[OT]America. The land of the not-so-free (economy)

Fred puissante at biz.puissante.com
Thu Jan 6 13:21:02 EST 2005


Oh well, in for a penny; in for a pound.

On Thu, 2005-01-06 at 11:31 -0500, Randy Edwards wrote:
>    Dana, I too tried to keep out of this thread, and likewise failed.
> 
>  >> As far as Social "Security", it's socialism at its finest.
> 
>    I suppose that label is supposed to automatically and magically smear what 
> is the US gov'ts most popular and widely supported social program.  Socialism 
> or not, millions of Americans love and count on social security.

Of course they "love" it. Indeed, some of my own family members are
receiving benefit.

The question is, how sustainable is it? When SS was created, it was with
the view that you retire at 65 and die 5 years later. Today, many
retirees are living as long or longer as they've worked. Furthermore,
fewer babies are being born, so society -- around the world, I might add
-- is becoming top-heavy with retirees. Worker:Retiree ratios are
trending towards 1:1 in many places and may even flip to be retiree-
heavy in the years to come. This is a global problem, not just a US
problem. France is already dealing with this conflict today. The US has
a bit longer before this problem manifests itself in a way it will be
felt.

>  >> It was a failed system from the start,
> 
>    Based on what?  Social security has been wildly successful and stable.

At the price of the future. Do you really think it will be there when
you and I "need" it? My future plans are based on the assumption that SS
will be dead in the water. If you wish  to put your trust in it, more
power to you.

>   It 
> has always been hated by the right wing of the country.  The undermining of 
> social security started when LBJ took what was a separate tax and payment 
> program and integrated it into the main federal budget as part of LBJ's 
> efforts to hide the costs of the Vietnam War.

As in all Faustian bargains, they all look good "up front", but
eventually the devil will want his due.

When Social Security becomes insolvent, then what? And what happens to
the many who planned their retirements around it? Or should we not
bother to care about the future? The future our own children will have
to live in?

All such social programs around the world will be hit, not just Social
Security in the US. What kind of financial impact will that have on the
global economy? Especially with the US debt being propped up by various
donor nations around the planet?

This looks like self-organized criticality of *major* proportions. 

>  >> as now millions have come to rely on a system that is fundamentally
>  >> not sustainable 
> 
>    This conveniently ignores the reality that several presidents have raided 
> the social security trust fund to pay for things like military increases, the 
> S&L bailout, and general budget deficits.

Actually, that only drives my point home further. Since bonds have been
floated against the SS coffers, how will the government make good on
those bonds with its rampant out-of-control spending policies?

Money that you and I put in today for SS goes out to pay people today.
There is no guarantee of a payout for *ourselves* in the future.

Did anyone really expect the government to keep its grubby and greedy
little hands out of the cookie jar? The elderly of *today*, since they
are still receiving *their* payments, doesn't care one whit since they
will be *dead* by the time the proverbial shit hits the fan. Their
children, however, will have to deal.

>    But even after that, social security is easily sustainable.

Such is the stuff dreams are made of. We'd like to *believe* it will be
sustainable, but unless the government starts printing more money out of
thin air, I don't see how.

Deep cutbacks in benefits and extended retirement ages will have pretty
much the same effect as dismantling it, without appearing -- at first,
anyway -- to be "so bad." Raising taxes to keep it at current levels
will have a devastating impact on the economy -- one that already
teethes on the edge.

>    The bottom line is that social security has no real problems -- this is a 
> fake "crisis" designed to privatize the system and to pump money into Wall 
> Street.

While the motives are some are questionable, the numbers don't add up.
It's not a problem *yet*, but will be despite government's best efforts.
Unless there's a big baby boom to come that we're unaware of.

>    As researched by one journalist, "In 1994, the system was supposed to go 
> bust in 2029, a mere 35 years from the date of prediction. Now, it's supposed 
> to go bust in 2042, 38 years down the road.  According to the 
> [Republican-controlled] Congressional Budget Office, using a more realistic 
> model, the trust fund will run out in 2052, and even then it will cover 81 
> percent of the promised benefits."

And I bet those models don't take into account the global picture of the
changing population demographics around the world, and the global
economic impact all of that will have.

Yes, and in 20 years we'll hear the "same people" saying, "gee, we
didn't think about that."

>    We could "fix" social security easily.
> 
>    By revoking ONE-FOURTH of Bush's tax cuts or by just keeping the estate tax 
> (the "death tax" in the Republican propaganda language), we could guarantee 
> social security out past the end of the century.

Or how about a deep cut-back in military spending? That alone would make
a world of difference, since it is a big contributor to the national
debt, which only destabilizes the USD even more.

I'm all for tax cuts -- the more, the merrier. What I rather see is an
end to government waste and inane policies that keeps the debt spiraling
higher and higher with figures so high one now needs to resort to
scientific notation just to get a handle on the figures. Currently on
the order of $10^12 and rising. And if anyone thinks that's sustainable,
I have several bridges to sell you.

Talk about Faustian Bargains.

Our tax dollars are going to pay for *the interest* on that debt. What
is wrong with that picture, boys and girls? Will there always be
"greater fools" to invest the US debt higher and higher? What happens
when we run out of them?

>    But of course, those solutions don't address the "real" problem -- the 
> desire by the right to privatize what is the gov'ts most widely supported 
> social program and to pump the money into corporate coffers.

As opposed to the government's continual raids of the SS coffers over
the past decades? To finance those same corporate interests? Perhaps
they wish to get rid of this very popular turkey before the shit hits
the fan? Hmmm...

Nah, I must be totally insane. A conspiracy nut. An alarmist.

I wish. In fact, I'd love to be *wrong* about all this. Of course, I'd
have to be in denial of my own observations. Either I'm having delusions
of possible doom, or the rest of the world is myopic.

I want to see 2+2=5, but I keep seeing 2+2=4. I'll keep trying, though.
Maybe *I* sleep better at night if I can just go back to sleep.

...
>  > Again, sorry to keep the thread going, I just wanted people to be aware of
>  > who the Foundation really is.
> 
>    That's the key.  With the increasing concentration and monopolization of 
> various "public interest" groups and the corporate mass media, it's critical 
> to know who is behind the scenes setting the agenda.

When it all goes down in flames, it's not going to matter much who was
behind what. The world may come to know of a new rioting demographic --
the Grey Mobs. Well, that'll be the least of everyone's concerns...

As Tom Lehr has sung, "We'll all go together when we go!" Except it'll
be the economic, not nuclear.

Need some drugs to forget all of this... ahh, that's better. Flowers and
Daffodils, life looks better already through these rose-colored glasses.

-- 
-- Fred
You can lead a man to knowledge,
but you can't make him think.    -- Yours Truly.





More information about the gnhlug-discuss mailing list