White Christian America versus Everybody Else

[Teddy B 17,252]

No. A good % of the 'elderly' have a ton of cash so no, as a category, the "elderly" would not be at the top of that list.

What would you consider to be a "ton of cash", and what percentage of the elderly have it?

[JohnR! 5,495]

1340202530[/url]' post='5465613']

Nothing is fool proof, there will most definitely be problems with a privatized program, but in the long run it will be much cheaper to run and will most likely reap greater benefits. There will be times where the gov't will have to step in to make up for shortfalls during financial crisis, but the stock market has proven resilient and based on history will always bounce back.

This is where I see the maximum potential for abuse. If it is private then it is private. Allowing the government to intervene and make up for shortfalls sends out a signal that the financial market has carte blanche to invest our money as they please with absolutely no fear of risks because if they should screw up we'll pick up the tab. That is begging for these wizards to go gambling with our money. Where do we draw the line?

[Teddy B 17,252]

This is where I see the maximum potential for abuse. If it is private then it is private. Allowing the government to intervene and make up for shortfalls sends out a signal that the financial market has carte blanche to invest our money as they please with absolutely no fear of risks because if they should screw up we'll pick up the tab. That is begging for these wizards to go gambling with our money. Where do we draw the line?

Which is pretty much the way things are now. I'm not sure how to fix it, but I do believe the private sector is always better than a gov't run program. There will always be room for fraud and abuse no matter who has the money.

[james&olya 1,121]

99% of all gov't run programs would do better under a private for profit company. The US gov't was never set up to run these programs, nor was it ever given the power to do so in the constitution by the founding fathers. The one thing that the gov't does do well is also one of the few empwoerments it was given in the original constitution, and that is defense.

I think all people should be given a choice of whether or not they want to privatize their social security benefits or keep them as is and run by the gov't. and they reap the benefits accordingly.

I call BS! Private run programs might get a better return than SS. Or they might go belly-up and leave you with nothing. High income earners would almost always be better off with a private plan but the same is not true for those with lower and average incomes. Only the US Govt is in a position to guarantee everyone a defined benefit retirement income and to fund it in a way that it narrows the income disparities that otherwise would leave many retirees in abject poverty. Yes, I know, that is a 're-distribution' of money in a socialist kind of way. Tough! Most retirees of both parties love the program!

[Teddy B 17,252]

I call BS! Private run programs might get a better return than SS. Or they might go belly-up and leave you with nothing. High income earners would almost always be better off with a private plan but the same is not true for those with lower and average incomes. Only the US Govt is in a position to guarantee everyone a defined benefit retirement income and to fund it in a way that it narrows the income disparities that otherwise would leave many retirees in abject poverty. Yes, I know, that is a 're-distribution' of money in a socialist kind of way. Tough! Most retirees of both parties love the program!

99% of private companies will always turn more of a profit than the gov't, because the gov't never has and never will turn a profit, they will forever operate at a loss. Redistributing people's money is not turning a profit, it should be used as a fail safe only. Which is why I said that everyone should be given a choice on whether they want their benefits privatized or gov't funded. If people don't want to take a risk for a higher return, then that's fine, take what the gov'ty will give you.

Edited June 20, 2012 by Teddy B

[james&olya 1,121]

When the financial boys fukc up, they fukc up big. We all saw that... they shouldn't call them shortfalls, they should call them hugefuckinglongfalls...

[james&olya 1,121]

99% of private companies will always turn more of a profit than the gov't, because the gov't never has and never will turn a profit, they will forever operate at a loss. Redistributing people's money is not turning a profit, it should be used as a fail safe only. Which is why I said that everyone should be given a choice on whether they want their benefits privatized or gov't funded. If people don't want to take a risk for a higher return, then that's fine, take what the gov'ty will give you.

It is a favorite talking point for the GOP that the private sector is more efficient. The main thing they are more efficient at is selling themselves in advertising! They tried to say that about medicare and created these private programs to show it. It turned out that these private programs required MORE government money to provide the same level of service that the government could provide doing it directly. Everyone hears about the $700 toilet seats or whatever. The same occurs in private industry all the time but you don't hear about it. It has to do with how accounting is done and the imprecisions often present. Yes, there is government waste. It is the same in ANY bureaucracy, public or private. It is an ongoing battle to minimize it in every organization. You get to hear about it if it is the government. Private corporations keep it to themselves. That doesn't mean they are better.

[Teddy B 17,252]

It is a favorite talking point for the GOP that the private sector is more efficient. The main thing they are more efficient at is selling themselves in advertising! They tried to say that about medicare and created these private programs to show it. It turned out that these private programs required MORE government money to provide the same level of service that the government could provide doing it directly. Everyone hears about the $700 toilet seats or whatever. The same occurs in private industry all the time but you don't hear about it. It has to do with how accounting is done and the imprecisions often present. Yes, there is government waste. It is the same in ANY bureaucracy, public or private. It is an ongoing battle to minimize it in every organization. You get to hear about it if it is the government. Private corporations keep it to themselves. That doesn't mean they are better.

It is a proven fact that the private sector is more efficient than the gov't. Please cite one example where the gov't has ever turned a profit at anything.

Medicare is a gov't run program, it has never been turned over to the private sector. The gov't attempting to run a tax funded program as if it were privately funded is laughable at best. The reason why you never hear about a $700 toilet seat in the private sector, is because it's private! If someone wants to pay $700 for a toilet seat that's their perogative because it's their money.

You seem to have a cloudy misconception of where the private sector ends and gov't begins.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Medicare Part D was part of the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 and went into affect in January 2006. It was one of the few bi-partisan bills that has been passed in recent history, no party can solely take ownership of it.

I'm not sure why anyone would be against Medicare for the elderly, of all the people in this country that nedd and deserve help, wouldn't the elderly be at the top of that list?

I'm not sure what posts of mine you're referring to in which I have fallen for the right wing propoganda, but please feel free to point them out, I've only made 4 or 5 posts in the politics section, so they should be fairly easy to find.

Which party was the majority party in Congress in 2003? That's right, the GOP. Which party had their guy in the White House in 2003? That's right, the GOP. Medicare modernization? Is that what they called it? How about Medicare expansion? That's what it is. And that trillion dollar expansion wasn't funded - not a single penny of it. That's a fact. Given that, how can you claim that the GOP wants to reduce entitlements when they have a record of expanding them? Oh, and bi-partisan? The vote count was 216 to 215 in the House. Of the 216 ayes, only 9 were Democrats. And there wouldn't have been a majority if it hadn't been for that vote to have been held open for hours (until 2:30 in the morning) and Hastert and Tom "The Hammer" DeLay doing some arm-twisting to gather the missing aye votes. There was a report from one of the Congressmen - Smith (Republican of MI) - that he'd been bribed to switch his vote on this one. We know what happened to "The Hammer" eventually.

I'm not sure whay anyone would be against Medicare either. Gotta ask the Republicans why they are against Medicare for future generations. They want to get rid of it and turn it into a private insurance bonanza instead. The proper approach would be to turn Medicare into the single payer health care system that this country so sorely needs.

[mawilson 2,133]

No one is going to get rich on 401ks either. You are aware there's a pathetically low maximum amount one may contribute every year, aren't you?

$17,000? That's not pathetic.

If you contribute $17,000 a year for 30 years, with an interest rate of 5.00% compounded annually, your final savings balance will be $1,254,429.88.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

In fact the GOP has been fighting long and hard to privatize social security, but the Democrats refuse to do so, because that would make less people reliable on the gov't, again hurting their voter base.

Did the Republicans not control both chambers of Congress and the White House for 4 years starting in Jan 2003? Who exactly were they fighting to get Social Security privatized? Themselves?

[james&olya 1,121]

It is a proven fact that the private sector is more efficient than the gov't. Please cite one example where the gov't has ever turned a profit at anything.

Medicare is a gov't run program, it has never been turned over to the private sector. The gov't attempting to run a tax funded program as if it were privately funded is laughable at best. The reason why you never hear about a $700 toilet seat in the private sector, is because it's private! If someone wants to pay $700 for a toilet seat that's their perogative because it's their money.

You seem to have a cloudy misconception of where the private sector ends and gov't begins.

Proven? By who? The Heritage foundation or some other 'fair and balanced' (fairly unbalanced!) organization. You never heard of the 'Medicare Advantage' programs? They were privately run but funded from the federal government as an attempt to prove your point. They failed miserably, requiring significantly more funding per patient to stay afloat than what the government spends otherwise.

The toilet seat was never 'sold' to anybody. It showed up as a line item in an accounting summary.

[mawilson 2,133]

I agree with you that people should have the option to manage their SS but you need not look further than 2008 to realize that half of the money in SS would have vanished in the financial crisis.

Would it? The stock market has more than doubled since its lowest point in 2009 and now is almost back to the pre-crisis levels (although in the short term, we're probably due for another correction).

If you never touched the funds in your portfolio, you have probably lost 10-20%. If you reallocated out of stocks when the crisis began and put the money back in in 2009, you're probably up 40-50%.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

It is a proven fact that the private sector is more efficient than the gov't. Please cite one example where the gov't has ever turned a profit at anything.

Government is not there to make profits - that's the wrong focus. But if you want to know where government does a more efficient job than private enterprise, just look at the health care sector. Nobody has managed to make it more of a clusterfcuk - an expensive and inefficient one at that - than private enterprise. There isn't a government run health care system in the world that is less efficient than the private enterprise dominated system here in the US.

[JohnR! 5,495]

Would it? The stock market has more than doubled since its lowest point in 2009 and now is almost back to the pre-crisis levels (although in the short term, we're probably due for another correction).

If you never touched the funds in your portfolio, you have probably lost 10-20%. If you reallocated out of stocks when the crisis began and put the money back in in 2009, you're probably up 40-50%.

Certain positions, curiously those of financial institutions are at a fraction of what they were back then. Those lost way more than half of their 401-k.