more bad economic news

Started by elmerfudd, March 01, 2012, 06:35:59 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Shooterman

Quote from: elmerfudd on March 01, 2012, 07:33:09 AM
Yes, but only when the Dims are in office.  Just let the Pubs get back in there and truth will out!

No, that is false, as well. Do not put words in my mouth. I am an equal opportunity hater of the two party shit.
There's no ticks like Polyticks-bloodsuckers all Davy Crockett 1786-1836

Yankees are like castor oil. Even a small dose is bad.
[IMG]

Shooterman

Quote from: elmerfudd on March 01, 2012, 07:35:42 AM
Off topic, I know, but I would like your thoughts on Medicare.  Socialist conspiracy to enslave Americans?  Or good healthcare program for senior citizens?  Or something else?  I will be enrolling in it in four years myself, assuming I have not croaked and we're not all speaking Arabic.  (4 more years of Obozo bowing and scraping to those sand monkeys virtually guarantees we all better start learning Arabic.)
There's no ticks like Polyticks-bloodsuckers all Davy Crockett 1786-1836

Yankees are like castor oil. Even a small dose is bad.
[IMG]

Shooterman

Quote from: elmerfudd on March 01, 2012, 07:35:42 AM
Off topic, I know, but I would like your thoughts on Medicare.  Socialist conspiracy to enslave Americans?  Or good healthcare program for senior citizens?  Or something else?  I will be enrolling in it in four years myself, assuming I have not croaked and we're not all speaking Arabic.  (4 more years of Obozo bowing and scraping to those sand monkeys virtually guarantees we all better start learning Arabic.)

Even though I am on Medicare, I am honest enough to know it is basically an unconstitutional program. It is probably the singular most driving force for high medical expenses. It is what it is, though, and not likely to appreciably change.
There's no ticks like Polyticks-bloodsuckers all Davy Crockett 1786-1836

Yankees are like castor oil. Even a small dose is bad.
[IMG]

Cryptic Bert

Quote from: Shooterman on March 02, 2012, 10:12:27 AM
Even though I am on Medicare, I am honest enough to know it is basically an unconstitutional program. It is probably the singular most driving force for high medical expenses. It is what it is, though, and not likely to appreciably change.

Didn't you pay into it already Shooter?

Shooterman

Quote from: The Boo Man... on March 02, 2012, 10:23:07 AM
Didn't you pay into it already Shooter?
Yep! There is still no getting out of it when working. I'm sure now I could opt to pay for everything myself, but with expenses as they are, I ain't got that kind of scratch.
There's no ticks like Polyticks-bloodsuckers all Davy Crockett 1786-1836

Yankees are like castor oil. Even a small dose is bad.
[IMG]

mdgiles

The problem with Social security is that it was never meant to pay out. It was originally set at 65 because nobody in those days reached that age. As the lifespan increased they should have kept upping the retirement age, but they were caught in a dilemma - if they kept upping the age, it would soon become obvious it was never meant to pay out, which would destroy the political support for the program. So they left it at 65 - until it was too late.
"LIBERALS: their willful ignorance is rivaled only by their catastrophic stupidity"!

elmerfudd

Quote from: Shooterman on March 02, 2012, 10:12:27 AM
Even though I am on Medicare, I am honest enough to know it is basically an unconstitutional program. It is probably the singular most driving force for high medical expenses. It is what it is, though, and not likely to appreciably change.

I agree with you 100% on that one.  Medicare is the money (same thing as demand) that funded a lot of life prolonging healthcare breakthroughs.  Absent some ready money (and who has more of it than an entity like Uncle Sugar), who could have afforded to develop all that stuff?  And who benefitted?  Old farts, that's who.  Of which I am already one and hope to be one much longer. 


mdgiles

Quote from: elmerfudd on March 02, 2012, 10:34:55 AM
I agree with you 100% on that one.  Medicare is the money (same thing as demand) that funded a lot of life prolonging healthcare breakthroughs.  Absent some ready money (and who has more of it than an entity like Uncle Sugar), who could have afforded to develop all that stuff?  And who benefitted?  Old farts, that's who.  Of which I am already one and hope to be one much longer.
So you believe there wouldn't have been the same advances absent government money?
"LIBERALS: their willful ignorance is rivaled only by their catastrophic stupidity"!

elmerfudd

Quote from: mdgiles on March 02, 2012, 10:30:52 AM
The problem with Social security is that it was never meant to pay out. It was originally set at 65 because nobody in those days reached that age. As the lifespan increased they should have kept upping the retirement age, but they were caught in a dilemma - if they kept upping the age, it would soon become obvious it was never meant to pay out, which would destroy the political support for the program. So they left it at 65 - until it was too late.

This is such a short sighted canard. 

It is true that, at birth, the average life expecatancy in the 1930's was probably 65.  But to say nobody reached that age is absurd.  Ben Franklin made it to his late 80's.  John Adams to 90. History is FILLED with people who lived much beyond 65 well before the 1930's.

What happened was childhood diseases and deaths in childbirth dropped.  Once a guy made to his 20's, even in the 1930's, he had a life expectancy beyond 65.  Everybody alive still has some life expectancy, even if he's 98.

What social security was set up to provide was some help, not a complete pension, for people who made it to 65.  And plenty of them did.  Then, now, and many years ago. 

elmerfudd

Quote from: mdgiles on March 02, 2012, 10:37:24 AM
So you believe there wouldn't have been the same advances absent government money?

Not necessarily goverment money, but money.  And I don't see the kind of money Medicare pumped into healthcare for old farts coming from anyplace else.  At least it never had prior to Medicare.  That's why Medicare was established. 

Cryptic Bert

Quote from: Shooterman on March 02, 2012, 10:29:40 AM
Yep! There is still no getting out of it when working. I'm sure now I could opt to pay for everything myself, but with expenses as they are, I ain't got that kind of scratch.

So basically you are using your own money when you use medicare.

mdgiles

Quote from: elmerfudd on March 02, 2012, 10:39:25 AM
This is such a short sighted canard. 

It is true that, at birth, the average life expecatancy in the 1930's was probably 65.  But to say nobody reached that age is absurd.  Ben Franklin made it to his late 80's.  John Adams to 90. History is FILLED with people who lived much beyond 65 well before the 1930's.

What happened was childhood diseases and deaths in childbirth dropped.  Once a guy made to his 20's, even in the 1930's, he had a life expectancy beyond 65.  Everybody alive still has some life expectancy, even if he's 98.

What social security was set up to provide was some help, not a complete pension, for people who made it to 65.  And plenty of them did.  Then, now, and many years ago.
Everyone who worked contributed to the program; but, on average, how many of them were going to be around to get the payout. The system could support the singular oldster that made it to the finish line. It's been an open secret for years, that black working males were specially screwed by the Social Security system due to our shorter average life span. If social security were set up to provide Social Security, it would be set up like an insurance annuity program. But the USSC has long since ruled that Social Security is nothing more than a government welfare program - which makes the payroll tax - A TAX. One of the ugly little secrets of the future is that Social Security will never run out of money - because when it becomes too burdensome or unsustainable, Congress will simply cancel it. That sharp pain all you people who paid into it feel? That's your government showing you where their size 15's go.
"LIBERALS: their willful ignorance is rivaled only by their catastrophic stupidity"!

elmerfudd

Quote from: mdgiles on March 02, 2012, 10:51:37 AM
Everyone who worked contributed to the program; but, on average, how many of them were going to be around to get the payout. The system could support the singular oldster that made it to the finish line. It's been an open secret for years, that black working males were specially screwed by the Social Security system due to our shorter average life span. If social security were set up to provide Social Security, it would be set up like an insurance annuity program. But the USSC has long since ruled that Social Security is nothing more than a government welfare program - which makes the payroll tax - A TAX. One of the ugly little secrets of the future is that Social Security will never run out of money - because when it becomes too burdensome or unsustainable, Congress will simply cancel it. That sharp pain all you people who paid into it feel? That's your government showing you where their size 15's go.

Everybody did indeed contribute and everybody, then as now, did not benefit.  That's the way insurance works.  I have had fire insurance for YEARS but never had a single fire. 

You will note that the rates have grown, too.  When a much smaller percentage (but still over half) of the people did not make it to 65 the rates were like 2% each for employer and employee.  As that percentage has increased, the rates have gone up. 

I am also fully aware that it's not really insurance.  FDR had to disguise it as that to combat all the nervous nellies who were scared absolutely out of their wits by anything that even remotely resembled "socialism." Which is what it clearly is. So is Medicare.  And you're right about black males.  Also women.  At first social security did not cover nearly all occupations and the ones it didn't cover were, coincidentally?, those heavily employing blacks and females.  Now, I am not suggesting racism or sexism had anything to do with that.  But it IS a remote possibility. 

elmerfudd

Quote from: The Boo Man... on March 02, 2012, 10:48:18 AM
So basically you are using your own money when you use medicare.

If you don't use it very much, yes.  But if you have a couple heart attacks and other issues very common to old farts, you're using all of yours and a lot of other folks', too.  I mean, nobody can honestly say they're overburdened with Medicare taxes. 

Shooterman

Quote from: elmerfudd on March 02, 2012, 10:34:55 AM
I agree with you 100% on that one.  Medicare is the money (same thing as demand) that funded a lot of life prolonging healthcare breakthroughs.  Absent some ready money (and who has more of it than an entity like Uncle Sugar), who could have afforded to develop all that stuff?  And who benefitted?  Old farts, that's who.  Of which I am already one and hope to be one much longer. 

Just possibly, Elmer, you have misunderstood. It is the people's money. It never was the government's money. The people paid into the system fully expecting a ROI. ( though ROI is not quite what I would call it more like forced theft ) If Uncle Sugar and his Minions of Mischief ( PUBS and DIMS ) had not stolen the money to pay for other shit, the program would not be in the hole it is in.
There's no ticks like Polyticks-bloodsuckers all Davy Crockett 1786-1836

Yankees are like castor oil. Even a small dose is bad.
[IMG]