Print Story I'm free as a bird now but with Dick Cheney in the house, I'm not so certain I should fly
Diary
By lm (Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:24:46 AM EST) (all tags)
Bits and pieces on a Monday morning.


News round up from the weekend

The NY times asks if Jon Stewart is the most trusted man in America. He's good. He's very good. I'm a bit surprised one of the major networks hasn't tried to buy out The Daily Show.

McCain and Obama both fail the `rich' question. Obama gave a sensible, but wrong , answer. McCain gave a ludicrous answer, that it takes an income of five million USD per year to be rich. But to be fair, even the economists they interviewed for the article failed the question. To be rich is to have the ability to separate your income from your labor and still live a comfortable lifestyle. It isn't a question of income, or even of net worth, but a question of control over financial resources.

The Washington Post put together an excellent time line of the Georgian/Russian dust up. It had several bits that I'd not been aware of before such as the South Ossetians actively shelling Georgia before Georgian troops moved in and Georgia having called a cease fire while they were moving their troops into position to invade. It's a bad scene all around with no white hats.

It helps to get Israeli citizenship if you're both Jewish and white. I'm always amazed at how much of most public perception of modern Judaism is colored by Europeanized Jews. Asia and Africa also had (and continue to have) significant Jewish populations. I haven't seen much press on Asiatic Jews, but I don't think for a minute that the manufactured controversies over whether the Ethiopian Jews are really Jewish or not would be taking place if they were white.

Things of the days

Lowest morning weight on the scale last week was 185; 187 was the largest. Best time for running a mile was 11 and a half minutes; worst time was thirteen and a quarter.

Friday was my last day full time at work. I'm done with that. But now I'm working my butt off fixing up the house to sell. Home owners that undertake repair jobs for which they are not competent should be shot.

Sunday was the last time our family will be attending our parish as regular members. It was nice. The nave seemed to hang heavy with the presence of people who weren't there. Reflecting on it, I think it was mostly in my mind. After almost ten years there, I've got some very good friends. I associate the interior of the Church with those friends and with all the ups and downs of a particular emotional crisis that I'm headed onto year three over. With regards to the latter, I suspect that a change of place will be good for my soul, no matter how much it saddens me. With regards to the former, as a Christian, I believe that when we all come together for communion, regardless of where we are in the world, we are made into one. My diaspora of friends, so long as they remain in the faith, will continue to be made part of that which I am a part.

Things I'm reading

The more I read Jane Eyre, the more I understand why its a classic. It touches on some very interesting religious, philosophical and psychological issues. As an adolescent, one of Jane's mentors moves away. Bronte describes her feelings at her mentor having left as depriving her of the will to remain.

I was left in my natural element, and beginning to feel the stirring of old emotions. It did not seem as if a prop were withdrawn, but rather as if a motive were gone; it was not the power to be tranquil which had failed me, but the reason for tranquility was no more.

It isn't as if Jane lacks the ability to be at peace so much as she has lost the desire to be at peace, at least in her old surroundings. In many ways I have facing this dilemma for quite some time. It isn't as if I lack the ability to calm my soul over some things so much as I have no desire to calm my soul. My angst and my tears hold an attraction for me that perhaps they should not.

< on plans | Time to legal - 5 days. >
I'm free as a bird now but with Dick Cheney in the house, I'm not so certain I should fly | 58 comments (58 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback
Both Emily B and Charlotte B by Clipper Ship (4.00 / 1) #1 Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:43:51 AM EST
have a real talent for throwing the reader off with perspective. You can hardly trust anyone in Jane Eyre or Wuthering heights. Every character is unreliable in the Boothian sense (yes, I know Boothian sounds lame, but that's what they say). I didn't get the appeal until I re-read Jane Eyre and realized how much of it is filtered through the eyes of people who are no more stable than the woman in the attic.

---------------

And draw your dream's rainbow. You have to go through fire and water. When problems stand in the way of success.


I was looking at Jane Eyre this week by debacle (2.00 / 0) #2 Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:26:40 AM EST
I wasn't sure if I would like it. It seemed very thick on the pre-emo angsty phase.

"I'm very responsive to certain stimuli, and pain is pretty much at the top of that list." - BadDoggie



You'll like it if you like head-games by Clipper Ship (2.00 / 0) #45 Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 02:26:29 PM EST

---------------

And draw your dream's rainbow. You have to go through fire and water. When problems stand in the way of success.
[ Parent ]

Impossible question by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #3 Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 11:14:32 AM EST
Demanding a number is pretty given that what income makes you rich depends greatly on location. If I lived in rural Ohio, my family would easily be "rich" on our current income. Not that we could make remotely near it in rural Ohio.

I'm not sure I buy your definition either, though. You seem to be implying that if I was pulling in $500k/year as an executive, spent most of it on myself and had relatively little in the way of investments, I wouldn't be "rich".
----
ウセーバラケダ


There is a difference between ability and agency by lm (2.00 / 0) #14 Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 04:32:17 PM EST
The hypothetical you in your example clearly has the ability to separate your income from your labor . That doesn't mean you will do so.


There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]

I guess I don't know what that means by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #15 Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 04:36:04 PM EST
My father had a friend who lived in a shack in the outskirts of Rapid City.  His yearly expenses were around $10k/year.  He supported himself by spending the summers painting houses, and spent the rest of the year doing whatever the hell.


We could all live more cheaply than we do, if we were willing to give up what we want.
----
ウセーバラケダ
[ Parent ]

Your father's friend by lm (2.00 / 0) #17 Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 05:27:21 PM EST
If he had investments that returned enough to pay his taxes and buy everything he needed, then he would be rich. He would be in what's called the leisure class, that group of people that only work because they want to work and can afford to spend all their time in leisure activities.

I think the distinction between the rich (the leisure class) and the working class (those who sell their labor from necessity) is far more meaningful than the distinction between the upper class and the middle class.


There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]

Yes by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #21 Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:08:36 PM EST
But that hypothetical guy making (and spending) $500k/year can't afford not to work...


I do think the distinction has merit, but it needs some addenda, because it is possible to live on far less than the average person makes (and thus on a fairly small nest egg) if one is willing to live without what most of us believe we require.


Not to mention that your definition labels anyone who is retired rich.

----
ウセーバラケダ
[ Parent ]

Not everyone who is retired is rich by lm (4.00 / 1) #58 Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:15:50 PM EST
At least in theory, social security and pensions are a function of labor. The pay out is just deferred. The exception would be those few plans like that for the POTUS where the payout in entirely unrelated to wages at the time of service and the span of time served.

It's not a perfect metric. Like all other metrics of wealth, it doesn't really handle differences in cost of living very well.

OTOH, it does offer a non-arbitrary way to draw the line.


There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]

The Daily Show by duxup (2.00 / 0) #4 Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:45:38 PM EST
Well the The Daily Show is on Comedy Central and I assume they have some ownership, they're owned by Viacom I believe, so as far as I know they were bought out from the start in a way.
____


Who's rich: Yet another way the Democrats... by ObviousTroll (2.00 / 0) #5 Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 01:22:25 PM EST
shoot themselves in the head.

Every time I hear a democratic politician claim that I, personally, am "rich" I want to flip out.

But Pelosi says I'm not paying "my fair share" of taxes.

Right.

Why is it that my political choices are consistently limited to "evil" versus "stupid"?


--
Has anybody seen my clue? I know I had it when I came in here.


more than a couple of months by wiredog (2.00 / 0) #6 Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 01:35:56 PM EST
Well, to be fair, the poor are in trouble (or on welfare, if they aren't already) if they are unemployed for more than a week or two.

You are middle-class, probably. As am I.

Earth First!
(We can strip mine the rest later.)

[ Parent ]

Well, yes - I would call myself middle class, too, by ObviousTroll (2.00 / 0) #10 Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 03:45:22 PM EST
I would also say that it has a lot to do with (a) where you live and (b) how many people you support with your income - which is why saying shit like "all people who make more than X are rich" is insane - if Bob Smith is pulling in $250k but he's supporting 4 kids and trying to pay for his mother's nursing home care he's probably in a lot worse shape than Jane Doe who's making $75k but living by herself.

And, in either case, both of them are considered "rich" by the Democrats, who believe that the middle class consist of people who earn the median wage or about $45k per year.

--
Has anybody seen my clue? I know I had it when I came in here.
[ Parent ]

That is the definition of "middle" by wiredog (4.00 / 1) #16 Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 05:03:11 PM EST
in "middle class".

OTOH, the Republicans seem in favor of getting involved with the Russo-Georgian dispute, on Georgia's side.

"EWO EWO. Emergency War Orders. This is a Cocked Pistol Exercise, DEFCON 1. Message follows..."

I am definitely voting for Obama. No possible way he could do that much damage...

Earth First!
(We can strip mine the rest later.)

[ Parent ]

The first step in saving by georgeha (2.00 / 0) #7 Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 02:14:37 PM EST
is to make a combined househould income of $175k a year.


[ Parent ]

You keep harping on this number [nt] by riceowlguy (2.00 / 0) #12 Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 04:16:04 PM EST


[ Parent ]

I'm boggled by it by georgeha (4.00 / 2) #13 Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 04:21:16 PM EST
It's like a CNN story on how to save gas driving your Porsche Cayenne. or how to save food money by buying a 50 foot shrimp boat.


[ Parent ]

Doesn't boggle mine by riceowlguy (2.00 / 0) #18 Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 05:42:23 PM EST
For a two-earner household in a major metropolitan area that seems pretty normal to me.  I did go to a top school and I do work in tech, so that might be skewing my ideas of "normal". 

[ Parent ]

What skews our perceptions by ObviousTroll (4.00 / 1) #22 Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:41:39 PM EST
is the way our debts go up as fast, or faster, than our incomes. When I made 30k a year, it was a little tough. Once I made 60k, it was fine, except we didn't have any savings. Now I make a lot more than that and, finally, at 43 I'm starting to save money. To late for the kids for college, but maybe soon enough to survive when I can't work anymore.

And don't I'm not worried to death about becoming a 50 year old programmer.....

--
Has anybody seen my clue? I know I had it when I came in here.
[ Parent ]

Rich by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #8 Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 03:25:57 PM EST
Last I heard, they were mostly about tax increases for those making $250k/year or more.  (And only on the extra, so someone making $251k/year would hardly see any increase.)
----
ウセーバラケダ
[ Parent ]

Which would be a big change from the rhetoric of by ObviousTroll (2.00 / 0) #9 Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 03:37:21 PM EST
a couple of months ago, when they announced that everyone making more than the "middle class" consisted of people making less than 50k per year.

I'll believe it when I see it.

--
Has anybody seen my clue? I know I had it when I came in here.
[ Parent ]

Where is that? by ucblockhead (4.00 / 1) #11 Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 04:04:18 PM EST
Everything I've heard is that they are bending over backwards to exclude applying the SS tax, etc. to incomes between $90k and $250k.  It's been like that for months.  Do you have a link that says otherwise?
----
ウセーバラケダ
[ Parent ]

For months? by ObviousTroll (2.00 / 0) #19 Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 06:23:02 PM EST
And what about the twenty years before that?

You think I forgot the day Clinton told me I needed to pay more  in Social Security because, despite my 10 year old car, he believed I wasn't paying my "fair share"?

--
Has anybody seen my clue? I know I had it when I came in here.
[ Parent ]

Tax rates by ucblockhead (4.00 / 1) #20 Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:02:03 PM EST
You realize that if you include FICA, people making over $250k/year pay a lower percentage of their income in taxes than those making $80k/year.  Is that OK with you?
----
ウセーバラケダ
[ Parent ]

In straight salary? by ObviousTroll (2.00 / 0) #23 Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:48:29 PM EST
Bullshit.

They pay a higher tax rate, and there's no longer any cap on Social Security.

--
Has anybody seen my clue? I know I had it when I came in here.
[ Parent ]

You are misinformed on this. by ucblockhead (4.00 / 2) #24 Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:55:50 PM EST
There certainly is a cap.  FICA stops at $102k/year.  Because of this, by the time you hit around $250k/year, the percentage of income you pay out is lower than those making $80k/year.
<P>
Someone making $100k/year pays 6% of their income in FICA>.<br>
Someone making $200/year pays 3% of their income in FICA.<br>
Someone making $600/year pays 1% of their income in FICA.
<P>
Etc.
<P>
Is that ok with you?
----
ウセーバラケダ
[ Parent ]

Gah! by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #25 Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:56:56 PM EST
How did I get set to autoformat!?
----
ウセーバラケダ
[ Parent ]

Makes you wish for an edit button don't it? by ObviousTroll (2.00 / 0) #28 Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:07:15 PM EST
For example, I realized that they *had* completely released the limit on Medicare, just not on Social Security - which is still weird, because I remember back in the early 90s that my take-home pay would shoot up every December when I hit the cap, and that hasn't happened, well, ever, since then.

Perhaps my current employer does something funky to level out the "contributions" rather than taking the full amount each pay period until the cap is reached.


--
Has anybody seen my clue? I know I had it when I came in here.
[ Parent ]

Hmmm... by ObviousTroll (2.00 / 0) #27 Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:02:29 PM EST
It would appear that you are correct on that part.

Still, let me ask you a question: Does a person who hits the limit for Social Security every year get more back than someone who does not?

Social Security was created as a promise that a person was investing in their own retirement - not income redistribution.


--
Has anybody seen my clue? I know I had it when I came in here.
[ Parent ]

Taxes by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #29 Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:17:25 PM EST
If I am not allowed to opt out, then it is a tax.

Given that many people getting Social Security now will likely get more than they put in and given that I will almost certainly *not* get anything near what I put it, it almost certainly *is* an income redistribution program, whether we pretend it is or not.
----
ウセーバラケダ
[ Parent ]

ROTFL by ObviousTroll (2.00 / 0) #32 Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:24:28 PM EST
Given that many people getting Social Security now will likely get more than they put in

Wow. You certainly are an optimist. Personally, I do not believe either Social Security or Medicare will even exist by the time they're supposed to be taking care of me. Simple demographics assure me that the reverse is true.

--
Has anybody seen my clue? I know I had it when I came in here.
[ Parent ]

Let's just say by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #35 Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:36:40 PM EST
I have retirement planning spreadsheets. There is no entry for Social Security. I'm barely confident enough to put my wife's government-run pension in there. (Believe it or not, she gets to opt out of social security entirely in favor of a real pension.)
----
ウセーバラケダ
[ Parent ]

That's intruiging. by ObviousTroll (2.00 / 0) #39 Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 12:00:51 AM EST
I thought the only people who could do that were congress critters.

--
Has anybody seen my clue? I know I had it when I came in here.
[ Parent ]

California teachers by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #44 Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 12:54:07 AM EST
They get to have an actual pension in exchange for no Social Security. As you can imagine, the teacher's union fights tooth and nail to keep it despite constant attempts to raid it. I personally suspect that it will be "replaced" with SS by the time my wife retires.

Would that we all got that right.
----
ウセーバラケダ
[ Parent ]

Wow. by ObviousTroll (2.00 / 0) #48 Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 09:43:28 PM EST
I didn't know that was even possible.

--
Has anybody seen my clue? I know I had it when I came in here.
[ Parent ]

Apparently by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #50 Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 09:47:14 PM EST
It was in place pre-SS.
----
ウセーバラケダ
[ Parent ]

By the way... Let's talk about what's fair. by ObviousTroll (2.00 / 0) #31 Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:22:20 PM EST
For every dollar I make, the federal government takes 28% in income tax, plus another 15% for Social Security and Medicare (no, I'm not stupid enough to think that the "employer's portion" doesn't actually come out of the money my employer sets aside to pay me).

That's 43 cents of every dollar I make.

Now, let's add to that the additional 3 percent that Pennsylvania takes, plus another percent that the county takes. We're nearly at 50 cents of every dollar I work for. Add to that the property taxes I pay, plus this amazing "privilege tax" that I pay the county for them to let me work for a living and we're easily up to fifty percent. Oh, and they even tax my wife for honor of not working for a living.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure we've hit fifty percent.

Fifty cents out of every dollar I make.

And people want to know why I have no money saved to send my children to college?

And people wonder why I find talk about increasing taxes just a tad fucking offensive?

Well, damn. Sure, let's "tax the rich" some more. Let's "redistribute income" a bit more. Because the money the government is sucking from our pockets is being used so efficiently they can't help but spend more money even more efficiently.

And, no, I don't think arguing that rich people aren't taking it up the ass as hard as I am is a reason for making them suffer more any more than I think that just because some women have been raped all other women should be raped in the name of "fairness".

--
Has anybody seen my clue? I know I had it when I came in here.
[ Parent ]

Fair by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #34 Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:35:01 PM EST
So you don't mind that someone making twice what you do pays a lower percentage than you do?

You're upset that Obama wants to make people to pay the payroll tax on incomes over $250k?

I'm not surprised you're mad. Given what I surmise about your income, you're in the group that pays the highest percentage of your income, higher than those who make half what you make, and higher than those who make twice what you make. You pay a higher percentage on the outset, and that doesn't begin to take into account all the tax loopholes that people in the higher tax brackets can manage.

If you *really* want your taxes to be low run, what you have to do is get the government to stop spending money on ridiculous wars in foreign countries, and pay down the debt so a third of your tax dollars don't get paid out as interest. Of course, paying down the debt means raising taxes now in order to keep taxes low in the future. But we're like credit card holders who complain about the steadily increasing minimum payments instead of biting the bullet, taking some pain now in order to be better off in the future.

The reason your taxes are what they are today is, at the root of it, because the people of the eighties preferred running deficits to keeping spending lower than taxes, pure and simple. Copying them just guarantees the situation will be even worse for your children.

Yeah...I know..."starve the beast". But that never works. The beast just takes more loans out in *your* name.
----
ウセーバラケダ
[ Parent ]

Wow do you miss the point. by ObviousTroll (2.00 / 0) #37 Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 11:59:23 PM EST
So you don't mind that someone making twice what you do pays a lower percentage than you do?

Yes, I do mind. I mind that the government is screwing me out of what I've worked for and I want them to stop. The fact that the bastard over there isn't getting screwed as badly as I am does not, in fact, make me want the government to give him the same kind of reaming they're giving me.


--
Has anybody seen my clue? I know I had it when I came in here.
[ Parent ]

Speaking of missing the point by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #42 Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 12:50:11 AM EST
That damn minimum payment! I wish they'd lower it! Screw what we actually owe!
----
ウセーバラケダ
[ Parent ]

oh, and as for the rest of it? by ObviousTroll (2.00 / 0) #38 Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 12:00:19 AM EST
How is any of that shit supposed to make me want higher taxes?

--
Has anybody seen my clue? I know I had it when I came in here.
[ Parent ]

not having higher taxes today by aphrael (2.00 / 0) #41 Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 12:17:48 AM EST
means more borrowing today, unless you can get spending cut enough to balance the budget.

more borrowing today means higher taxes tomorrow.


If television is a babysitter, the internet is a drunk librarian who won't shut up.
[ Parent ]

Of course they could just by ObviousTroll (2.00 / 0) #46 Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 09:42:10 PM EST
stop sucking the life and future out of our society, instead. But I admit that that's less likely.


--
Has anybody seen my clue? I know I had it when I came in here.
[ Parent ]

"them"? by aphrael (2.00 / 0) #56 Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:01:38 AM EST
How about "us"?

At the end of the day, the budget is badly out of balance because the people prefer it that way. An overwhelming majority of people want neither reduced spending nor increased taxation.


If television is a babysitter, the internet is a drunk librarian who won't shut up.
[ Parent ]

Yeah, screw the debt by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #43 Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 12:52:33 AM EST
It's OK that our children will have to pay even higher taxes as long as we get to tread water.

1/3rd of your taxes go to debt service.

If the budget had been balanced for the last twenty years, and the debt paid down, your taxes would currently be 1/3rd what they are.

So you can thank the people with your attitude in the eighties for your tax bill.
----
ウセーバラケダ
[ Parent ]

Or could blame the assholes by ObviousTroll (2.00 / 0) #47 Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 09:42:54 PM EST
who refuse to cut spending to actually match income.


--
Has anybody seen my clue? I know I had it when I came in here.
[ Parent ]

What would you cut? by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #49 Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 09:46:51 PM EST
Specifically.

And don't say "waste"1, because that is just "I don't know, but I will say it to get elected and then watch the deficit increase even higher.

[1] "Open da books!"
----
ウセーバラケダ
[ Parent ]

Why not "waste"? by ObviousTroll (2.00 / 0) #51 Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 10:45:27 PM EST
A charity that fails to directly apply at least 80% of it's donations directly to the task of that charity is considered a scam; what percentage of government spending do you believe is directly applied to whatever problem it was supposed to solve?

And while you're at it, why do you think that foreign adventures, creeping fascism and strangling bureaucracy shouldn't be considered "waste"?


--
Has anybody seen my clue? I know I had it when I came in here.
[ Parent ]

Why not waste? by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #52 Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 11:06:56 PM EST
Because every single candidate who has gone in vowing to cut waste, from Reagan to Schwarzenegger, has failed to even make a minuscule dent.

Politicians shout "waste" so they don't have to actually tell anyone what they'd cut...because people get pissed off when things actually do get cut.

But yeah...no more wars in Iraq and no Homeland Security would be a good start. Gee...which candidate promises that? Given that he's the same party as the last president to actually balance the budget, I think the choice is pretty damn clear.

But I suppose you are hot on those spend and spend more and let the future pay the cost Republicans.
----
ウセーバラケダ
[ Parent ]

Okay, so we've established that politicians by ObviousTroll (2.00 / 0) #53 Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 11:12:00 PM EST
are venal, corrupt, and liars.

On those grounds I should be happy when they want to raise taxes?

--
Has anybody seen my clue? I know I had it when I came in here.
[ Parent ]

Tax by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #54 Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 11:15:49 PM EST
No...you should just face the facts: The way to lower taxes is to fix the budget rather than trusting the politicians that blather one about how much they are going to lower your taxes.
----
ウセーバラケダ
[ Parent ]

Why do you keep putting words in my mouth? by ObviousTroll (2.00 / 0) #55 Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:01:09 AM EST
When did I say we shouldn't fix the budget?

--
Has anybody seen my clue? I know I had it when I came in here.
[ Parent ]

well, but then consider what FICA is for by gzt (2.00 / 0) #26 Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:42:28 PM EST
Contributions are directly tied to what you take out - it's almost more like insurance than tax. Since there's a maximum you're "insured" for, there's a maximum you contribute. Sure, it is a little regressive, but it matches the benefit you receive.

[ Parent ]

It is fake insurance by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #30 Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:19:16 PM EST
It pretends to be insurance, but it isn't actually insurance. It's always been an income redistribution program that takes money from the employed and gives it to the retired.
----
ウセーバラケダ
[ Parent ]

No, that's not entirely fair. by ObviousTroll (2.00 / 0) #33 Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:28:39 PM EST
Social Security is a disability insurance program that works pretty much just like any other disability insurance program. If you get unlucky and find yourself unable to work after making only one payment, you still get a benefit. Sure, that's "income redistribution" but no more than workman's comp or even plain old health insurance.

The deceit comes from the government pretending that money they take out of our pay and promptly spend is actually "invested". When the time comes for SS to cash all those treasury bonds, there's going to be a monstrous upheaval in the federal government.

--
Has anybody seen my clue? I know I had it when I came in here.
[ Parent ]

Well by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #36 Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:37:50 PM EST
The disability portion of it is a small fraction of the bigger fake pension plan.
----
ウセーバラケダ
[ Parent ]

"rich" by aphrael (2.00 / 0) #40 Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 12:14:37 AM EST
how would you like the Democrats to answer when a reporter asks them to define 'rich'?

If television is a babysitter, the internet is a drunk librarian who won't shut up.
[ Parent ]

lm already answered that by BadDoggie (2.00 / 0) #57 Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 04:24:48 PM EST
"It isn't a question of income, or even of net worth, but a question of control over financial resources." Unfortunately it's too complicated and long to work as a sound bite.

woof.

OMG WE'RE FUCKED! -- duxup ?
[ Parent ]

I'm free as a bird now but with Dick Cheney in the house, I'm not so certain I should fly | 58 comments (58 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback