Krauthammer the socialist

[takoma]

Krauthammer on Social Security:

Of course it’s a Ponzi scheme. So what? It’s also the most vital, humane and fixable of all social programs. The question for the candidates is: Forget Ponzi — are you going to fix Social Security?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-ponzi-scheme-that-should-be-fixed/2011/09/15/gIQAn6EfVK_story.html

[Anonymous]

I know! I normally don't read him because he makes steam come out of my ears, and the first few paragraphs didn't disappoint. But his finale paid back the effort!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I know! I normally don't read him because he makes steam come out of my ears, and the first few paragraphs didn't disappoint. But his finale paid back the effort!

kraut nails it as usual.

Three easy steps: Change the cost-of-living measure, means-test for richer recipients and, most important, raise the retirement age. The current retirement age is an absurd anachronism. Bismarck arbitrarily chose 70 when he created social insurance in 1889. Clever guy: Life expectancy at the time was under 50.

When Franklin Roosevelt created Social Security, choosing 65 as the eligibility age, life expectancy was 62. Today it is almost 80. FDR wanted to prevent the aged few from suffering destitution in their last remaining years. Social Security was not meant to provide two decades of greens fees for baby boomers.

[Anonymous]

Too bad
You pay taxes for 40 years
You should get something back
Maybe the baby boomers will take over and vote themselves into power and force the young to provide 2 decades of greens fees

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Too bad
You pay taxes for 40 years
You should get something back
Maybe the baby boomers will take over and vote themselves into power and force the young to provide 2 decades of greens fees

You do get something back. You live in the greatest country of earth, and without taxes this would not be true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Too bad
You pay taxes for 40 years
You should get something back
Maybe the baby boomers will take over and vote themselves into power and force the young to provide 2 decades of greens fees

You do get something back. You live in the greatest country of earth, and without taxes this would not be true.

No, our country was created out of a tax rebellion. We're now in a state of decline because of large government and overspending.

The Social Security surplus was spent as general funds for years, so what should have been saved for those who paid in was squandered.

Krauthammer's point sounds a lot like the old slavery debate. I don't think that he likes Social Security, but the fact is that our system is so set up around SS and Medicare that we don't know how to get rid of them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Too bad
You pay taxes for 40 years
You should get something back
Maybe the baby boomers will take over and vote themselves into power and force the young to provide 2 decades of greens fees

You do get something back. You live in the greatest country of earth, and without taxes this would not be true.

No, our country was created out of a tax rebellion. We're now in a state of decline because of large government and overspending.

The Social Security surplus was spent as general funds for years, so what should have been saved for those who paid in was squandered.

Krauthammer's point sounds a lot like the old slavery debate. I don't think that he likes Social Security, but the fact is that our system is so set up around SS and Medicare that we don't know how to get rid of them.

It amuses me that those who claim to admire our Founding Fathers the most know the least about them. For one thing, they were not some monolithitic entity. That had a huge amount of internal dissent about nearly every issue. However, they nearly all agreed that the US needed some type of progressive tax rate. George Washington himself levied our country's first tax (The "Whiskey" Tax) and used the army to enforce it. Even Jefferson, the populist, favored a progressive property tax. The Consitution is an amazing document and our Founding Fathers were incredible men. I just wish the Tea Baggers would learn something about them if they are going to use them as a political prop.

[Anonymous]

the whole budget is a ponzi scheme. thats why you should buy gold.

[Anonymous]

of course bernie madoff had a ponzi scheme...so what. ponzi schemes should be legal.

[takoma]

I was not taxation that the Bostonians were objecting to when they tossed the tea into the harbor, it was lack of representation. Today's so-called Tea Party is about greed, not democracy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Too bad
You pay taxes for 40 years
You should get something back
Maybe the baby boomers will take over and vote themselves into power and force the young to provide 2 decades of greens fees

You do get something back. You live in the greatest country of earth, and without taxes this would not be true.

No, our country was created out of a tax rebellion. We're now in a state of decline because of large government and overspending.

The Social Security surplus was spent as general funds for years, so what should have been saved for those who paid in was squandered.

Krauthammer's point sounds a lot like the old slavery debate. I don't think that he likes Social Security, but the fact is that our system is so set up around SS and Medicare that we don't know how to get rid of them.

It amuses me that those who claim to admire our Founding Fathers the most know the least about them. For one thing, they were not some monolithitic entity. That had a huge amount of internal dissent about nearly every issue. However, they nearly all agreed that the US needed some type of progressive tax rate. George Washington himself levied our country's first tax (The "Whiskey" Tax) and used the army to enforce it. Even Jefferson, the populist, favored a progressive property tax. The Consitution is an amazing document and our Founding Fathers were incredible men. I just wish the Tea Baggers would learn something about them if they are going to use them as a political prop.

What they ALL agreed on was that their government was too oppressive and needed to be overthrown. The tyranny, as they called it, of King George the Third was minor compared to what we have today. Giving the East India Tea Company a monopoly over the trade sounds is reminiscent of Obama's many takeovers and favors to his union supporters. The takeover of the auto industry comes to mind. The founding fathers would have been shocked at what we have put up with today and would rebelled against the government long ago.

Jefferson was incredibly liberal for his time. For one thing, he favored universal public education. At the same time, he opposed the government even regulating commerce on interstate canals. So the most liberal people of the day are now untra conservatives. Leftist are often openly hateful of the founding fathers, and certainly they hate their ideas and would vilify them if they were around today.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
What they ALL agreed on was that their government was too oppressive and needed to be overthrown. The tyranny, as they called it, of King George the Third was minor compared to what we have today. Giving the East India Tea Company a monopoly over the trade sounds is reminiscent of Obama's many takeovers and favors to his union supporters. The takeover of the auto industry comes to mind. The founding fathers would have been shocked at what we have put up with today and would rebelled against the government long ago.

Jefferson was incredibly liberal for his time. For one thing, he favored universal public education. At the same time, he opposed the government even regulating commerce on interstate canals. So the most liberal people of the day are now untra conservatives. Leftist are often openly hateful of the founding fathers, and certainly they hate their ideas and would vilify them if they were around today.

The bolded sentence above destroys any credibility you may have even had. As far as I remember, you never had any, so it's a wash. But, you really have no clue.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
What they ALL agreed on was that their government was too oppressive and needed to be overthrown. The tyranny, as they called it, of King George the Third was minor compared to what we have today. Giving the East India Tea Company a monopoly over the trade sounds is reminiscent of Obama's many takeovers and favors to his union supporters. The takeover of the auto industry comes to mind. The founding fathers would have been shocked at what we have put up with today and would rebelled against the government long ago.

Jefferson was incredibly liberal for his time. For one thing, he favored universal public education. At the same time, he opposed the government even regulating commerce on interstate canals. So the most liberal people of the day are now untra conservatives. Leftist are often openly hateful of the founding fathers, and certainly they hate their ideas and would vilify them if they were around today.

The bolded sentence above destroys any credibility you may have even had. As far as I remember, you never had any, so it's a wash. But, you really have no clue.

I could provide examples. But really all you have are a bunch of insults without anything to back it up. This doesn't facilitate debate. Then I saw that this was coming from the admin and it's so personal.

Sorry, I was just trying to have a healthy discussion. I'm getting off this board for a while.

I'd still like to know if you looked up my IP address.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
What they ALL agreed on was that their government was too oppressive and needed to be overthrown. The tyranny, as they called it, of King George the Third was minor compared to what we have today. Giving the East India Tea Company a monopoly over the trade sounds is reminiscent of Obama's many takeovers and favors to his union supporters. The takeover of the auto industry comes to mind. The founding fathers would have been shocked at what we have put up with today and would rebelled against the government long ago.

Jefferson was incredibly liberal for his time. For one thing, he favored universal public education. At the same time, he opposed the government even regulating commerce on interstate canals. So the most liberal people of the day are now untra conservatives. Leftist are often openly hateful of the founding fathers, and certainly they hate their ideas and would vilify them if they were around today.

The bolded sentence above destroys any credibility you may have even had. As far as I remember, you never had any, so it's a wash. But, you really have no clue.

I could provide examples. But really all you have are a bunch of insults without anything to back it up. This doesn't facilitate debate. Then I saw that this was coming from the admin and it's so personal.

Sorry, I was just trying to have a healthy discussion. I'm getting off this board for a while.

I'd still like to know if you looked up my IP address.

An example of one or two things that might be worse now then under the rule of King George is hardly proof that tyranny under the King was minor compared to what we have today. Today, the vast majority of Americans -- minus only the District of Columbia -- has representation in the US Congress. While you may not like today's laws, they are being voted on and passed by elected representatives. That is a fundamental difference that you do not seem to comprehend. To paraphrase Barney Frank, trying to have a discussion with someone who does not understand such a basic fact would be like trying to argue with a dining room table.

As for your IP address, it is on every message you post. I don't have to look it up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know! I normally don't read him because he makes steam come out of my ears, and the first few paragraphs didn't disappoint. But his finale paid back the effort!

kraut nails it as usual.

Three easy steps: Change the cost-of-living measure, means-test for richer recipients and, most important, raise the retirement age. The current retirement age is an absurd anachronism. Bismarck arbitrarily chose 70 when he created social insurance in 1889. Clever guy: Life expectancy at the time was under 50.

When Franklin Roosevelt created Social Security, choosing 65 as the eligibility age, life expectancy was 62. Today it is almost 80. FDR wanted to prevent the aged few from suffering destitution in their last remaining years. Social Security was not meant to provide two decades of greens fees for baby boomers.

If you raise the amount of wages that's taxed (currently about $107K), you might not have to do one of these other things. Why should Bill Gates pay taxes on only the first $10&K of his income?