's been a massive win/win for the world; but for the US, it's been better than for any other country I can think of.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

Just ****ed up ALL your math



What is the average monthly Social Security benefit for a retired worker?

The average monthly Social Security benefit for a retired worker was about $1,230 at the beginning of 2012. This amount changes monthly based upon the total amount of all benefits paid and the total number of people receiving benefits.


Oh and as far as Cola go, There have been 2 in the last 4 years counting the one coming up of .017 %
which comes to 20 bucks of which They gonna keep 5 for Medicare increase so the folks are only gettin 15 more bucks a month

You need to argue with FACTs bro

My main deal here is that a Lot of you are trying to equate the Social Security recipient to some No good worthless bum who never worked, That aint right and YOU know it.

Yeah, I'm sure the average person doesn't work full time for 40 years so the average payout is less than that in my example. But that's irrelevant to the point the spouse who didn't pay into the system can reap payments for decades, while the taxpayers who don't have such spouses subsidize the payments.

And I never called the young spouse a no good worthless bum! She was probably good in bed and made good sandwiches.

[SoonerorLater]

Mid,
Theft of IP is a fascinating issue. Who used to be kings of this? The Japanese. Who is about as aggressive in supporting IP law today? The Japanese. Difference? Now they have patents, too. We're seeing Chinese companies start to squawk as the Vietnamese, Russians and others pirate their IP. It's a cycle. Yes, we need to vigilantly protect our inventions (I tend towards using as much 'trade secret' as possible as most patents can be circumvented), but we also need to understand that the global economy is a full contact game. It's a nasty business, but beats the hell out of war. And once everyone has skin in the game and is playing by reasonably fair rules, then they have less motive to go to war.
This is what we've done brilliantly with China.

Soonerorlater,
I would suggest you check out, in constant dollars and in purchasing power parity, what things cost in the past. We live FAR more materially rich lives than our forebears at any time in history AND have greater personal financial security.
I personally don't buy a distinction between international trade and whatever you mean by 'globalist trade policy'. When you decide to trade more or less freely, you end up in the same place.
As to the social costs of buying more efficiently from abroad, I'd suggest a reread of Adam Smith or Von Hayek. Trade barriers or attempts to 'manage' an economy or trade do far, far worse over time.
Our social costs have risen, over time because we, as a society decided that we were tired of watching the unfortunate in our midst starve on the streets. (Interesting to look at the numbers of bodies that the NYPD collected each morning from the streets of NYC in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Dead due to exposure and malnutrition.)(And, on a personal note, you might think that walking around dead bodies each day on your way to work would be simply impossible; that somehow a population WOULD find a way to ameliorate this situation as a matter of fundamental priority. Not so. Living in Lagos, Nigeria several decades ago, we'd see people dead of disease or starvation on the sidewalk on our way to school and my sister and I, along with the rest of the throng would simply walk around them. You get used to it. We could go back to living that way.)
Global trade has not been a zero sum game. It's been a massive win/win for the world; but for the US, it's been better than for any other country I can think of.

I like Von Hayek. I like Rothbard. I like Von Mises. I agree with the prevailing philosophies behind them. However I don't agree with the conclusions people today draw from them. I could write a while on this but the gist of it is that these guys are dogmatic. They may well be correct. However sound economics does not necessarily make for good politics or social policy as practiced in today's world. If you wanted to scrap current economic policy and start anew then yes the Austrian thought is great. It would surely cause social revolution as the have nots are pushed to the way side. At least to begin with.

I guess the best way I could put it is that if sound economics is the altar you worship at then these are your guys. If we didn't live in an Industrial Welfare State. I find Austrian Economics wholly unsuitable for our current social welfare state. Nobody more than I would like to change that but until we do the Austrian School is mainly going to be theory.

As to prices about the only things cheaper in constant dollars are items that can be made by unskilled labor overseas. Even that is more related to technology. What did a Volkswagen or Toyota cost in 1972?
College tuition?
Gasoline?

Index shows that 40 years ago in 1972

The deflator index for 2012 is 115.167 and for 1972 it is 26.657 (US Dollar Implicit Price Deflators for Gross Domestic Product 1929-2012, 2005=100, BEA). It follows that, with numbers rounded to two decimals:

1.00 US Dollars of 2012 are worth 0.23 US Dollars of 1972.

So are any of those things above even close to costing about 4 times what they did in 1972? No none of them.

New VW in 1972 was about $2700.00. Today much more that 4 times that amount
Tuition not even close. Have a daughter starting next year. If it isn't 10 times the cost I would be surprised. That doesn't even count the amount of additional fees you now pay for whatever.

Gasoline that's pretty easy. In 1972 gasoline was about 30 cents a gallon. Today about $3.00.

We have not been keeping up with inflation since the 1970's and have created massive personal debt to make up the difference.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

SJS's premise that the women never paid into SS is valid ONLY if they
never worked at all. If they drew a paycheck of almost any size, then
they paid into the system.

As to the fed using SS as a piggy bank, they have. To the tune of $2.6
trillion over the years. The issue isn't just the number of people receiving
gov't aid, it the GOVERNMENT receiving aid from SS. If the funds are used
as intended, there is no shortfall. Since that isn't the case, then the cap needs
to be raised and those funds separated from any use other than SS recipients.
And, yes, it can be legislated...remember Gore's campaign about a SS lockbox?
Nobody has the guts to do it, though. jus my opinion...

However if the spouse worked part time for 10 or 15 years, she might qualify for a $600/mo benefit, BUT is paid the $2500/mo. for decades due to widow benefits. One might argue she "deserves" it, but nevertheless, the taxpayer is subsidizing it. The family is getting more than their share that was paid in.

[diverdog]

Just ****ed up ALL your math



What is the average monthly Social Security benefit for a retired worker?

The average monthly Social Security benefit for a retired worker was about $1,230 at the beginning of 2012. This amount changes monthly based upon the total amount of all benefits paid and the total number of people receiving benefits.


Oh and as far as Cola go, There have been 2 in the last 4 years counting the one coming up of .017 %
which comes to 20 bucks of which They gonna keep 5 for Medicare increase so the folks are only gettin 15 more bucks a month

You need to argue with FACTs bro

My main deal here is that a Lot of you are trying to equate the Social Security recipient to some No good worthless bum who never worked, That aint right and YOU know it.

Holy chit you are a Democrat. :)

[KantoSooner]

Sooner,
I think you'll find that Hayek, in particular, was hardly dogmatic. He had a flexible attitude toward regulation and even deficit spending. He was, afterall, one of Reagan's advisors. He was, pretty harshly opposed to the notion that some roomfull of 'experts' in DC could adroitly finetune our economy. I think he would have found the notion that this same group could not only tune our economy, but foresee, and head off, foreign competition to be so far outside the realm of reason as to leave him speechless.

You've given some examples on pricing, so let's look a bit deeper.

That VW, for instance. Manual transmission. No A/C. 1.0 liter engine. Manual windows, locks, in fact, manual everything, except of course for the stuff it didn't have. Like a radio, much less a stereo. Radial tires? You jest. The thing could safely go about 75 mph. In a pinch. Crusing was more like 55 max. Anti-rust undercoat? Not if the examples I saw in 1980 were any testimony. In short, it was a piece of **** of a car. Now, I'm not accepting your 4:1 comparison table on pricing, the references I have are closer to 10:1, but let's accept that for a moment. $10,800. Can you buy a car for that today? Yes, yes you can. An american made one, at that. If you wanted to buy a piece of ****, you could get something imported, perhaps from India, at less than half that (presuming you could license it for road use here.)

According to the API, gas prices are actually historically in line today. Not taking into account that we get much better gas mileage overall and thus spend much less on gas as a percentage of our incomes. And that it's 'better' gas (less pollution, better on the engines, etc). And much of what we use is domestic anyway.

Education, you got me. Except to say that it is largely insulated from any sort of foreign competition and thus really isn't part of our dispute.

American industry is capable of competing around the world (and we do so, very effectively and are increasingly reliant on exports to drive our economy) largely because we compete with the world in our home market.

The glory years from 1945 to 1970 should not be taken to be typical of anything. The rest of the industrialized world had been bombed flat. Although we could tweak our industrial policies (I'd axe Sarbannes Oxley, for instance; and go to a flat tax so that we could get rid of most of the IRS and CPA's and put them to work doing something, ANYTHING productive.), we're not doing badly and do not need a kneejerk retreat to fortress America.

[pphilfran]

<Snicker> Raiding? Really? Dude, where do you think your Social Security contributions should be kept? In a mattress? In a mason jar buried in the back yard? US government IOUs have been one of the safest investments over the last 60 years and realistically it is THE only viable option for the size of the Social Security Fund.

I mean that it would be great if the Social Security Fund could hedge against inflation by investing in commodity futures. But, those markets are so wonky and volatile and manutipulated that it wouldn't be prudent or even excuseable when it all goes wrong and it would at some point.

Deposits at individual private banks? Ahem...too big to fail and moral hazzard to boot.

Foreign currencies? Yeah, not a chance in hell.

You could even argue that the Social Security Fund should be allowed to buy, develop and lease property. I'm pretty sure that before the first brick was laid that brickbats would fall from all directions. I can just hear the refrain of "Crowding out the market".

Why should the funds be kept in Special Issue bonds?

By using Special Issue bonds we pay all interest ourselves..so we either go further into debt or print more money to pay the interest...

Also, by using the special issue bonds, we leave the actual money in the hands of our fiscally responsible DC leadership to use as they please...

If the SS revenue was used to buy quality state, local, or corp bonds we would see bond rates decline (more money chasing the available bonds thus requiring lower interest rates) which would help finance our local needs at reduced rates...

There are several companies (PIMCO being one, DD can offer others) that currently manage many trillions worldwide in the bond market so there are quality organizations that could handle the amount of money that is in SS...this method would allow outside sources to pay the interest on the money and not rely on interest payments from increased printed US dollars...

If a disaster occurred and we lost 3% a year in the bonds that we have SS revenue invested in (a highly unlikely scenario) we could just do as we are doing now and print more money to make up the difference...so worst case we do as we do today a print money to pay the interest...

Summary
1. It keeps the money out of the hands of our leadership
2. It lowers financing cost to city and state
3. It lowers the cost of business in DC due to someone else paying the servicing of the debt
4. In worst case it costs the same as what we do today
5. There are companies currently available that could handle the amount of money that is currently in Special Issue bonds

[pphilfran]

Thats my Point Bro
Its NOT Gov. AID.
These people PAID into the system expecting the Gov. to honor ITs promise.
Naive I know,

I agree...we were promised a defined benefit and it should be honored...

But the great deal has finally caught up with us...not quite the deal it once was http://news.yahoo.com/social-security-not-deal-once-workers-165327268.html

WASHINGTON (AP) — People retiring today are part of the first generation of workers who have paid more in Social Security taxes during their careers than they will receive in benefits after they retire. It's a historic shift that will only get worse for future retirees, according to an analysis by The Associated Press.

Previous generations got a much better bargain, mainly because payroll taxes were very low when Social Security was enacted in the 1930s and remained so for decades.

"For the early generations, it was an incredibly good deal," said Andrew Biggs, a former deputy Social Security commissioner who is now a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. "The government gave you free money and getting free money is popular."

If you retired in 1960, you could expect to get back seven times more in benefits than you paid in Social Security taxes, and more if you were a low-income worker, as long you made it to age 78 for men and 81 for women.

As recently as 1985, workers at every income level could retire and expect to get more in benefits than they paid in Social Security taxes, though they didn't do quite as well as their parents and grandparents.

Not anymore.

A married couple retiring last year after both spouses earned average lifetime wages paid about $598,000 in Social Security taxes during their careers. They can expect to collect about $556,000 in benefits, if the man lives to 82 and the woman lives to 85, according to a 2011 study by the Urban Institute, a Washington think tank.

Social Security benefits are progressive, so most low-income workers retiring today still will get slightly more in benefits than they paid in taxes. Most high-income workers started getting less in benefits than they paid in taxes in the 1990s, according to data from the Social Security Administration.

The shift among middle-income workers is happening just as millions of baby boomers are reaching retirement, leaving relatively fewer workers behind to pay into the system. It's coming at a critical time for Social Security, the federal government's largest program.

[Related: How much I pay into Social Security, how much I get]

The trustees who oversee Social Security say its funds, which have been built up over the past 30 years with surplus payroll taxes, will run dry in 2033 unless Congress acts. At that point, payroll taxes would provide enough revenue each year to pay about 75 percent of benefits.

To cover the shortfall, future retirees probably will have to pay higher taxes while they are working, accept lower benefits after they retire, or some combination of both.

"Future generations are going to do worse because either they are going to get fewer benefits or they are going to pay higher taxes," said Eugene Steuerle, a former Treasury official who has studied the issue as a fellow at the Urban Institute.

How can you get a better return on your Social Security taxes?

Live longer. Benefit estimates are based on life expectancy. For those turning 65 this year, Social Security expects women to live 20 more years and men to live 17.8 more.

But returns alone don't fully explain the value of Social Security, which has features that aren't available in typical private-sector retirement plans, said David Certner, legislative policy director for AARP.

Spouses can get benefits even if they never earned wages. Children can get benefits if they have a working parent who dies. People who are too disabled to work can get benefits for life.

Because of spousal benefits, most married couples with only one wage earner will continue to get more in benefits than they pay in taxes for the foreseeable future.

"You are buying this lifetime inflation-protected benefit that you can never run out of and that will always be there for you," Certner said. "It protects your spouse, protects your family and protects you from disability."

Certner noted that private pensions, retirement savings and home values took a big hit when the economy collapsed, putting a dent in the retirement plans of many Americans.

"When you have that combination of factors, Social Security becomes more and more important," Certner said. Social Security is financed by a 12.4 percent tax on wages. Workers pay half and their employers pay the other half. Self-employed workers pay the full 12.4 percent.

The tax is applied to the first $110,100 of a worker's wages, a level that increases each year with inflation. For 2011 and 2012, the tax rate for employees was reduced to 4.2 percent, but is scheduled to return to 6.2 percent in January.

The payroll tax rate was only 2 percent in 1937, the first year Social Security taxes were levied. It did not surpass 6 percent until 1962.

Even with low tax rates, Social Security could afford to pay benefits in the early years because there were more workers paying the tax for each person receiving benefits than there are today. In 1960, there were 4.9 workers paying Social Security taxes for each person getting benefits. Today, there are about 2.8 workers for each beneficiary, a ratio that will drop to 1.9 workers by 2035, according to projections by the Congressional Budget Office.

About 56 million people now collect Social Security benefits, and that number is projected to grow to 91 million in 2035. Monthly benefits average $1,235 for retired workers and $1,111 for disabled workers. Social Security provides most older Americans a majority of their income. About one-quarter of married couples and just under half of single retirees rely on Social Security for 90 percent or more of their income, according to the Social Security Administration.

"Social Security is what's carrying me," said Neta Homier, a 79-year-old retired hospital worker from Toledo, Ohio. "There's no way I would have made it without it. The kids, they're on their own, now, and I'm not going to be a burden for them. That's what it would have been if I hadn't had Social Security."

Homier said she started receiving Social Security when she was 63 and now gets about $800 a month, after her Medicare premiums are deducted. She said her father died at 51, so he never received Social Security, and her mother died at 71 and collected benefits for only a few years.

"It's definitely worth it," she said.

At 52, Anthony Riley of Columbus, Ohio, has a different perspective. Riley said he has a private retirement account because he worries that Social Security won't provide adequate benefits throughout his retirement.

"I use to think that it was worth paying for your Social Security, but now I don't think so," Riley said. At 22, Mackenzie Millan of Los Angeles has even greater doubts about whether Social Security will be a good deal for her.

"The money that I put aside now, it's not like that money is going to be waiting for me. That money is going toward someone else," the recent college graduate said. "If I wanted Social Security 50 years from now, when I wanted to retire, I would have to hope that someone else is still working and putting money aside in their paychecks to pay for my Social Security at that point."

[StoopTroup]

I notice a lot of folks hating things they didn't pay into.

IE: SicEm and his one man War on Civil War Re-enactment.

Succession. I want to secede but I want to make sure my Military and SSI keep coming in every Month.

So much stupid stuff.

Calm the hell down. Stop and smell the roses. Stop the hate....masterbate! :wink:

[5thYearSooner]

Jeez, I was gone for a few hours and look what y'all turned this thread into..
Diversity visas Vs Highly skilled graduate visas..pick one dammit!:surprise:

[okie52]

I notice a lot of folks hating things they didn't pay into.

IE: SicEm and his one man War on Civil War Re-enactment.

Succession. I want to secede but I want to make sure my Military and SSI keep coming in every Month.

So much stupid stuff.

Calm the hell down. Stop and smell the roses. Stop the hate....masterbate! :wink:

Secession...succession...

[KantoSooner]

That's a motto!

[olevetonahill]

Holy chit you are a Democrat. :)

No, Ima Pragmatist.
an jaun is still hung up on that 2500 a month carp

[East Coast Bias]

Holy chit you are a Democrat. :)
I find myself agreeing with Olevet for the first time as well, what the ****.
Also Vet how about this for some more math:
What about Dude # 4- Single man works for 40 years paying into SS, dies of a heart attack at 65. Where did his money go?
Dude #5 Married, both work 40 years, paying into SS, he dies before 65, she dies at 66. Where did their money go?
A lot of young people pay SS and die before they sniff anykind of payback, where does their money go?

[rock on sooner]

ECB, where do you THINK the $$$ goes? My parents BOTH died young,
no such things as adult survivors bennies, disappeared into a black hole,
all part of the fed's piggy bank. There are inequities in every system.
Still ticks me that people refer to SS as an "entitlement". I'm on SS
an it aint no f******* entitlement.! I paid into it for 53 years and into
Medicare/Medicaid since the beginning. (I'm still on private insurance
and I'm 67). I don't need SS to get along, planned better than that, but
a couple of years back SS went two years without a pay raise. How many
of you working stiffs did that? Not many is my guess, you at least got a
little bump. So, as Vet sez, BACK OFF!

[SoonerorLater]

I find myself agreeing with Olevet for the first time as well, what the ****.
Also Vet how about this for some more math:
What about Dude # 4- Single man works for 40 years paying into SS, dies of a heart attack at 65. Where did his money go?
Dude #5 Married, both work 40 years, paying into SS, he dies before 65, she dies at 66. Where did their money go?
A lot of young people pay SS and die before they sniff anykind of payback, where does their money go?

In that respect it's like any other insurance program. SS isn't a lockbox retirement annuity.

[olevetonahill]

ECB, where do you THINK the $$$ goes? My parents BOTH died young,
no such things as adult survivors bennies, disappeared into a black hole,
all part of the fed's piggy bank. There are inequities in every system.
Still ticks me that people refer to SS as an "entitlement". I'm on SS
an it aint no f******* entitlement.! I paid into it for 53 years and into
Medicare/Medicaid since the beginning. (I'm still on private insurance
and I'm 67). I don't need SS to get along, planned better than that, but
a couple of years back SS went two years without a pay raise. How many
of you working stiffs did that? Not many is my guess, you at least got a
little bump. So, as Vet sez, BACK OFF!

Now yer gettin there, I get so Pizzed off at folks that act like its some kinda ****in Gov. Gimme program.

What Most people will draw is only a fraction of what they paid in
Like I said Think about it, Check the Obits for a week, then do the average age of death
Around here its about 67 , Sure ya got Old Aunt Mable Sue that Lived to be 98 But then Uncle Fred and coisin JimBob all died when they were 57

Aw **** it Im thru with it

[SanJoaquinSooner]

I find myself agreeing with Olevet for the first time as well, what the ****.
Also Vet how about this for some more math:
What about Dude # 4- Single man works for 40 years paying into SS, dies of a heart attack at 65. Where did his money go?
Dude #5 Married, both work 40 years, paying into SS, he dies before 65, she dies at 66. Where did their money go?
A lot of young people pay SS and die before they sniff anykind of payback, where does their money go?

I tell you where it goes, it goes to the people who pay little or nothing but draw on it for decades, like the young wife drawing $2500/mo. who never worked, or worked very little.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

I agree...we were promised a defined benefit and it should be honored...


"For the early generations, it was an incredibly good deal," said Andrew Biggs, a former deputy Social Security commissioner who is now a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. "The government gave you free money and getting free money is popular."


....an incredible good deal is right ... But lets not call it welfare.

[olevetonahill]

I tell you where it goes, it goes to the people who pay little or nothing but draw on it for decades, like the young wife drawing $2500/mo. who never worked, or worked very little.

Hey jaun again where you gettin this 2500 a month sh*t?

By the way you've done a nice job deflecting this thread away from Immagration.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

Hey jaun again where you gettin this 2500 a month sh*t?

By the way you've done a nice job deflecting this thread away from Immagration.

I said I was assuming the guy worked full time for 40 years - the average recipient doesn't - and his wife gets a huge subsidized windfall.

I blame Soonerorlater for the deflection.

I say worker visas for anyone with a job offer. If you don't work, you can't stay. But of course you should have a 6 month tourist visa if you come to spend money.

The problem is not too much immigration. More people create more jobs. People are where jobs come from. The problem is too many people subsidized by the taxpayer. And middle class people are probably more subsidized than poor people. We just don't call it welfare.

BTW, Maria is ten years younger than me, and as a small business owner, doesn't draw a big salary. So she hasn't paid into SS nearly as much as me. So I plan to work full time until I'm 70 before I draw SS to get the max. That way, when I die she can draw my amount. The women in her family tend to live a long time. So maybe she'll live to be 90. I'm glad you all agree she earned it!

[SicEmBaylor]

I notice a lot of folks hating things they didn't pay into.

IE: SicEm and his one man War on Civil War Re-enactment.

Succession. I want to secede but I want to make sure my Military and SSI keep coming in every Month.

So much stupid stuff.

Calm the hell down. Stop and smell the roses. Stop the hate....masterbate! :wink:
I try to help people whenever possible -- it's just the kind of guy I am. With that in mind, I reach my hand out to you, sir, to offer my help.
http://adultliteracyleague.org/

[Chuck Bao]

Why should the funds be kept in Special Issue bonds?

By using Special Issue bonds we pay all interest ourselves..so we either go further into debt or print more money to pay the interest...

Also, by using the special issue bonds, we leave the actual money in the hands of our fiscally responsible DC leadership to use as they please...

If the SS revenue was used to buy quality state, local, or corp bonds we would see bond rates decline (more money chasing the available bonds thus requiring lower interest rates) which would help finance our local needs at reduced rates...

There are several companies (PIMCO being one, DD can offer others) that currently manage many trillions worldwide in the bond market so there are quality organizations that could handle the amount of money that is in SS...this method would allow outside sources to pay the interest on the money and not rely on interest payments from increased printed US dollars...

If a disaster occurred and we lost 3% a year in the bonds that we have SS revenue invested in (a highly unlikely scenario) we could just do as we are doing now and print more money to make up the difference...so worst case we do as we do today a print money to pay the interest...

Summary
1. It keeps the money out of the hands of our leadership
2. It lowers financing cost to city and state
3. It lowers the cost of business in DC due to someone else paying the servicing of the debt
4. In worst case it costs the same as what we do today
5. There are companies currently available that could handle the amount of money that is currently in Special Issue bonds

I can't really disagree with anything that you posted, pphilfran. My point was aimed entirely on a misconception that the US government ruined SS by raiding the fund. We can debate several of your points if you'd like. I'm curious about your assertion that if SSF were allowed to invest in things like state and municiple bonds, it would lower financing cost to city and state. I'm sure that you are right. However, there is still a given pool of buyers and sellers of debt and all bond prices are still theoretically calculated from the risk free rate of a T-bill. The attraction of a muni would be tax-free interest status, but I don't know if the SSF itself has to pay taxes on interest income before distributing out to contributors.

I also think that many Americans get a wrong impression of the government "printing money". That is probably not worth discussing in this thread. I do agree that the private sector would probably do a better job and I 100% agree that Washington politicians aren't to be trusted to wisely use our retirement monies. At the end of the day, it is all about the fiscal deficit and I think everyone gets that concept - for shame.

[pphilfran]

Bond rates would end up being cheaper..

Say, for example, we have one trillion in munis each year that hit the market...so we have about a trillion dollars chasing those muni bonds...

If we take the SS money and add it to the trillion chasing the current bonds we now have, say, an additional 200 billion a year...since there is more money chasing the fixed amount of muni bonds the bonds do not need to pay as much interest to be sold...

[pphilfran]

You are correct the the raiding of SS did not cause the problems that we have with SS...there is still exactly the same amount of "money" in the Trust...

What our leadership has done is spend the money to keep the annual deficit lower...the bad side is we now have Special Issue bonds that are actually a liability and not an asset since they cannot be sold on the open market and we have to service the debt on our own with no outside help...

[pphilfran]

Hey jaun again where you gettin this 2500 a month sh*t?

By the way you've done a nice job deflecting this thread away from Immagration.

The current max payout at age 66 is $2513...to achieve that you would have had to max out the annual payment every year since age 21...not many have done that....

http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/5/~/maximum-social-security-retirement-benefit

The maximum benefit depends on the age a worker chooses to retire. For example, for a worker retiring at age 66 in 2012, the amount is $2,513. This figure is based on earnings at the maximum taxable amount for every year after age 21.

[olevetonahill]

The current max payout at age 66 is $2513...to achieve that you would have had to max out the annual payment every year since age 21...not many have done that....

http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/5/~/maximum-social-security-retirement-benefit

The maximum benefit depends on the age a worker chooses to retire. For example, for a worker retiring at age 66 in 2012, the amount is $2,513. This figure is based on earnings at the maximum taxable amount for every year after age 21.

I understand that, But jaun is puttin that figure out like its what EVERY one will get , that aint so
Like I posted the AVERAGE is a tad over 1200

[pphilfran]

I understand that, But jaun is puttin that figure out like its what EVERY one will get , that aint so
Like I posted the AVERAGE is a tad over 1200

I agree with you...your 1200 avg is probably damn close...

[East Coast Bias]

ECB, where do you THINK the $$$ goes? My parents BOTH died young,
no such things as adult survivors bennies, disappeared into a black hole,
all part of the fed's piggy bank. There are inequities in every system.
Still ticks me that people refer to SS as an "entitlement". I'm on SS
an it aint no f******* entitlement.! I paid into it for 53 years and into
Medicare/Medicaid since the beginning. (I'm still on private insurance
and I'm 67). I don't need SS to get along, planned better than that, but
a couple of years back SS went two years without a pay raise. How many
of you working stiffs did that? Not many is my guess, you at least got a
little bump. So, as Vet sez, BACK OFF!

Did i touch a nerve? I was not trying to indict SS, just point out that there are a million scenario's and some provide positive cash flow for the system. There are a lot of old-farts on here, huh? I am going on 61 and have paid in for 45 years. I am looking forward to getting some of mine back, if I live that long. I have had 3 heart attacks, the odds probably are not in my favor. Congrats on getting there, I don't begrudge anything you get...

[soonercruiser]

....an incredible good deal is right ... But lets not call it welfare.

Sorry, SJS!
I agree with almost all of what ya'll are sayin'.
But, IT'S WELFARE!

[soonercruiser]

Why do these serious threads alway end up with some guys hands in another's pants?
:neglected:

[SanJoaquinSooner]

Sorry, SJS!
I agree with almost all of what ya'll are sayin'.
But, IT'S WELFARE!

I was being facetious, it is fundamentally no different from welfare - a taxpayer subsidy.

[SicEmBaylor]

Why do these serious threads alway end up with some guys hands in another's pants?
:neglected:

I haven't seen a "serious" political thread yet that you don't manage to gay up. ;)

[soonercruiser]

Nice gay post Sic!
You are sick!

[diverdog]

Sorry, SJS!
I agree with almost all of what ya'll are sayin'.
But, IT'S WELFARE!

How do you figure?

[KantoSooner]

Why do these serious threads alway end up with some guys hands in another's pants?
:neglected:

Well, I don't know about you, but I would take another man's hands in my pants MOST seriously.

[JohnnyMack]

Why do these serious threads alway end up with some guys hands in another's pants?
:neglected:

http://vineyardlifejournal.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/how-you-doin.jpg?w=538

[olevetonahill]

http://vineyardlifejournal.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/how-you-doin.jpg?w=538

Knew YOU couldnt resist you Faggot bastard
And Im doing well how about yer self?

[rock on sooner]

Did i touch a nerve? I was not trying to indict SS, just point out that there are a million scenario's and some provide positive cash flow for the system. There are a lot of old-farts on here, huh? I am going on 61 and have paid in for 45 years. I am looking forward to getting some of mine back, if I live that long. I have had 3 heart attacks, the odds probably are not in my favor. Congrats on getting there, I don't begrudge anything you get...

Nah, the only "nerve" is when people call SS an "entitlement", really
chaps my azz. As to the bum ticker, sorry to hear about that. Take
it all low and slow....

[olevetonahill]

Nah, the only "nerve" is when people call SS an "entitlement", really
chaps my azz. As to the bum ticker, sorry to hear about that. Take
it all low and slow....

Thats what I been screaming bro , jaun is talking like EVERY one is gonna get that 2500 a month aint so. Only the top earners and those who have paid in the Max forever will ever see that amount

I got a friend who dint really plan worth a **** But he ran his own buisness's for years and years , When he retired hes only gettin like 700 er so a month

[SanJoaquinSooner]

Thats what I been screaming bro , jaun is talking like EVERY one is gonna get that 2500 a month aint so. Only the top earners and those who have paid in the Max forever will ever see that amount

I got a friend who dint really plan worth a **** But he ran his own buisness's for years and years , When he retired hes only gettin like 700 er so a month


No, No, No, I never said anything to imply everyone is getting 2500/month. I was illustrating an example of how someone could get 2500/month, for decades, without ever paying into the system. And the spouse who did pay into the system didn't have to pay a cent extra for this benefit. In that sense, working single people carry a disproportionate share of the taypayer load.

[pphilfran]

No, No, No, I never said anything to imply everyone is getting 2500/month. I was illustrating an example of how someone could get 2500/month, for decades, without ever paying into the system. And the spouse who did pay into the system didn't have to pay a cent extra for this benefit. In that sense, working single people carry a disproportionate share of the taypayer load.

For someone to draw 2500 a month they must max out contributions for 40 years...if they kick the bucket at age 70 they have not begun to withdraw what they have put into the system (not including growth of those contributions)...the spouse that never worked will continue to draw funds but will need to draw for some significant time before they pull out more than the person pushing up daisies contributed with growth...

Your statement has some merit but it is not nearly the problem that you claim..especially now since most will pay in far more than they will ever receive...

[SanJoaquinSooner]

For someone to draw 2500 a month they must max out contributions for 40 years...if they kick the bucket at age 70 they have not begun to withdraw what they have put into the system (not including growth of those contributions)...the spouse that never worked will continue to draw funds but will need to draw for some significant time before they pull out more than the person pushing up daisies contributed with growth...

Your statement has some merit but it is not nearly the problem that you claim..especially now since most will pay in far more than they will ever receive...

OK, you guys can't get past the 2500. I'll use 1500 instead. Exact same principle.


Dude A works forty years, retires at 66, and draws $1500/mo for 10 years until he dies, drawing $180,000 (unadjusted for COLA). Dude A was single so that's the end of the show.


Dude B works forty years, retires at 66, and draws $1500/mo for 10 years until he dies, drawing $180,000 (unadjusted). but Dude B has a wife who never contributed to SS and is ten years younger than her dead husband. So as a survivor she starts drawing $1500/mo for 20 more years until she dies at age 86 for a grand unadjusted total of $540,000.

One can presume each dude and his employer paid the same amount into the system.

Does Uncle Sam think the wife of Dude B earned that extra $360,000 because she agreed to bang an older dude? The estate of Dude A gets nothing extra.

[pphilfran]

There is some of that going on...but the guy could die after he pulls out one month...are we getting screwed when the survivor draws on the benefit?

People that are just starting to draw now and everyone going forward is more than likely going to put more money into the system then they withdraw...

30 years ago the case you are making would hold water...today not so much for the vast majority...

[pphilfran]

It is not really worth arguing about since SS is a pizz ant size problem in the grand scheme of things..something like 16% in added revenue, a longer wait to draw benefits , or a combination of the two and we are golden...

[SanJoaquinSooner]

It is not really worth arguing about since SS is a pizz ant size problem in the grand scheme of things..something like 16% in added revenue, a longer wait to draw benefits , or a combination of the two and we are golden...

do you agree with the pubs that we should cut back on the SS COLA?

[olevetonahill]

do you agree with the pubs that we should cut back on the SS COLA?

WTH are you talking about?
There has been ONE ****in COLA since Obammy took office
caint really cut back much moren that can ya?

[SanJoaquinSooner]

WTH are you talking about?
There has been ONE ****in COLA since Obammy took office
caint really cut back much moren that can ya?

no doubt due to the great recession. here's the history of automatic COLAs:

Automatic Cost-Of-Living Adjustments July 1975 -- 8.0%
July 1976 -- 6.4%
July 1977 -- 5.9%
July 1978 -- 6.5%
July 1979 -- 9.9%
July 1980 -- 14.3%
July 1981 -- 11.2%
July 1982 -- 7.4%
January 1984 -- 3.5%
January 1985 -- 3.5%
January 1986 -- 3.1%
January 1987 -- 1.3%
January 1988 -- 4.2%
January 1989 -- 4.0%
January 1990 -- 4.7%
January 1991 -- 5.4%
January 1992 -- 3.7%
January 1993 -- 3.0%
January 1994 -- 2.6%
January 1995 -- 2.8%
January 1996 -- 2.6%
January 1997 -- 2.9%
January 1998 -- 2.1%
January 1999 -- 1.3%
January 2000 -- 2.5%(1)
January 2001 -- 3.5%
January 2002 -- 2.6%
January 2003 -- 1.4%
January 2004 -- 2.1%
January 2005 -- 2.7%
January 2006 -- 4.1%
January 2007 -- 3.3%
January 2008 -- 2.3%
January 2009 -- 5.8%
January 2010 -- 0.0%
January 2011 -- 0.0%
January 2012 -- 3.6%
January 2013 -- 1.7%

War Jimmy Carter!

[olevetonahill]

jaun you do realize that a COLA is a Cost of Living adjustment dont you?

Its based on the rate of inflation, Now explain to me if you can how you object to a measly 1.7 % increase that dont even get close to help defray the cost of FOOD increase's that we have had ?

Take your average Social security recipient that gets in the range of 1200 bucks a month that 1.7% increase will raise their check by what 20 bucks? Now remember EVERY time the Folks on SS get a raise they also get a corresponding raise in their Medicare premiums.
I think i read thats going up like 5 bucks a month. Now these folk are gettin a NET increase of spendable cash of 15 bucks a month Yup thats going to break the ****in bank aint it .

Oh and remember These are folks that WORKED and Paid in ALL their lives, Not some welfare bums

Now ya wanta bitch about waist Lets crawl all over that ok?

Take yer Queen that has 4 kids . Right oof they Get somewhere in the range 750 bucks a month just in FOOD Stamps

All Im sayin Is Lay the **** off the Folks who WORKED and Paid in , They didnt create the system but they are forced to live with it. Unlike yer Bums who CAN get off their *** and get a job Oh wait you prolly dont want that do you cause then they take Jobs' from your visitin relatives Nor do we want to cut Food Stamps to those same relatives kids
Go **** yerself

[Midtowner]

Wow vet.. all I can say is stop voting for Republicans because they clearly do want to go after your SS.

[olevetonahill]

Wow vet.. all I can say is stop voting for Republicans because they clearly do want to go after your SS.

And all I can say is you are a Party hack.
I vote for WHO i think will do the best Job Not the party

[Midtowner]

And all I can say is you are a Party hack.
I vote for WHO i think will do the best Job Not the party

Well go ahead and vote for the folks who want to cut your bennies.

[olevetonahill]

Well go ahead and vote for the folks who want to cut your bennies.

Dint know jaun was runnin fer office

[SanJoaquinSooner]

Dint know jaun was runnin fer office


I didn't say I wanted to cut COLA's - the pubs are proposing it. I was complaining about spousal compensation. In regular pensions, a person gets less each month if he/she has survivor benefits - as compared to someone who doesn't have survivor benefits.

And yes, I understand COLAs are cost of living adjustments. In spite of food costs rising, the prices of other things didn't rise or went down during the great recession. As the historical COLAs I listed show, no increase for two consecutive years is an anomaly.

[olevetonahill]

I didn't say I wanted to cut COLA's - the pubs are proposing it. I was complaining about spousal compensation. In regular pensions, a person gets less each month if he/she has survivor benefits - as compared to someone who doesn't have survivor benefits.

And yes, I understand COLAs are cost of living adjustments. In spite of food costs rising, the prices of other things didn't rise or went down during the great recession. As the historical COLAs I listed show, no increase for two consecutive years is an anomaly.

Post me a Link please to where the Pubs are out to cut Social Security. Thanks

[Midtowner]

http://www.oregonlive.com/today/index.ssf/2012/12/gop_proposes_medicare_cuts_red.html

[pphilfran]

They want to jack with the COLA calculations...

I don't know what to think about raising the Medicare age...save the government some money but shifts the cost onto the taxpayer...

Honestly, I don't think there is a good answer on Medicare...

[olevetonahill]

http://www.oregonlive.com/today/index.ssf/2012/12/gop_proposes_medicare_cuts_red.html

And you dont see the Political ploys involved in that?

[olevetonahill]

They want to jack with the COLA calculations...

I don't know what to think about raising the Medicare age...save the government some money but shifts the cost onto the taxpayer...

Honestly, I don't think there is a good answer on Medicare...

Phil, The major thing that needs to be done with Medicare is to Put those who defraud it away for a verey LONG time and seize any assets they may have

Im talkin Docs who abuse it, Companies like the Scooter Store, Etc.

[pphilfran]

And you dont see the Political ploys involved in that?

Both sides have box fulls of political ploys that have yet to be unleashed...just give em time...

[olevetonahill]

Both sides have box fulls of political ploys that have yet to be unleashed...just give em time...

Agreed bro Agreed

Im so sick of this Party shat I could Puke Burnt orange

[pphilfran]

Phil, The major thing that needs to be done with Medicare is to Put those who defraud it away for a verey LONG time and seize any assets they may have

Im talkin Docs who abuse it, Companies like the Scooter Store, Etc.

That would help but it still does nothing to slow the steep cost increase curve..and it is those yearly increases that far outpace inflation that is going to kill us down the road...

[SanJoaquinSooner]

Agreed bro Agreed

Im so sick of this Party shat I could Puke Burnt orange

http://i995.photobucket.com/albums/af80/sanjoaquinsooner/halloween_zps7f0ff23f.jpg

[pphilfran]

I can usually come up with some half baked plan to control costs or increase revenue but Medicare and the healthcare situation in general is beyond me...

We can all come up with cost cutting ideas from Tort reform to limiting insurance company profits...but none really address the cost growth rate...and every country is facing, and losing, the same battle...

It is just an obscenely expensive industry...decades to become a doctor...more and more expensive equipment and procedures that add to life expectancy...and longer life expectancy adds more to the overall cost of the system...50 years ago macular degeneration and Alzheimer were much less common because most people kicked the bucket before the disease progressed...

[pphilfran]

http://i995.photobucket.com/albums/af80/sanjoaquinsooner/halloween_zps7f0ff23f.jpg

lol

[olevetonahill]

I can usually come up with some half baked plan to control costs or increase revenue but Medicare and the healthcare situation in general is beyond me...

We can all come up with cost cutting ideas from Tort reform to limiting insurance company profits...but none really address the cost growth rate...and every country is facing, and losing, the same battle...

It is just an obscenely expensive industry...decades to become a doctor...more and more expensive equipment and procedures that add to life expectancy...and longer life expectancy adds more to the overall cost of the system...50 years ago macular degeneration and Alzheimer were much less common because most people kicked the bucket before the disease progressed...

Things I dont understand about the health care deals
back in 1960 (the only time I ever spent much time in a Hospital)
I was 10 years old had my appendix out . I was in a WARD with I think 30 or so other patients. I dont recall that bothering me any
fast forward to a few months ago. My Newest Grandbabydaughter was born over in Ft. Smith. Holy crap I thot the Labor/Deliverywas from from the Ritz Carlton or something .
Not sayin Thats the Main cause but it sure as hell aint helping any
hells bell give em a a clean room and send em home

[SanJoaquinSooner]

Things I dont understand about the health care deals
back in 1960 (the only time I ever spent much time in a Hospital)
I was 10 years old had my appendix out . I was in a WARD with I think 30 or so other patients. I dont recall that bothering me any
fast forward to a few months ago. My Newest Grandbabydaughter was born over in Ft. Smith. Holy crap I thot the Labor/Deliverywas from from the Ritz Carlton or something .
Not sayin Thats the Main cause but it sure as hell aint helping any
hells bell give em a a clean room and send em home

It's ridiculous and out of control. Maria had a severe backache, the pain became unbearable. Went to Kaiser but they had closed already. so went to an immediate care facility, where she got a shot to relieve the pain. Just a shot - nothing else, no x-rays, etc. All total $600 for fifteen minutes and a shot!

Kaiser wouldn't pay because it was out-of-service. I appealed and Kaiser agreed to pay, "as a one-time courtesy."

[okie52]

http://i995.photobucket.com/albums/af80/sanjoaquinsooner/halloween_zps7f0ff23f.jpg

Good One!!!

[KantoSooner]

It's ridiculous and out of control. Maria had a severe backache, the pain became unbearable. Went to Kaiser but they had closed already. so went to an immediate care facility, where she got a shot to relieve the pain. Just a shot - nothing else, no x-rays, etc. All total $600 for fifteen minutes and a shot!

Kaiser wouldn't pay because it was out-of-service. I appealed and Kaiser agreed to pay, "as a one-time courtesy."

And now the backstory. Did Kaiser give you the money? Or did they 'take care of it'? If the latter, they went the Doc-in-a-box and got it reduced to the $20 it actually cost and then paid that. Pricing on medical services in this country are completely divorced from any sort of objective reality.

[rock on sooner]

I can usually come up with some half baked plan to control costs or increase revenue but Medicare and the healthcare situation in general is beyond me...

We can all come up with cost cutting ideas from Tort reform to limiting insurance company profits...but none really address the cost growth rate...and every country is facing, and losing, the same battle...

It is just an obscenely expensive industry...decades to become a doctor...more and more expensive equipment and procedures that add to life expectancy...and longer life expectancy adds more to the overall cost of the system...50 years ago macular degeneration and Alzheimer were much less common because most people kicked the bucket before the disease progressed...

It's been my contention all along that a thorough cleansing of waste,
fraud and abuse in Medicare/Medicaid is the first step toward reigning
in health care costs. Several estimates show that $500 billion in savings
would be realized from those efforts. After that is done, then tweak the
programs with gradual age increases, means testing for upper income and
small gradual increases in payroll taxes. One other point, the ACA will
help lower overall health care costs long term because preventive care
procedures will catch and help control otherwise catastrophic medical events.

[pphilfran]

It's been my contention all along that a thorough cleansing of waste,
fraud and abuse in Medicare/Medicaid is the first step toward reigning
in health care costs. Several estimates show that $500 billion in savings
would be realized from those efforts. After that is done, then tweak the
programs with gradual age increases, means testing for upper income and
small gradual increases in payroll taxes. One other point, the ACA will
help lower overall health care costs long term because preventive care
procedures will catch and help control otherwise catastrophic medical events.

We need to look closely at preventive care...some actually cost more to test and catch a problem then it would cost to treat the problem without testing...not all fall into this category but many do...

Eliminating waste and fraud will drop cost initially but do nothing to control the overall rate of cost increase...and it is the annual cost increase that is greater than inflation that is the biggest problem...

Increasing age limits and means testing does not lower the overall cost of healthcare in the US..it just shifts the burden from private to public sector...

[rock on sooner]

We need to look closely at preventive care...some actually cost more to test and catch a problem then it would cost to treat the problem without testing...not all fall into this category but many do...

Eliminating waste and fraud will drop cost initially but do nothing to control the overall rate of cost increase...and it is the annual cost increase that is greater than inflation that is the biggest problem...

Increasing age limits and means testing does not lower the overall cost of healthcare in the US..it just shifts the burden from private to public sector...

I guess I have a little different take about eliminating waste to help control
rising costs. If there is a watchdog on waste, seems to me that watchdog
would be looking at $10 aspirin, $225 rehab therapy session (non issured
pay $85) and $300 catheters.

Don't you think that preventive care catching heart disease or colon cancer
would outweigh excessive MRI's or CAT scans?

You're probably right about increasing age limits but I would think means
testing for reimbursement/payment for upper income will bring down costs.

[Midtowner]

This might have something to do with the price of healthcare...

http://lancasteronline.com/article/local/788776_-60-Minutes--report-critical-of-Health-Management-Associates.html

[5thYearSooner]

So..an update on the STEM Bill..
House approves this Immigration Bill but WH already said they are not gonna support it. Senate will vote on this soon. Democrats dead against removing diversity (lottery) green cards.

You guys carry on discussing about SS, welfare, medicare, healthcare, kardashians and everything else.

[pphilfran]

I guess I have a little different take about eliminating waste to help control
rising costs. If there is a watchdog on waste, seems to me that watchdog
would be looking at $10 aspirin, $225 rehab therapy session (non issured
pay $85) and $300 catheters.

Don't you think that preventive care catching heart disease or colon cancer
would outweigh excessive MRI's or CAT scans?

You're probably right about increasing age limits but I would think means
testing for reimbursement/payment for upper income will bring down costs.

A nation spends 1000 whatchamakalits a year on healthcare....and the spending is growing at 10% a year...they dig deep and find that 10% of their spending is due to waste and fraud and after much hard work they completely eliminate the 10% in waste and now spend 900 whatchamakalits a year...but eliminating the waste did nothing about the 10% yearly increase so the next year their total country cost goes up to 990 whachamakalits...the second year 1089 whachamakalits.... after two years they are paying more for national healthcare and they still have the same problems due to the 10% inflation...

As far as preventive medicine it depends on what they are testing for..some do save money, others don't..it may be morbid but Joe A has a heart attack and dies and has no further costs...Joe B gets tested and finds he can use drug B to control is heart problem and lives to 90, contracts Alzheimers at age 80 costing large sums of money for the last 10 years of his life...he costs the healthcare industry more than Joe A...

Then there are many articles around stating that not all testing really pays for itself...here is one from CNN...

http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/03/17/preventive.care.costs/index.html

But some health experts argue preventive care isn't always cost effective.

"I think it almost always costs more money," said Dr. H. Gilbert Welch, a professor of medicine at Dartmouth Medical School and author of "Should I Be Tested for Cancer."

"The problem with early detection strategies is it identifies so many well people as having abnormalities that may be worrisome for disease. But it turns out most of them will never become a problem," said Welch, who has looked at the costs and benefits of the routine testing patients undergo.

Welch likens early screening to the check engine light on a car, occasionally picking up abnormalities that don't affect the vehicle's performance. Sometimes, he said, treatments resulting from early detection leave patients worse off.

Case in point: A recent study that examined 15 years of PSA screenings found that prostate cancer had been over-diagnosed -- treating men whose tumors were growing too slowly to ever be a threat.

In addition, the U.S. Preventive Care Task Force, part of the Department of Health and Human Services, says there's not enough evidence to recommend for or against prostate cancer screening men younger than 75 and recommends against prostate screenings for men 75 or older. And the American Cancer Society does not support routine testing for prostate cancer, according to its Web site.

A separate study, published last year in the New England Journal of Medicine, concluded colonoscopies were cost-saving procedures but found other preventive measures expensive. For example, screening all 65-year-olds for diabetes, as opposed to testing only those with high blood pressure, costs $590,000 for every year of healthy living gained.

The study found other treatments both expensive and ineffective. One example: Surgery instead of "watchful waiting" for 70-year-old men with new prostate cancer diagnoses.

The task force also says there's not enough evidence for or against oral cancer screening and favors diabetes screenings in adults with no symptoms only if they have high blood pressure.

Remarkable new imaging techniques do not necessarily lead to better outcomes.

A 2007 study in the Journal of the American Medical Association found a three-dimension spiral CT screening for lung cancer was ineffective because it did not reduce lung cancer deaths. It was also potentially harmful because it found many more abnormalities, resulting in unnecessary surgeries.

The American Cancer Society, initially enthusiastic about spiral CT screening, now concludes "no lung cancer screening test has been shown to prevent people from dying of this disease."

Welch said the choice to be tested for disease is a personal one, although he does recommend cancer screenings for people in high-risk groups, such as those with a family history.

Even though Graf's precancerous polyp may never have caused a problem, Graf said she could not ignore it. Graf's husband of 57 years, Oliver, died of colon cancer in 2005.

[rock on sooner]

Phil, I've read about the points in your argument and can't really make
a sound disagreement so I won't try, other than to say some might go
for "death panels" making decisions.

As to battling costs, I think the ongoing watchdog does at least slow down
the growth to "real" inflation as opposed the health care inflation.

[pphilfran]

Phil, I've read about the points in your argument and can't really make
a sound disagreement so I won't try, other than to say some might go
for "death panels" making decisions.

As to battling costs, I think the ongoing watchdog does at least slow down
the growth to "real" inflation as opposed the health care inflation.


I wish I had the answer...though I do know the rate of increase is more of the problem than our existing starting point...

Wise use of preventive medicine will help...

I would maximize the clinics that we see sprouting up...I wouldn't man them with doctors...physician assistants all the way...they could treat the vast majority of illnesses and injury at a much lower cost...

I don't know how we can lower the cost of physician school but this is one of my biggest concerns...