Ann Coulter says welfare policies responsible for looting....

[fordy]

Kasz216 said:

fordy said:

Kasz216 said:

 

Now, to get back on topic.  What happens if he doesn't save enough?  The same thing that's going to happen anyway.  He's going to be on Welfare, just like if he had social security, because social security is doomed to failure.

1)Though does Social security keep tabs on who puts in what? If not, then surely that shows the underprivilidged are better off on social security. If not, then how exactly would the private option be better? You dug yourself into a bit of a hole there.

2)Heck, if your going to argue that most people won't get enough to reitre, well that certaintly shows a problem doesn't it?  We're putting in less then we're getting out, kinda reenforces the whole "Medicare is going to collapse and it's just a matter of who it collapses on" statement isn't it?  I mean, if you can't get enough retirement out of an IRA that gets an average yield 3-7% higher then the 5% that the government bonds have listed... I mean... seriously... the system is screwed.

So why not put in more to the existing system? Once again, how is privatisation going to change this? The idea of a mandatory scheme like social security is promised revenue that can accrue interest, enough to offset extra burden, especially with the boomers in retirement. A current "straight in-straight out" system only works when you don't have an aging population. The system itself isn't broken. It's the way that you executed it that was broken.

Even more so when you consider the fact that the 5% interest rate number is fictional.  It's the US spending $100 now and promising $105 later... well apparently unless the government is about to default on it's obligations, then your the very first people that are going to be cut out.

3)Interesting. I'm getting 6% on my savings and that's just a generic savings account. I'm sure if I actually tried and invested in something like property or term investment, even safe investment could yield at least 12%.

As what happened in the recent Debt Debate, where Obama through Social Security and Medicare recpients under the bus right away.

4)As what's expected by a conservative president......wait.....you mean he's not? Must be nice to give his opponent 100% of what they wanted and still call it a fair compromise.

Also, i mean.... you know not everyone gets social security right?  For example, my mom didn't qualify because she didn't work 10 years.

5) That sounds like social security being too right-leaning, not being too socialist. I mean god DAMN, how screwed up is the welfare there?

I mean honestly, are you going to give me some points to stump me, or do I have to keep shooting holes in your flawed ideology? Privatisation of public services is a FAILURE, especially if you can say that regulation is what keeps costs up, despite billions in profits generated by these guys. Trickle down economics is pure theory (in fact, theory often has some logic behind it, so let's just move it to 'myth' instead), as can be seen by the state of your economy now. Too much focus on giving tax breaks to promote jobs, but the truth is 6) NOBODY IS WILLING TO EMPLOY IN AN ECONOMY WHERE NOBODY CAN NO LONGER AFFORD TO BUY SHIT.

1) Actually I didn't dig myself into a hole, it's just, you don't know dick about how Social Security works.   Social security DOES take in how much you paid.  That decides how much you get paid monthly.  Until you die.  It doesn't actually matter how long you live though... so once you pass what you should be entitled to from social security you can keep collecting... and most people do.  Hence the systems impending collapse.   This isn't accounted for in FICA taxes or mentioned by the Democrats, because if it was, they would lose a ton of votes for raising taxes.

And how will the private ssytem fix this? List me one thing that cannot be implemented on social security than would be on a private scheme (besides being robbed of your money by investors).

2)  Privitization can cause the collapse to happen slower and in parts and make sure that people have retirement funds by gradually increasing the amount of Fica that can be put in private funds.

So why not allow that gradual increase on social security? Why does a new system even have to be implemented? If anything, a private system would put even more pressure on a tightened system already, especially if investors are demanding a high return. Look at the superannuation scheme here, similar to what you're proposing. People are starting to LOSE savings in their superannuation accounts, despite 9% of their income going in weekly. And, for example, who owns the big mobs who reap big profits, yet socialise the losses across superannuation funds? The banks. Colonial First State is owned by the Commonwealth Bank, which you probably saw in my previous post reaped $4.7 billion in profit in 2009.

3) Again, take note that the government bonds don't really have a 5% yield.  This isn't like Denmark where the country invests the money it gets into a pension fund full of stocks and bonds.  Quite literally all the US government does is buy government bonds from itself promising to pay back the money with 5% interest.   What do you think would happen if you took your retirement money, and used it to buy yourself "Fordy Bonds" that say "In 40 years I plan to pay back this money with 5% interest" then went out and bought a TV.  This is literally the case,  Social Security would be more effective if the law said "You must keep the same percentage of taxes in your savings account until you are 67 years old."

So instead of using that money to stick inside the treasury or fund here and now promises on a defective budget, why not put a vast amount into public investment, to a point where the interest accumulated would make up for the surge of aging population generated by the boomers for the next 30 years or so? I mean, it's been done in other places and shown it's successful:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_Fund

That doesn't sound like a fault of social security. It sounds more like a fault of bad finance and budget management, and using social security as the scapegoat.

4) Actually that's what he planned to do.... without the compromise.  He established the fact that the minute we can't pay our bills... america's seniors are scerewed because social secutiry is a messed up broken program that needs to be abolished.

Source, or speculation?

5) Extremely, which is why it needs to go.  It's worse then having no system.  It's no better then having a too liberal deregulation, where you loosen up buisness regs but still keep all the buisness deductions and bonuses.

So in other words, the only way to fight a too far right-leaning welfare system is to replace is with an even further far right-leaning welfare system? Please give me your logic on that? And worse than having no system? Cmon, if you were retired now, you would not pick nothing over something.

6) People can still afford to buy shit.  The US still has a higher Median per capita income PPP then the vast majority of countries in the world.    Median, being not effected much by the rich having way too much,  Per capita being per person, and PPP meaning adjusting for how much thigns cost.

Your fallacy here is that you're taking the MEDIAN income per capita, without regard to the proportions of where that income is situated. In the past 2 years, more and more of the percentage of total income has been going towards the top 10% of income earners. This imbalance produces a skew in which ultimately, the poor are worse off once inflation is taken into account. The problem that conservatives miss is, once welfare services are cut to these people, that gives them even LESS to spend in an already stagnant economy. Sure the rich have more, but they're not game to invest it in an economy that does not guarantee a return without a higher-than-normal risk of losing the lot.

This is true even when you consider Median Disposable household income... so no, government healthcare and the like doesn't help other countries cases enough.  The people in the US can afford more shit then the people in Australia can for example.

But I'd be willing to bet that a higher percentage of the Australian population has enough income to be useful, spending consumers than America does. For starters, you have 10% unemployment to our 4%. Second, our rich:middle:poor ratio is a lot more balanced, and despite having expenses more than the US, our GDP per capita is roughly the same, which already puts the poor and middle income earners on a better foothold thanks to the ratio. A healthy economy is when the entire populace can partake in spending, not just the high-middle and the rich. After all, the spending NEEDS are what can ensure economic safety. Put pressure on the spending needs on the poor and that's a fraction of your economy not running efficiently.

EDIT: On the note of more affordability, yes we pay more in expenses, in order to ensure a general well being throughout the community. It's the australian idea of a true "fair go", "not leaving your mates behind", and coincides with our thoughts of mateship. From what I can gather on your ideology, it seems more like an "every man for themselves" setup.