Think long and hard about this!!!!!! - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 03-27-2008, 10:18 PM   #16
New Yorker
 
gherman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Ann Arbor, MI, USA
Posts: 2,525
Local Time: 08:49 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


Ok. You tell me where I said it isn't a problem and we should ignore it?

Read my post again.
You say "Beck know what he's talking about? Does he attack it correctly? No.

Come on you two, do a little research and quit letting this guy speak for you"

Just tell why the article is wrong. I really want to know. Explain yourself.
__________________

__________________
gherman is offline  
Old 03-27-2008, 11:00 PM   #17
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,667
Local Time: 01:49 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by gherman


Just tell why the article is wrong. I really want to know. Explain yourself.
Now go back and read the first part of that post.

And go and read ALL the links you provided. They all talk about the same issue, but they don't offer the same conclusions.

Right now we have three canidates all are talking about the same issues(for the most part), but are they offering the same conclusions? Do they attack the issues in the same manner? No.

Go and find out which ones make the most sense. Believe me, Beck isn't the one you need to be listening to...

Take him out of the equation and figure out what we need to do.
__________________

__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 03-27-2008, 11:18 PM   #18
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
U2DMfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: It's Inside A Black Hole
Posts: 6,637
Local Time: 01:49 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by financeguy


No, it's what the corporatists want you to believe is the biggest issue.
Corporatists? How do they benefit?

If anything, I think the corporatists would benefit from the collapse of Social Security.

It would basically become privatized by default.

Corporate news media don't even properly cover the story because it bores the ever growing and over-saturated ADD crowd. It doesn't make them money like a good ol' fashioned Jeremiah Wright soundbite or Paris Hilton gaffe.

I think it benefits the fatcats to keep this off the front burner.
What am I missing?
__________________
U2DMfan is offline  
Old 03-27-2008, 11:38 PM   #19
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
U2DMfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: It's Inside A Black Hole
Posts: 6,637
Local Time: 01:49 AM
I think Beck is largely just another self-righteous moralizer. Nothing worse than a recovering "sinner" who plays the accusatory redeemer. If you've seen him talk about his addictions, you've probably also seen him point out the flaws of anyone else.

That said, Beck didn't even offer up a suggestion as far as I could tell. The way I read it was that Beck was talking about a grotesque inaction on the part of our so-called 'leaders' to do anything about it. I appreciate the fact that somebody at least wants to talk about it. Beats the campaign tit-for-tat bullshit.

Beck is probably as qualified to talk about economics as I am but that doesn't diminish the importance of the subject itself. Just want to go on record, that's what I was agreeing with.

I personally can't stand him for many reasons but I don't know what that has to do with the subject at hand.
__________________
U2DMfan is offline  
Old 03-27-2008, 11:45 PM   #20
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,667
Local Time: 01:49 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2DMfan
I think Beck is largely just another self-righteous moralizer. Nothing worse than a recovering "sinner" who plays the accusatory redeemer. If you've seen him talk about his addictions, you've probably also seen him point out the flaws of anyone else.

That said, Beck didn't even offer up a suggestion as far as I could tell. The way I read it was that Beck was talking about a grotesque inaction on the part of our so-called 'leaders' to do anything about it. I appreciate the fact that somebody at least wants to talk about it. Beats the campaign tit-for-tat bullshit.

Beck is probably as qualified to talk about economics as I am but that doesn't diminish the importance of the subject itself. Just want to go on record, that's what I was agreeing with.

I personally can't stand him for many reasons but I don't know what that has to do with the subject at hand.
Yes, but my point is that it's easy to talk(point blame) about two of the govermental programs that will never effect you(as a rich man), while supporting many other economic draining programs, that he does.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 03-28-2008, 12:07 AM   #21
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
U2DMfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: It's Inside A Black Hole
Posts: 6,637
Local Time: 01:49 AM
That's a fair point, BVS.

You won't get me to disagree about his blatant hypocrisy.
__________________
U2DMfan is offline  
Old 03-28-2008, 12:32 AM   #22
boo
Babyface
 
boo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 18
Local Time: 02:49 AM
A dinner of dog food is in the future for many Americans.
__________________
boo is offline  
Old 03-29-2008, 09:52 PM   #23
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 08:49 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by gherman


You say "Beck know what he's talking about? Does he attack it correctly? No.

Come on you two, do a little research and quit letting this guy speak for you"

Just tell why the article is wrong. I really want to know. Explain yourself.
Well, as luck would have it, there was a good article published in the Financial Times on this very subject just one day after this thread was commenced, I do urge you to read it:-


http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b8cd794e-f...077b07658.html

Quote:
The first American baby boomers have now become eligible to retire and start drawing on Social Security, the government pension programme. Many politicians are telling us that the resulting rise in Social Security "entitlement" payments will break the budget, so we have to cut benefits to retired people. But the politicians do not want to mention that the Social Security system has been compiling a huge surplus. Why? Because they have been using that surplus for years to hide the real size of the current federal budget deficit, allowing them to spend more and justify tax cuts for the wealthy.

US Office of Management and Budget data show that while government's reported deficit averaged about $300bn a year from 2002 to 2006 - roughly $4,000 per household - the real current deficit was actually more than 50 per cent bigger. The government just "borrowed" about $165bn from the Social Security Trust Fund every year - under the table.

In 2007, the real deficit was $449bn according to the OMB. However, the "official" deficit widely reported is only $257bn, because it is government policy to add the borrowed Social Security Trust Fund surplus ($192bn in 2007) to revenues before calculating the "official" deficit that has to be borrowed publicly. The recently passed economic stimulus package of $160bnis reported to raise the 2008 official deficit to about $400bn. But the real deficit in 2008 will be about $600bn.

How does this work? Social Security was initially a pay-as-you-go system - annual payroll taxes of workers covered that year's payments to retired people. By the early 1980s, however, it was clear that this system was not sustainable. Payments were increasing faster than revenues, and when the baby boomers started retiring and collecting pensions, there would be huge shortfalls. President Ronald Reagan had the prudence to address this problem early enough to make Social Security sustainable. He appointed Alan Greenspan to design a massive overhaul of the system, which was implemented.

Social Security was in effect transformed into a national pension plan. Social Security payroll taxes were raised, creating a surplus in the trust fund that would fully cover the future costs of baby-boomer retirement. The payroll tax now puts 12.4 per cent of each worker's wage income into the trust fund (half is paid by the employer, except for the self-employed, who pay the full 12.4 per cent).

The tax is capped and applies to annual income up to $102,000, which includes the lower 85 per cent of income earners. The top 15 per cent of income earners are taxed only on income up to the cap. Millionaires and billionaires pay the same as someone earning $102,000. The cap supported by Reagan was initially set at 90 per cent of income earners, but the changing distribution of income has allowed it to fall to 85 per cent.

Baby boomers, and all others who have worked since 1983, paid in more than needed for Social Security retirement payments. They saved and created the trust fund surplus, which now amounts to more than $2,000bn and must be invested in US Treasury bonds. It is projected to reach nearly $3,000bn in 10 years. Then Social Security will stop generating a surplus to subsidise the rest of the budget and will begin redeeming its bonds to help make payments.

Current projections show that the trust fund bonds may be exhausted by about 2041. The trust fund's full sustainability for at least the next 75 years could be restored easily with minor adjustments, including restoring the income cap to 90 per cent, according to the recently retired commissioner of the Social Security Administration.

Politicians understand that, with the Social Security Trust Fund surplus declining, they will no longer be able to borrow from them under the table while announcing fictitiously smaller deficits to justify continued expenditures and tax cuts. And they will have to generate funds from other sources of revenue to redeem the bonds after 2017. Rather than admit too much was borrowed recently, and must now be repaid, they want to reduce Social Security benefits. This puts much of the burden on the middle class, who created most of the surplus that has been used to hide the real size of the deficits.

Fundamentally, the Social Security issue is not one of "entitlements" but of the obligation of our government to honour its debt and not reduce Social Security benefits.

The writer, a former World Bank economist, is an economic consultant

I respect the point of view of economic libertarians such as Ron Paul - they are at least consistent in arguing for reductions in government expenditure not only in social security and other welfare programs, but also in the Milit-Ind complex - but, to me, there's a lot of scaremongering about this issue, and to get a rational analysis it's better to turn to respected economists such as Paul Krugman and others, rather than someone like Glen Beck.
__________________
financeguy is offline  
Old 04-01-2008, 02:37 PM   #24
Acrobat
 
Billy Rotten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Maritimes
Posts: 454
Local Time: 04:49 AM
Pardon my language, but you Americans are FUCKED!

__________________

__________________
Billy Rotten is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:49 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com