gourimoko
Fighting the good fight!
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2008
- Messages
- 39,845
- Reaction score
- 53,645
- Points
- 148
I understand it isn't a true retirement fund even though many people treat it as such.
If we want a national retirement/investment fund, I have no problem with that - but we should not conflate what Social Security is and what is intended for with the need and purpose of a retirement fund. Because what I see, all too often, is someone saying "I know what Social Security is, and I understand it's not a retirement fund;" but in the same breath they'll contradict themselves by complaining that "I can get a better return from my own investments." Social Security is an insurance program. It protects one against old age, disability, and widowhood.
Like a responsible person I plan on covering myself in my old age through insurance, retirement accounts, and other personal investments.
Great!
But since you've said they'll prevent it from going insolvent by increasing taxes and delaying the age at which you can receive it, I've now done a complete 180 on this thing. I personally can't wait until they take more of my money because they certainly aren't getting enough already.
You realize where your money is going right? I mean, this argument is basically an argument against not only the social safety but taxation itself. Are you saying that you don't want to pay into the social safety net? You don't think it's your responsibility?
If you want my opinion, I think Social Security could use some modernization to provide greater benefits as I said in my previous post. I'm also against raising the retirement age - we should be doing everything possible to lower it.
But this doesn't mean I think we should dismantle the safety net - as this would damage the economy on the whole, and leave millions of seniors and the disabled out in the cold.
I'd like to see the figures on that and the ages pulled. I can certainly see the 60+ crowd and those approaching social security in full support. I don't know a single salaried working person in their 30's that likes social security taxes or believe they can't handle their own issues later in life through their decisions today.
Then you don't know many people.
When asked whether Social Security needed changes or it need to be replaced with something new (akin to Ryan's plan), 83% of respondents said they only wanted changes. 10% wanted a replacement.
When asked if Social Security was a failure, 72% said no (69% of Republicans said no). Persons 35-49 said no 73-25. Only persons 18-34 said "yes" 42-58, but still a 16 point majority favored the program.
Furthermore, 62% (33% say "no") of Americans say it is more important for the government to keep the promise of Social Security rather than having Americans give up benefits.
Social Security does a Fair to Excellent Job (79%); only 16% said it was poor or inadequate.
When asked which is more important, reducing the deficit and debt or maintaining the benefits of Social Security or Medicare, 60% of Americans say maintaining the programs, only 32% say reducing the deficit.
When asked what society should prioritize between reducing benefits or increasing taxes, 56% say we should avoid reducing benefits, only 33% say it's more important to avoid tax increases.
When asked if Social Security is good for the country or bad for the country, 79% say the program is good, only 15% say it is bad.
70% of Americans say that Social Security is Very to Extremely Important to their overall retirement, only 12% stated that it was of slight to negligible importance, with 13% stating it was of moderate importance.
59% of Americans support a sliding scale which would reduce benefits for the wealthiest, and provide greater benefits for the poorer and working class retirees.
51% of Americans oppose chained CPI while only 37% support it.
Sources:
ABC News/Washington Post Poll. April 11-14, 2013. N=1,003 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.5.
Bloomberg National Poll conducted by Selzer & Company. Feb. 15-18, 2013. N=1,003 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.1.
AP-GfK Poll conducted by GfK Roper Public Affairs & Corporate Communications. Aug. 16-20, 2012. N=1,006 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.9.
CNN/ORC Poll. Sept. 23-25, 2011. N=1,010 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.
CNN/ORC Poll. Sept. 9-11, 2011. N=1,038 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.
Pew Research Center. June 15-19, 2011. N=1,502 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.5.
I will feel like I've failed as a person if I need my child/children to financially provide for me in my old age. My parents are that way today...I don't think they've even ever let me pick up the dinner bill and I'm approaching 31. I understand there are people out there who need the help and weren't as lucky as my folks, but
This isn't a welfare program. It is an insurance program. No one gets Social Security retirement benefits that didn't fully pay into the system. This isn't some handout, it's old age insurance, that you pay for. So this entire argument about personal responsibility seems, with respect, ridiculous. You pay these taxes so long as you work on any dollar you make under $100k. The safety net portion is for the disabled only; but the widowers, children who've lost parents, and retirees - their benefits have been paid for!
So why are you literally equating this to a free lunch?
at the end of the day, I just don't think the government needs to be the ones managing these programs.
Why?
If they want to mandate it...Ok, they mandate it. But they suck at operating these things efficiently as evidenced by this Obamacare roll-out and the US Postal Service.
We're talking about Social Security and Medicare, not Obamacare and the USPS. Both SS and Medicare work wonderfully. Medicare is one of the best insurance programs in the world. Is it underfunded? Yes. But that's something that can be fixed and there are many avenues to not only stabilizing the program due to the baby boomer's retiring (and getting sick), but there are things we can do to expand the program.
Medicare-For-All or a Medicare buy-in (read: Obama's Public Option) are both permanent fixes for Medicare.
Social Security needs an adjustment due to the population boom after WWII. So it's time to pay our dues, not complain about them.
And BTW, this isn't a republican vs. democrat thing either.
You're right about that. Republican voters wildly support Social Security and Medicare.
The gov't just sucks at running these programs because it comes at it from a non-impacted/non business centric position.
That's not a reason, that's just an unfounded statement. Again, Social Security has never collapsed, become insolvent, or refused to pay a debt obligation. Why? Because doing so would be a violation of the 14th Amendment, and a default on the full faith and credit of the United States. Social Security, being a government program, promises that those benefits will be paid come hell or high water.
No company, pension fund, or 401(k) investment can back that promise. None. That is the point. Social Security isn't your 401(k), it's not designed to be. It is designed to give you the minimum essential amount to survive, to make sure that rent is paid, and food is on the table every month. You can live on Social Security, but it is not, and never has been intended to be, a replacement retirement fund.
While UPS and FedEX continue to run circles around our Postal Service, the government is largely content with watching 3/4th's of our Post Offices operate at a loss.
I thought we were talking about Social Security?
Since you continue to mention UPS and FedEx, and I hear this argument a lot, you do understand that UPS and FedEx rely on the United States Postal Service, right? FedEx uses USPS for 60% of their deliveries, and the USPS is their #1 client, by far. FedEx would go out of business overnight if the USPS ceased it's operations.
UPS is fairly different, however, the USPS is it's 11th largest client, and UPS relies on the USPS for almost 1/3rd of it's total deliveries. While UPS could survive without the USPS, it would not be advantageous for the company.
But again, I see these comparisons quite often, and they stem from a deep misunderstanding of the relationship between UPS, FedEx and the USPS. They are not competitors. Nor are they even in the same business.
There is no way possible for UPS or FedEx to replace the USPS. The Postal Service is delivers 160 billion parcels per year (worldwide), compared to UPS and FedEx's 6.5 billion per year (and remember, the USPS will handle between 30-60% of those parcels). They employ between 500-750,000 workers and handle 40% of all the mail delivers on the planet.
The "efficiencies" you see with respect to UPS and FedEx are because they, smartly, have partnered with USPS as a back-end; UPS has kept it's employees benefits and pay below market average (is that what we want?); and they have a higher price overall that USPS per parcel.
Also, their revenues are not dictated by a body that is annually trying to destroy them as a company. Obama and the Republicans have cut the USPS by 30%, yet they continue to handle 40% of the mail parcels on Earth.. hmm..
So let's just get something straight. The Post Office handles 160 billion parcels or 24x what UPS and FedEx deliver (combined, not counting the fact that they use the USPS for a large portion of their delivers). It has a total annual cost of business equaling ~$80Bn (2012) with annual revenues of $65Bn, hence a $15Bn short-fall annually. Has that always been the case? No. In 2008, obviously, revenues fell by ~$10Bn annually as a result of the economic collapse.
So is the USPS just some failed government program?
Of course not. Is it underfunded? Considering that once the economy recovers, it will likely still float somewhat in the red annually, yes it is underfunded. By how much? Around $5Bn/yr.
Is it worth $5 billion to maintain the USPS, that by the way, employs on average 625,000 career workers with good pay, pensions, 401(k)s and benefits? The USPS that provides for 40% of the mail volume of the World, that delivers almost all of the mail in the United States for pennies on the dollar? The national postal service that we've had since 1792?
I'd say so.
There were a lot of people shouting from the roof-tops that the government would botch this launch and that the program itself wouldn't be sustainable based on the figures the administration was pushing (amount of young people that would have to enter the exchange, the costs of running the program, the debate of taking the penalty vs. buying insurance). Obviously there's a long way to go to see how this all plays out, but I'm betting against the gov't everytime when it comes to managing a program as robust as this.
Now we're back to Obamacare.. K..
Well, we'll see. As I've stated, I'm opposed to Obamacare. I think the website has been an abysmal failure. But you realize the website is literally 1/20th of the Affordable Care Act, right? I mean.. you don't need the website to get on the exchange. The website isn't what governs the insurance changes or allows you to cover your kids until they're 26, or provides insurance for those with preexisting conditions. It's not the website that expanded Medicaid to everyone not able to afford health insurance or not being provided insurance through their employer. And it's not the website that guarantees women can get contraceptives, or that gay couples won't be discriminated against. It's not the website that provides a Patient's Bill of Rights that protects you from junk insurance or irresponsible medical practices.
So let's just keep this in perspective. In 10 years time, no one will remember or care about this website glitch.
My opinion is by 2016, Hillary Clinton is distancing herself from Obamacare as much as possible and the Republican Party is using it as a rallying call against the Democratic Party.
You are saying that Clinton will distance herself from her lifelong ambition, from her lifelong goal of universal health care? Have you seen 1 single Clinton speech this year? She's been it's most vocal advocate.
Can't believe you'd think this... Clinton will go out of her way, once elected, to expand Obamacare into true universal health care. That is a fact.
I have a family friend that works in Internet Consulting and the Government is his biggest client. He's essentially been living in Washington the last month and he says the problems are bigger than anyone even imagines at this point. He says the whole thing is a gigantic mess and it's going to take a long time to sort through. His position is the current problem is only getting started...they aren't anywhere close to a fix. And whatever they budgeted for the infrastructure of this program is peanuts compared to where it ends up.
I find everything you've just said rather hard to believe.
The website doesn't actually do much. It provides a base calculation, based on your insurance application, and then processes that on the backend server. Any competent technology firm with enough experience and capital could have rolled this out. The problem was that the technology firm retained had no experience with a project of this magnitude. Looking at the technology used, they would have been fine if they'd retained a major company to write this software, including Google (my choice), Facebook (second choice), Oracle (third choice), or Microsoft (fourth choice).
It was a monumental mistake on the part of Kathleen Sebelius and, as Max pointed out, President Obama. But saying that there is some insurmountable technological problem here makes no sense. It's not complicated. It's simply a matter of network infrastructure and scalable and efficient programming.
In essence, the site would work fine if there were 1 person accessing it every couple of seconds. The problem is that the massive amounts of people (and mostly bots) making requests has effectively turned into a natural distributed denial-of-service attack, and the system was not thoroughly designed to handle this many requests. There are many technical reasons for this that I could go into if you like, but suffice it to say, there was a disconnect with regards to the development team, the networking team, the project management, and the HHS department. They did not create a system that could handle many millions of unique requests per second.