OT entitlements (was lighthouses)
 

On 11/06/2010 9:46 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 20:00:37 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

The problem is not entitlements per se, it is unfunded entitlements
and that includes SS and Medicare as of this year. We have done
exactly what Tyler predicted. We voted benefits in excess of the taxes
we are willing to pay. That is also what happened in Greece and most
of western Europe. It is an unsustainable system. 40 cents of every
dollar in my SS check is borrowed from my kids. You can't even prorate
that by the amount taken in by the FICA tax since LBJ put SS in budget
but even if you did, the check still includes some borrowed money
since FICA does not cover the outlay.


Well, if you're not willing to address even one of the major entitlements,
then there's no way to fix it. I agree, we're over-extended, but some would
lay that at the door of the current administration, when previous went wild
with spending and deregulation, then said, oh by the way, we're about to
have a financial meltdown, and tried to put the toothpaste back in the tube.
The current admin. has been attempting to do that since it got in power, and
it actually seems to be working. The next step will be to do something like
paygo, but what we can't do is tighten spending. That would result in the
same thing happening again.

I will lay that on every administration since Eisenhower. He was the
last one who actually wanted the government to live within it's
budget. Goldwater predicted this Social Security problem in 1964, when
we might have actually been able to do something about it. .By 1970
the die was cast and anyone who actually looked at the demographics
knew SS was going to go broke. The only arguments was when. In spite
of that nobody was willing to propose the fixes that would actually
save the system (later retirement ages, stopping the unrealistic
growth in benefits and means testing the benefit). They nibble around
the edges of this but they will not take the steps necessary to fix
it.
Greece is looking the same basic problem in the face, with a EU gun at
their back and they will have to make the changes. Let's see how that
works out.

I predict the same issues in Greece will hit US and Canadian shores.
Same reason, too much pozi debt.

One difference, Canada and US can "create" all the money they want. It
will differ in that we will see hyper-stagflation. It is why there is a
slow land buy right now, gold, land, real assets are good, paper
currency and debt is junk. Much like Zimbabwe, your home too may be
worth $20 million....some day and not too far off.
--
Taxation, modern day slavery. The loss of economic freedom.

OT entitlements (was lighthouses)
 

On 11/06/2010 10:49 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 20:00:37 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

The problem is not entitlements per se, it is unfunded entitlements
and that includes SS and Medicare as of this year. We have done
exactly what Tyler predicted. We voted benefits in excess of the taxes
we are willing to pay. That is also what happened in Greece and most
of western Europe. It is an unsustainable system. 40 cents of every
dollar in my SS check is borrowed from my kids. You can't even prorate
that by the amount taken in by the FICA tax since LBJ put SS in budget
but even if you did, the check still includes some borrowed money
since FICA does not cover the outlay.


Well, if you're not willing to address even one of the major
entitlements,
then there's no way to fix it. I agree, we're over-extended, but some
would
lay that at the door of the current administration, when previous
went wild
with spending and deregulation, then said, oh by the way, we're about to
have a financial meltdown, and tried to put the toothpaste back in
the tube.
The current admin. has been attempting to do that since it got in
power, and
it actually seems to be working. The next step will be to do
something like
paygo, but what we can't do is tighten spending. That would result in
the
same thing happening again.

I will lay that on every administration since Eisenhower. He was the
last one who actually wanted the government to live within it's
budget. Goldwater predicted this Social Security problem in 1964, when
we might have actually been able to do something about it. .By 1970
the die was cast and anyone who actually looked at the demographics
knew SS was going to go broke. The only arguments was when. In spite
of that nobody was willing to propose the fixes that would actually
save the system (later retirement ages, stopping the unrealistic
growth in benefits and means testing the benefit). They nibble around
the edges of this but they will not take the steps necessary to fix
it.
Greece is looking the same basic problem in the face, with a EU gun at
their back and they will have to make the changes. Let's see how that
works out.

We are in no way comparable to the Greek economy. SS is solvent now and
can be fixed. The sky isn't falling.

Sort of like the debtor in denial the night before the home is reposessed.

It will not happen overnight.

Numbers sure look like Obamanomics isn't working one bit. In fact,
sending the economy to new depths.
--
Taxation, modern day slavery. The loss of economic freedom.

OT entitlements (was lighthouses)
 

On 11/06/2010 11:53 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 21:49:15 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

I will lay that on every administration since Eisenhower. He was the
last one who actually wanted the government to live within it's
budget. Goldwater predicted this Social Security problem in 1964, when
we might have actually been able to do something about it. .By 1970
the die was cast and anyone who actually looked at the demographics
knew SS was going to go broke. The only arguments was when. In spite
of that nobody was willing to propose the fixes that would actually
save the system (later retirement ages, stopping the unrealistic
growth in benefits and means testing the benefit). They nibble around
the edges of this but they will not take the steps necessary to fix
it.
Greece is looking the same basic problem in the face, with a EU gun at
their back and they will have to make the changes. Let's see how that
works out.

We are in no way comparable to the Greek economy. SS is solvent now and can
be fixed. The sky isn't falling.



The sky isn't falling yet but SS is clearly living beyond it's means.
We are borrowing money to make up the difference. The same is true of
Medicare.

But collapse is inevitable at this point. Politicians don't have the
balls to do what is needed. It is almost assured to be some kind of
collapse.

People have yet to ask why everyone is taking cutbacks but the
government is fater, lardier, and more elitest at every turn.

Certainly not sustainable, but I now submit economic collapse to new
lows is a mater of time, and not if.

--
Taxation, modern day slavery. The loss of economic freedom.

Time to trash the Conservatives
 

On 11/06/2010 10:50 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:

"Larry" wrote in message
...
nom=de=plume wrote:

"YukonBound" wrote in message
...


"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 11/06/2010 11:56 AM, nom=de=plume wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 09:12:26 -0400, BAR wrote:

Cut "entitlements."

Helen Thomas wouldn't even have the nerve to say that. ;-)

I feel sorry for her. She could have left the scene as a class act.
Instead...

Funny how everyone slams "entitlements" right up until it affects
their
social security, medicare, police/fire/infrastructure in their
neighborhood, EMT availability, library access, etc. Then, it's don't
touch. If people don't want entitlements, then they should vote
against
them and vote out any politician that promotes funding them. So far,
that hasn't happened, and there doesn't appear to be any strong
movement
to do so.

Actually, what the produicers shoudl do, and many are is to move.

Why live in a country where the 2/3rds not paying for it can
outvote the 1/3 that does?

To me, it feels like taxation without representation when the
begars, liberal losers and pocket pickers out vote the tax paying
worker. Also known as slavery.


Uh...did you say you weren't working at this time?

He's unemployable.


And you know that to be a fact because...Harry said so?

It's so obvious... he can't really speak English. He rants like a crazy
man. Actually, he might be employed, but I doubt it's more than in a
day-laborer capacity.

Jeez, said the unemployable envious slug....


--
Taxation, modern day slavery. The loss of economic freedom.

Time to trash the Conservatives
 

On 11/06/2010 9:03 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 11/06/2010 11:56 AM, nom=de=plume wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 09:12:26 -0400, BAR wrote:

Cut "entitlements."

Helen Thomas wouldn't even have the nerve to say that. ;-)

I feel sorry for her. She could have left the scene as a class act.
Instead...

Funny how everyone slams "entitlements" right up until it affects their
social security, medicare, police/fire/infrastructure in their
neighborhood, EMT availability, library access, etc. Then, it's don't
touch. If people don't want entitlements, then they should vote against
them and vote out any politician that promotes funding them. So far,
that hasn't happened, and there doesn't appear to be any strong movement
to do so.

Actually, what the produicers shoudl do, and many are is to move.

Why live in a country where the 2/3rds not paying for it can outvote
the 1/3 that does?

To me, it feels like taxation without representation when the begars,
liberal losers and pocket pickers out vote the tax paying worker. Also
known as slavery.

--
Liberalism - a disease of envy, greed, entitlement and KAOS.

What are you ranting about. Your first sentence is not coherent and the
rest is just a mindless rant.

Who cares how it feels to you??? You're not a citizen. Go complain to
the Canadian gov't. I doubt they'll listen to you either.

You had better care, who is going to pay for your welfare check?

It will not be me for much longer. Me, I plan on retiring early and most
of my assets are tax paid, so

You are right about Canada, they are much further down the road than the
US is. You will figure it out in 10 years. In Canada many move out of
Canada on retirement. I might yet do so.

--
Taxation, modern day slavery. The loss of economic freedom.

OT entitlements (was lighthouses)
 

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 11/06/2010 9:01 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 11/06/2010 5:47 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 12:53:22 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 10:56:15 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Funny how everyone slams "entitlements" right up until it affects
their
social security, medicare, police/fire/infrastructure in their
neighborhood,
EMT availability, library access, etc. Then, it's don't touch. If
people
don't want entitlements, then they should vote against them and
vote out
any
politician that promotes funding them. So far, that hasn't
happened, and
there doesn't appear to be any strong movement to do so.


We can look at Greece to get an idea about what can happen to
"entitlements" when they are unrealistic.
My Alexander Tyler quote still seems right

"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as
a permanent form of government."

Sorry, but I disagree with Tyler. Firstly, democracy by definition
isn't a
fixed object. It's an idea and it has endured in one form or another
for
several 1000 years. Ancient Greece is a great example. That particular
culture failed, but not because of democracy. Our culture may fail,
but not
because of democracy.


Name the democracy that survived more than 200 years.

You can't say the US because we are a representative republic that is
only becoming democratic in the last 100 years. For most of our
history only rich white men could vote. Women didn't have the vote
until the 1920s and blacks didn't get the universal vote until the
60s.


"A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters
discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public
treasury."

"From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who
promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result
that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal
policy,
which is always followed by a dictatorship."

"The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the
beginning of history, has been about 200 years"

"During those 200 years, those nations always progressed through the
following sequence:

1. from bondage to spiritual faith;

2. from spiritual faith to great courage;

3. from courage to liberty;

4. from liberty to abundance;

5. from abundance to complacency;

6. from complacency to apathy;

7. from apathy to dependence;

8. from dependence back into bondage"


We are at about #6 right now. BP would say we were closer to #8

Which entitlements don't you think are appropriate? I'm sure there
are lots
of example of things that make no sense, but there are many more
that make
perfect sense and are appropriate and necessary. BP isn't a
democracy. It's
a for-profit corporation. It (and similar) need to be regulated, since
corporations don't give a fig about democracy or the public good.
They're
only concerned with the corporate good. Capitalism, in its purest
form, is
unworkable and must be tempered with social consciousness.



The problem is not entitlements per se, it is unfunded entitlements
and that includes SS and Medicare as of this year. We have done
exactly what Tyler predicted. We voted benefits in excess of the taxes
we are willing to pay. That is also what happened in Greece and most
of western Europe. It is an unsustainable system. 40 cents of every
dollar in my SS check is borrowed from my kids. You can't even prorate
that by the amount taken in by the FICA tax since LBJ put SS in budget
but even if you did, the check still includes some borrowed money
since FICA does not cover the outlay.

Actually, stuff like SS was wel funded. But skimed by the government.
And often invested in losers because of politics. If all the 30+ years
a working types has SS (employer and employee) in their 401k they
would retire early.

And SS is one of the very few things government does for everyone. So
they hold it over your heads like a bat. What people should ask is for
their corrupt politicians to spend less on pork and fund SS like it
should have been in the first place. That is, less pork.
--
Liberalism - a disease of envy, greed, entitlement and KAOS.

Actually, I agree, but some people's pork is other people's needed
benefits. Do you have a suggestion about which is pork and should be cut?

I don't know what the clinical description would be, but people om the
lamb getting their personal bailouts, and those debt worshipers seem to
have a disease of sorts. They get quite entitled, rude and dysfunctional
over time. The only way to get them off is like herion, cut them off.

Pretty simple which pork to cut, if you didn't pay you don't get.
--
Taxation, modern day slavery. The loss of economic freedom.

Basically, you don't know. But, you have no problem condemning the
benefits... just as long as nobody touches your benefits.

So, even an idiot can occasionally say something that makes sense,
apparently.

OT entitlements (was lighthouses)
 

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 21:48:16 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 18:23:42 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

Actually, stuff like SS was wel funded. But skimed by the government.
And often invested in losers because of politics. If all the 30+ years
a working types has SS (employer and employee) in their 401k they would
retire early.

The problem is the government has no vehicle to actually save money
since we got off the gold standard. SS was always pay as you go and
the trust fund was just a scam to collect more taxes for other things.
mostly wars. Originally it was WWII (lend lease)when the trust fund
was established (1939-40) and it was put on budget to hide the cost of
the Vietnam war (1968-69).

The concept of 401ks is flawed too looking forward because 83 million
boomers pulling their money out of the stock market and spending it
will crash the market.

The real problem is you can't have a third of the adult population
living off the work of the other two thirds without a revolt.

The gov't doesn't need to "save" money as much as it needs to have money
available. The gold standard was highly flawed and died an appropriate
death.

The point was, with a metal standard they could have extra money in
reserve. With the federal reserve model it is just what you have in
tax revenue and what you print or borrow. There is no reserve. The
"trust fund" is a huge lie. It is just a promise to raise taxes that
the population will not tolerate.


Boomers will not be pulling money out en masse. In fact, some of the
boomer
generation has already hit retirement age. It's a spread of about 15
years... something like that. Most with substantial 401K-like savings will
likely pull it out in drips and drabs. Only someone foolish would pull it
out at once, esp. given the tax consequences.


That is yet to be seen isn't it? If a person is in debt and sees that
pile of money, they will cash it in. The only boomers who are retired
are the ones who are not in debt.

It's not needed. The "money in reserve is in the form of treasury notes,
which are invested in the general economy. Storing a lot of metal doesn't
really do much and it's certainly not readily usable.

Not really... there are always foolish people, but there are lots of people
already in debt who don't pull out their money. As I said, the tax
consequences alone usually give people pause. Many boomers are in debt in
one form or another... mortgages are a good example. Most people think of
their home as an asset, but if you owe money, it's really a liability...
certainly one kind of liability that's easy to live with, even in
retirement.

OT entitlements (was lighthouses)
 

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 11/06/2010 11:51 PM, wrote:

The gov't doesn't need to "save" money as much as it needs to have money
available. The gold standard was highly flawed and died an appropriate
death.

The point was, with a metal standard they could have extra money in
reserve. With the federal reserve model it is just what you have in
tax revenue and what you print or borrow. There is no reserve. The
"trust fund" is a huge lie. It is just a promise to raise taxes that
the population will not tolerate.

Ya so? What is wrong with paying someone interest in putting their money
in the reserve so others can borrow it?

Right now someone snaps their fingers and ponzi money is created
indescriminantly. Ultimately resulting in inflation and economic
instability as debts can just keep on debting.

But you are right about taxes. At this point USA might as well just welsh
on the debt like everyone else. As people head back to gold and hard
assets. The last thing you want right now is bonds, preferred shares and
the like. Loaning others money in this market is a destroyer of your
wealth.

Boomers will not be pulling money out en masse. In fact, some of the
boomer
generation has already hit retirement age. It's a spread of about 15
years... something like that. Most with substantial 401K-like savings
will
likely pull it out in drips and drabs. Only someone foolish would pull
it
out at once, esp. given the tax consequences.


That is yet to be seen isn't it? If a person is in debt and sees that
pile of money, they will cash it in. The only boomers who are retired
are the ones who are not in debt.

Boomers is all that keeps the economy afloat right now. The only real new
money coming into circulation is retirement money. A slow trickle, no big
fast quick money...

Many boomers are in debt. Have a relative by marriage that is 65 and a
mortgage, how freaking dumb! Oh, they lived pretty good 1-20 years ago,
but now? Not pretty.

--
Taxation, modern day slavery. The loss of economic freedom.

No. You're just an idiot.

OT entitlements (was lighthouses)
 

"Moose" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 18:23:42 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

Actually, stuff like SS was wel funded. But skimed by the government.
And often invested in losers because of politics. If all the 30+ years
a working types has SS (employer and employee) in their 401k they would
retire early.

The problem is the government has no vehicle to actually save money
since we got off the gold standard. SS was always pay as you go and
the trust fund was just a scam to collect more taxes for other things.
mostly wars. Originally it was WWII (lend lease)when the trust fund
was established (1939-40) and it was put on budget to hide the cost of
the Vietnam war (1968-69).

The concept of 401ks is flawed too looking forward because 83 million
boomers pulling their money out of the stock market and spending it
will crash the market.

The real problem is you can't have a third of the adult population
living off the work of the other two thirds without a revolt.

The gov't doesn't need to "save" money as much as it needs to have money
available. The gold standard was highly flawed and died an appropriate
death.

Boomers will not be pulling money out en masse. In fact, some of the
boomer generation has already hit retirement age. It's a spread of about
15 years... something like that. Most with substantial 401K-like savings
will likely pull it out in drips and drabs. Only someone foolish would
pull it out at once, esp. given the tax consequences.


Obie's lickin his chops waiting to get at our 401k money. If we don't
start spending it he'll find another way to grab it. Rest assured on that,
little lady.


You're stupid. Bush was the one who wanted to privatize social security.
Thank GOD that didn't go through. He's the one who went on a spending and
tax give-away for 7 years.

OT entitlements (was lighthouses)
 

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 09:37:25 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On deduction that should be phased out is mortgage tax deductability as
you get older. Say at 20 you get the full benefit, but as you get older
say to 50 it disappears. Encouraging people to have their homes 100%
paid for in due time. That is, reduce mortgage deductabiltiy
encouraging equity in the home.

So when the economy tiffs, they are less likely to toss the keys to the
repo man. And be in a hell of a lot better position for retirement.
But this would be progressive and will not happen as the US economy is
now built on debt that is going delinquent.

The other deduction that should go is the "2d home" mortgage
deduction. That is what fueled the "want house" market at the expense
of the taxpayer.

The first is just politically impossible. The second isn't a bad idea, but
it is also highly unlikely. It goes right back to if someone has it, they
don't want to give it up. How do you plan on forcing people to give up these
deductions?