He didn't privatize social security. :rolls eyes:
George W. Bush regrets not reforming Social Security - Simmi Aujla - POLITICO.com
Bush's biggest regret
He didn't privatize social security. :rolls eyes:
George W. Bush regrets not reforming Social Security - Simmi Aujla - POLITICO.com
"Social Security" is ridiculous and nothing but generational theft.
It ought to be grandfathered for people that have already paid into it, but then abolished slowly over time. At least he tried.
Te-INTp/ILI, my wife: Fi-ISFj/ESI, with laser beam death rays for ESTp/SLEs, lol
16 years of bliss in an Activity relationship
I don't see how you can justify that when in times before SS it was common for the elderly to die of malnutrition.
That Bush said that really disappointed me. I thought he had learned better.
Generally true, yet somehow if old people that end up starving along the roads aren't particularly pretty, even if you're fully supporting yourself / have planned for retirement. Basically there's a minimum of social security which is needed to avoid revolutions / plagues / extreme poverty. Plus, the way social security is built generally renders impossible any direct abolishment, since funds for current pensioners are gathered from current workers (otherwise the 1st generation of people with social security would end up paying for it without getting anything in return). Even "slow" abolishment is quite complicated, because for a time-bracket of 10 years a relatively large part of the population might end up starving / have to be supported by their families. Which would mean less mobility for young / middle-aged people, which generally decreases productivity.Originally Posted by stevENTj
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Well technically Bush didn't even want to abolish it, he wanted to reform and privitize it by giving people 401k like investment accounts so that they could keep their own money and also get returns on it over time, which would make it a whole heck of a lot more efficient than the system today. If the excesses in the system over the past decades were actually put into the market rather than bled off into politicians pet projects it'd be a lot more financially stable today. Also no worries about your benefits being cut because of swings in number of workers vs number of retirees (the coming wave of baby boomer retirements). What's yours is yours, not somebody else's. Of course the AARP and other lefty groups went bat shit crazy to defeat it and they did, but at least he tried. And his plan never would have cut any benefits to seniors at all, contrary to what some opposition groups said. He would have grandfathered people in that are already on it or have been paying into it for most of their lives already.
Te-INTp/ILI, my wife: Fi-ISFj/ESI, with laser beam death rays for ESTp/SLEs, lol
16 years of bliss in an Activity relationship
It came about in the 1930s during the Great Depression.
BTW, in Asian cultures there's not really any such thing as 'ss' or nursing homes or any of that crap. It's generally expected that the first born son will take care of his aging parents, and his parents in turn will take care of and watch his kids for him as he's out working and running the family business. Works very well. Americans do things a lot differently. There's a lot more freedom yes, but as they age people need a lot more care. It's really quite sad to watch. I think Asians do things better here. Do you have any idea how much my wife and I pay for childcare each month? But then again would I really want my mom living with me? LOL
Te-INTp/ILI, my wife: Fi-ISFj/ESI, with laser beam death rays for ESTp/SLEs, lol
16 years of bliss in an Activity relationship
Instead of forced public schooling, which sooo doesn't work and prepare anybody for the 'real world', we need to teach children about the free market system from an early age, to support themselves and make a living for themselves. Money obviously makes the world go 'round, you can't do much of anything w/o it, yet we don't prepare anybody how to make it properly. Most of what we learn in school is useless, unless it personally inspires people -- which it often doesn't. (people can learn that stuff as a hobby if they so desire, tho)
The government should be a crutch for people who can't absolutely take care of themselves, but 'social security' is inherently an illusion.
But the fact that a lot of rich people are socially unaware is just an unfortunate thing, that I think only hurts them. To them it doesn't matter much tho, they're still going to exploit the capitalist system, which is the best system we got.
I have mixed feelings on this, as government workers were the only people to help me with some emotional issues that I was having, a lot of them are the good guys, unlike what some posters think, but the world is obviously better off in a capitalist system. Wealth is something that is created, it's not something that you can control.
Do we really trust business men not to totally exploit us just to make their own selves stronger? They still haven't won me over yet, despite what CPIG and Ashton and others here believe. All forms of power need balances. But you can't control the money they make and all the power they naturally get from that money...it's just too stifling. When you try to make 'rules' like the government does, they get broken naturally. As Esther Hicks says, there is too many moving parts, and you lose everytime trying to hold down those parts.
The problem is both sides think they have more 'empathy' than the other, and I hate that. Both sides think that their system is the morally superior one, and that's why they fight and are brutal about it.
I know where I stand politically, but I do believe we need to have a balance of political ideas contributing to systems from both the left and the right to get things done and create things that people will be happy with.
Personally I think the left in the U.S. is definitely more "compassionate" and caring, but suck like crazy at actually building systems that work, actually do what they set out to do rather than making things worse, and are actually efficient and run well. I think the right is far better at making systems that work, but their ideas generally are more 'tough love' and at least on the surface can often appear less caring and compassionate. But their systems work better and are less prone to blowing up in people's faces or actually hurting people rather than helping.
Thus the ideal system is one taking the better elements from both.
And of course that's nearly impossible to accomplish in Congress not because it can't be done, but rather because there are so many goddamned ideologues on both sides that won't compromise to get things done. Personally I think there ought to be term limits on Congress. 2 terms or 12 years for Senators, and not more than a few terms (2 years each) for Representatives in the House. The Founders never saw or envisioned Congressmen and women becoming career politicians, but never set term limits either. People would be more focused on going in and getting something done and accomplished and making a difference, and less focused on establishing and maintaining a "career". Their careers were supposed to be the day jobs that they left or took a break from to go make a difference in Washington. Washington wasn't supposed to become the career.
Americans and the left and right here are far more similar than they are different. It's only our politicians that are trying to divide and conquer and paint everyone from the other side as some demon. Only the politicians are demons for the most part.
Te-INTp/ILI, my wife: Fi-ISFj/ESI, with laser beam death rays for ESTp/SLEs, lol
16 years of bliss in an Activity relationship
Well, one- these aren't the times before Social Security. Median income is about five times higher in real terms than it was in the 40s. Two- there are other pension schemes that can replace social security (I support a savings scheme like Singapore has, personally). Social Security is actually, dollar for dollar, the absolute worst investment you could possibly make. And that's not even accounting for the wee fact that it is actuarially fucking bankrupt.
So yeah, it can be justified.
What do these signs mean—,
, etc.? Why cannot socionists use symbols Ne, Ni etc. as in MBTI? Just because they have somewhat different meaning. Socionics and MBTI, each in its own way, have slightly modified the original Jung's description of his 8 psychological types. For this reason,
Just one example: in MBTI, Se (extraverted sensing) is associated with life pleasures, excitement etc. By contrast, the socionic function(extraverted sensing) is first and foremost associated with control and expansion of personal space (which sometimes can manifest in excessive aagression, but often also manifests in a capability of managing lots of people and things).
For this reason, we consider comparison between MBTI types and socionic types by functions to be rather useless than useful.
-Victor Gulenko, Dmitri Lytov
What's Singapore's system?
What do these signs mean—
Just one example: in MBTI, Se (extraverted sensing) is associated with life pleasures, excitement etc. By contrast, the socionic function
For this reason, we consider comparison between MBTI types and socionic types by functions to be rather useless than useful.
-Victor Gulenko, Dmitri Lytov
just work harder and die younger, idiots. you owe it to your boss.
asd
It's kind of similar here, especially since pensions have usually not been particularly high unless you had a great job. Yet it does have social costs; for example, there's a tendency for people not to move too far away from their hometown, exactly because this implicit "social contract". I agree though that it's a lot less "sad". Basically, it would be better if people had some kind of choice on this matter, which I suppose ideally would be guaranteed by a fixed minimum pension past X years of age.It came about in the 1930s during the Great Depression.
BTW, in Asian cultures there's not really any such thing as 'ss' or nursing homes or any of that crap. It's generally expected that the first born son will take care of his aging parents, and his parents in turn will take care of and watch his kids for him as he's out working and running the family business. Works very well. Americans do things a lot differently. There's a lot more freedom yes, but as they age people need a lot more care. It's really quite sad to watch. I think Asians do things better here. Do you have any idea how much my wife and I pay for childcare each month? But then again would I really want my mom living with me? LOL
I see, so the US system is purely contribution-based, so your pension is financed by your own virtual "savings account". That makes everything easier (here current pensions are funded by current workers, so if you want to "end" the system, one generation will lose 15-20 years of contribution).Also no worries about your benefits being cut because of swings in number of workers vs number of retirees (the coming wave of baby boomer retirements). What's yours is yours, not somebody else's.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Interesting. Still not perfect but definitely a lot better than the U.S. Social Security system.
No. What you pay in today goes directly to the retirees drawing SS benefits today. There are no savings or investment accounts, and what's 'yours' isn't yours - it becomes somebody elses. Right now I'm fully expecting that the Social Security system is going to completely collapse long before I'm old enough to benefit from it, and thus all the thousands of dollars I've paid into it I won't be getting a single penny from. There's been surpluses in the past, but it doesn't get held onto and put into accounts or invested. Politicians drain the excess out to fund pet projects of theirs. There's going to be huge deficits in the future as the baby boomers (born after 1945) start retiring, to the tune of hundreds of billions if not trillions of dollars in unfunded social security. This is why Bush tried to privatize it and turn it more into a system like Singapore's, but this was shot down by the left here in favor of keeping it as is, even though it's implicitly bankrupt and will cost far more money to "fix" later, if it even can be.
Te-INTp/ILI, my wife: Fi-ISFj/ESI, with laser beam death rays for ESTp/SLEs, lol
16 years of bliss in an Activity relationship
Actually the baby boomers don't outnumber their children, so that's not really a problem. Even if it were, SS is a situation where Fe outweighs Te -- however bad Te gets, Fe isn't about to change its mind. SS is there, it'll always be there and it will be there, completely unprivatized, long, long after we are gone.
You can talk, chatter and even campaign, but the SS privatization movement died for good three congresses ago.
I think social security is screwed, but that doesn't mean people have to lose their sense of security as they age. You can invest in your children and feed them your excess resources (rather than into the SS system) with the understanding that some day, if you ever need it, they will have a room ready for you at their home. Spend a few thousand and build a separate kitchen and bathroom onto their house, and you're set to go. The state can't provide you more security than this anyway, and the idea of old people living in isolation or special colonies for the elderly is ridiculous.
Children of aging parents typically have debts. Why not tell them something like, "hey, how about I use these excess savings I've got in my retirement fund and help you pay off your debt so that you can free yourself from anxiety and live the rest of your life in peace, and if I ever need it, some day I might stay at your place for a few years and help around the house before I croak?"
Last edited by Rick; 10-26-2010 at 12:39 PM.
It is easier for the eye of a camel to pass through a rich man than for a needle to enter the kingdom of heaven.
I don't know much about the US system, so perhaps I shouldn't comment. I know that some people go through life without really ever accumulating savings. I suppose it's a complicated issue.
I like this idea, but it isn't a guarantee. It requires responsible and loving parties all around, unless you want to go into an actual legal contract with your parents. My parents were fortunate enough to have the money to finish our basement as a mother-in-law's suite with full kitchen and living area for my grandmother. I think it helped my parents and my grandma to see her everyday and help her take care of herself. Sadly, she died suddenly. Anyway, having worked in nursing home's I think this is a very good idea if the person is capable enough to manage some of their daily living, but nursing homes I think are necessary in a society where we HAVE to work, and the standard of medical care is producing more and more octo and nona genarians, who will generally see mild or severe dementia coupled with a lack of physical ability. They need dedicated medical staff in most instances.
asd
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote