APRTW wrote:

It isnt suprising that most Americans want to raise taxes on people that dont include them. 

It is also interesting that most people didnt want to mess with Medicare or SS.  I think that goes to show how much support those systems have.

Agreed.

And cynical, but probably accurate, political scientists have been commenting for decades now that the GOP has been well aware that the Democrats enacted some of the most popular, populist legislation of the 20th century, and that's why they controlled congress almost without break for half a century.  Furthermore, aware that SS and Medicare are virtually unrepealable, they began this whole business about low taxes and trickle down economics during Reagan's first term, that was never truly meant to bring about economic prosperity, but rather, budget deficits that would force a showdown between Americans' desire for a social safety net for themselves and their neighbors, and their desire for low taxes.  It makes a lot of sense when viewed with 20/20 hindsight. 

At least as interesting is the quote from one of the big GOP strategists (I think it was Rove) to the effect of: if we let them pass universal health care we will lose control of congress for another 40 years.  The implication is to avoid allowing the Democrats to pass legislation that is popular, no matter how good it might be for the country.

We are of a mind on this one.  And in this case, there are some people pretty close to me who do have a great deal of expertise.  The accepted facts within the public health community as I understand them are that Medicare and Medicaid drive costs down, in the way that Walmart can set the prices that its suppliers charge, and are among the principle forces restraining exploding medical costs.

What I don't get is why we simply didn't do away with the part that says "65 and older", or "below (such-and-such) an income level", and make these two popular, effective programs available for all Americans?  Ideally there would be something like "basic health" available to all, and then more elite (and taxable) programs would be available to those who want to buy them.  And a key thing for everyone to remember is that neither of these are anything like the British government run health program.  They are a government-run health insurance program, where the doctors and hospitals remain private.  So everyone would still be able to use the old fashioned fee-for-service and pay a private doctor out of their own pocket, and pay out of pocket for supplemental insurance, just as they do now. 

Would there be 'rationing' under this "basic health"?  Of course there would.  But there is rationing under current HMO's, anyway.  Long waits?  Of course.  Have you tried scheduling an appointment with a specialist for a non-acute condition lately?  Last year I had a six-month wait to see an allergist.

"Last year I had a six-month wait to see an allergist."

Try getting a timely appointment with a dermotologist sometime.

APRTW wrote:

Even though Fors doesnt like either system I have to believe that his life would be alot worst off without them.

I assume you're talking about Medicare and Social Security, two programs which I've never used, but have paid plenty of money into against my will.   

I'll explain exactly why I know social security is a detriment for me.  I assume you receive the same annual social security statement I receive at the end of each year.  Through last year, I had personally contributed about $80K to SS, the bulk of which has been since 1999.

Over the last 10 years, my personal retirement investments have an average rate of return of about 6% (despite the collapse after 9/11 and the housing market collapse).  I max out my SS contribution annually, so I pay about $7K into SS each year.  By my calculations, if I could personally invest that $7K, and received the exact same 6% annual return on my SS contribution, when I reach full SS retirement age I would have about $979,000 just from those contributions alone.

Based on my current earnings, SS estimates I will receive a monthly benefit of about $2,500 or $30,000 per year.  On the other hand, if I had been able to personally invest my forced SS contributions and lived simply off of the interest, I could retire with about 60,000 per year in interest income and have about a million dollars in principal to play with.

And none of this even considers the fact that my employer is forced to contribute a matching amount.  If any of that contribution was passed my way, the figures would be even higher.

The idea that SS provides a benefit is a myth.  It is simply a safety net for those people who choose not to plan appropriately.  And spare me the lecture about people not being able to figure out how to invest their money.  Our company's 401(k) has options as simple as Estimated Retirement Year 2030.  If you're smart enough to figure out when you'll turn 65, you can pick an appropriate plan.

But please, explain how you think my life is better off by being forced to pay into these horribly inefficient social programs.

forsberg_us wrote:

But please, explain how you think my life is better off by being forced to pay into these horribly inefficient social programs.

Because abject poverty among the elderly has essentially been eradicated by them.  Your argument about these taxes against your will is as undemocratic as they come.  Why should those of us who opposed the Iraq War, or any of the other wars we've been fighting, be forced to pay for those against our will?  Because all of those things are governmental policies of a democratically elected government.  The minority does not have the right to opt out.  If it did, it wouldn't be democracy.

forsberg_us wrote:

Max wrote:

forsberg_us wrote:

But please, explain how you think my life is better off by being forced to pay into these horribly inefficient social programs.

Because abject poverty among the elderly has essentially been eradicated by them.

Sorry Max, but this doesn't improve my life one bit.

That's a bold pronouncement, and I am assume it is one made in ignorance of the alternative.  Have you ever lived anywhere that abject poverty is all around you?

Even if you remain adamant that it does not improve your life one bit to eradicate poverty around you, this is the policy of the government of your country.  So, like it or not, you are taxed for it.

Max wrote:

forsberg_us wrote:

You keep saying that the purpose of social security is to provide for others (the elderly, impoverished).  Funny, I've never heard a politician refer to it that way.  It's always that I'm saving for my own retirement, and that's simply not true.  It's a simple redistribution of wealth.  Call it that and see how many people would support it.

I have no idea how this was sold to the American public when it was passed more than 70 years ago.  Regardless, you are taxed this year and your money is spent on retired people this year, more or less.  When you retire, none of your money will be used, per se, it will be other people's money.  Those are facts; describe them how you will.

It is not at all uncommon for politicians to find a sales tactic for a given policy agenda, that might not quite encapsulate the policy's effects in the views of all people.  For example the Bush tax cut for the rich could have been called the, "Financial Handout for the Rich People Who Fund Our Political Campaigns Act".  Call it that and see how many people would support it.

The Bush tax cut applied to everyone which is exactly why the current President extended it.

forsberg_us wrote:

APRTW wrote:

Even though Fors doesnt like either system I have to believe that his life would be alot worst off without them.

I assume you're talking about Medicare and Social Security, two programs which I've never used, but have paid plenty of money into against my will.   

I'll explain exactly why I know social security is a detriment for me.  I assume you receive the same annual social security statement I receive at the end of each year.  Through last year, I had personally contributed about $80K to SS, the bulk of which has been since 1999.

Over the last 10 years, my personal retirement investments have an average rate of return of about 6% (despite the collapse after 9/11 and the housing market collapse).  I max out my SS contribution annually, so I pay about $7K into SS each year.  By my calculations, if I could personally invest that $7K, and received the exact same 6% annual return on my SS contribution, when I reach full SS retirement age I would have about $979,000 just from those contributions alone.

Based on my current earnings, SS estimates I will receive a monthly benefit of about $2,500 or $30,000 per year.  On the other hand, if I had been able to personally invest my forced SS contributions and lived simply off of the interest, I could retire with about 60,000 per year in interest income and have about a million dollars in principal to play with.

And none of this even considers the fact that my employer is forced to contribute a matching amount.  If any of that contribution was passed my way, the figures would be even higher.

The idea that SS provides a benefit is a myth.  It is simply a safety net for those people who choose not to plan appropriately.  And spare me the lecture about people not being able to figure out how to invest their money.  Our company's 401(k) has options as simple as Estimated Retirement Year 2030.  If you're smart enough to figure out when you'll turn 65, you can pick an appropriate plan.

But please, explain how you think my life is better off by being forced to pay into these horribly inefficient social programs.

I understand all that.  Hell I agree with it.  I just elected to get out of a retirement that forced my employer to contribute, be it a small amount.  Now tell me what kind of system would be in place for those who wony plan like you.   Because America wouldnt be willing to let milions of aging people suffer.  Also would you be happy paying for that group and not getting any benifits yourself.  Not pay into SS and not providing a saftey net for those who dont prepare for retirement isnt an option even if that would benifit you most.

APRTW wrote:

I understand all that.  Hell I agree with it.  I just elected to get out of a retirement that forced my employer to contribute, be it a small amount.  Now tell me what kind of system would be in place for those who wony plan like you.   Because America wouldnt be willing to let milions of aging people suffer.  Also would you be happy paying for that group and not getting any benifits yourself.  Not pay into SS and not providing a saftey net for those who dont prepare for retirement isnt an option even if that would benifit you most.

As long as this country is wealthy enough, we will not allow the elderly (and children, for that matter) to live in poverty without a meaningful commitment from ourselves, in the form of our government, to ameliorate that situation.  Whereas you and I seem to agree on that completely, AP, it sounds like Fors's point is that he is willing to say, "you made your bed (or in the case of children, 'your parents made a bed for you'), now lie in it."  My hunch is twofold: (1) that he would not be so cold in practice if he actually confronted poverty on the level we could be headed for, and (2) that he somewhat believes the propaganda of the right that we will bankrupt the country with what some call nanny state socialism.

The answers are simple:

1. Are Germany and the Scandanavian countries bankrupted by their systems, which are far more comprehensive and have been operative longer than ours?

And as for the 'wealth redistribution' needed to fund these:

1. List the countries that do NOT have a progressive tax structure. 

Regarding hardship before the development of the modern social safety net:

1. Read the history of our nation's struggle, from the Pilgrims to the present, and ask if it is not reasonable that our leaders, and ourselves as a society, believed we learned lessons from these, and determined to do things better in the future?

Last edited by Max (1/04/2011 9:10 pm)

Max, as far as children lying in the bed their parents made for them, those children have an opportunity to get an education if they choose. Being the product of a terrible school district--one from which nearly every family that could afford to send its kids to private school did so--I have little tolerance for that excuse.

I couldn't afford to go to private school and couldn't afford college when I graduated. I took a job in a bowling alley and another one in a video rental store to afford community college. When I turned 21, I got my job at the police department and finished my associates degree and bachelors degree while working full time and secondary jobs to pay my tuition to the distinguished University of Missouri- St. Louis. I saved money for 2 years to be able to afford to leave the police department an go to law school. Law school was the only time I received any tuition assistance (I scored very high on the LSAT and earned some scholarship money). I worked my ass off in law school and finished 2nd in a class of about 220. I was the first person in my family to attend more than a year of college.

For me, that was the only silver lining of the Obama presidency. It became a lot tougher for the African-American population to complain about a glass ceiling with an African-American sitting in the White House.

If you want to do it, you do it. If you don't want to do it, you make excuses and blame others for the problems life dealt you. There's no excuse for a physically/mentally healthy person in this country to have to depend on the gov't for their livelihood--period.

Last edited by forsberg_us (1/04/2011 10:26 pm)

Max wrote:

APRTW wrote:

I understand all that.  Hell I agree with it.  I just elected to get out of a retirement that forced my employer to contribute, be it a small amount.  Now tell me what kind of system would be in place for those who wony plan like you.   Because America wouldnt be willing to let milions of aging people suffer.  Also would you be happy paying for that group and not getting any benifits yourself.  Not pay into SS and not providing a saftey net for those who dont prepare for retirement isnt an option even if that would benifit you most.

As long as this country is wealthy enough, we will not allow the elderly (and children, for that matter) to live in poverty without a meaningful commitment from ourselves, in the form of our government, to ameliorate that situation.  Whereas you and I seem to agree on that completely, AP, it sounds like Fors's point is that he is willing to say, "you made your bed (or in the case of children, 'your parents made a bed for you'), now lie in it."  My hunch is twofold: (1) that he would not be so cold in practice if he actually confronted poverty on the level we could be headed for, and (2) that he somewhat believes the propaganda of the right that we will bankrupt the country with what some call nanny state socialism.

I dont agree about the children.  Everyone is able to rise above there parents failures.  I cant say that from a personal standpoint because my parents provided a good home but I believe it to be true.  I will agree that I am unsure if it would benifit me and the country as a whole to throw the bums out on there asses and let them suffer the poor decisions they made in life.  Sure I dont want to pay for them to eat, sleep and fuck but I dont want them crawing around my doorstep either.  If some of may tax money goes to keeping them from littering the streets more then they already do it might be the best thing.  Then there are those who dont actually abuse the system and just need alittle help.  I am fine with helping those.

forsberg_us wrote:

Max, as far as children lying in the bed their parents made for them, those children have an opportunity to get an education if they choose. Being the product of a terrible school district--one from which nearly every family that could afford to send its kids to private school did so--I have little tolerance for that excuse.

I couldn't afford to go to private school and couldn't afford college when I graduated. I took a job in a bowling alley and another one in a video rental store to afford community college. When I turned 21, I got my job at the police department and finished my associates degree and bachelors degree while working full time and secondary jobs to pay my tuition to the distinguished University of Missouri- St. Louis. I saved money for 2 years to be able to afford to leave the police department an go to law school. Law school was the only time I received any tuition assistance (I scored very high on the LSAT and earned some scholarship money). I worked my ass off in law school and finished 2nd in a class of about 220. I was the first person in my family to attend more than a year of college.

For me, that was the only silver lining of the Obama presidency. It became a lot tougher for the African-American population to complain about a glass ceiling with an African-American sitting in the White House.

If you want to do it, you do it. If you don't want to do it, you make excuses and blame others for the problems life dealt you. There's no excuse for a physically/mentally healthy person in this country to have to depend on the gov't for their livelihood--period.

Now we are heading into areas where I have a bit of expertise, and there is a lot of evidence that indicates that to the extent that environment plays a role in the 'genes by environment interaction' (i.e, 'nature versus nurture'), conception to the age of five are critical, and everything up until puberty provides opportunities that no longer exist after puberty (the classic examples of this involve learning a new language: learn it before puberty and you can speak it with no accent, learn it after and you are stuck with a lifelong accent, generally speaking.  MRI studies have shown the effect is exhibited in the brain itself: learn a second language before puberty and you use the same region of the brain for the second language as you use for the first, learn it after puberty and an entirely different area of the brain fires up when using the second language).  Likewise there are mountains of data on the acquisition of our personality and character, and the kind of free will that you imply when you say that they can go out and get an education is not acquired, for the most part, until after the formative years are over.  This is part of what is meant by the web of cultural significance: we acquire our morals and values to a large extent during a period of life when we have very little control over our lives and our environment.  The evidence that exists screams out for massive intervention to provide for prenatal and postnatal care up to the age of five-ish.  Instead, the basic structure of our "socialized" child care doesn't even begin until age 6, when children are required to be in first grade or to have an exemption for home schooling, except in areas that have kindergartens, in which case the ball gets rolling at 5.  That's too late, and we know it.

As for your story, it's a wonderful story that illustrates how America works and works well.  Now that America worked for you, you want to change it all by restructuring the tax code so that wealthy people pay less, and so that poor people have less of a social safety net, than when you were a child???  Where's the gratitude to your country and the system that allowed hard work to be rewarded?

Last edited by Max (1/05/2011 1:13 am)