Social security

[Gr8ful]

It's says Republic not Democracy. Just because you don't like it doesn't change the truth. If we were a democracy popular vote would be used but we use the electoral college.

Where is the word democracy in the Constitution?​

Quora
https://www.quora.com › Where-is-the-word-democrac...
Sep 13, 2021 — The word “Democracy” isn't found in any documents of the US founding, the Declaration of Independence, The Preamble to the US Constitution, the ...

 

[rockloper]

Ron, all I have been doing is suggesting ways which we could potentially increase SS payouts. That seems to be one of the key things that you and many others have been asking for. It’s very doubtful that can happen with the current system because currently excess money pumped into SS is invested in government bonds - very low risk but also not really able to keep up with inflation. You could argue that the government could just print the money, but that would tend to be inflationary because it would increase the money supply.

So from what I hear the goal is to 1) increase payout, 2) ensure security of the payout, 3) still give the poorer folks some advantage. One way to increase the payout is for a percentage of the money going into the system to be invested in other things that have a higher payout, similar to funds. This is the ‘hybrid solution’ I mentioned. Is there a risk, a bit more than now, but that can be contained by using something like a bucket strategy. I personally like the idea of forcing a citizen to manage something like an IRA, but that’s really more of an idea to improve exposure to how the market works so hopefully the more educated individual will create their own investment plan, but that is orthogonal to the basic idea.

So how to ensure the security - I proposed something like a bucket system where the next ‘X’ years payout would be more secure than the later years. This strategy is a method which ensures cash for the near future so you don’t face the impact of a recession. The only downside is that the most secure bucket is potentially not going to grow as quickly as inflation. But that’s always the case with the current strategy in which all reserve money is invested in government bonds.

The next issue is how to give the poorer folks some advantage. Currently your SS payouts die with you. There is no inheritance. One solution might be to take the residual money when a person dies and use that to expand the basic payout used for the poorer citizens.

Make wage earners pay into SS on EVERY dollar earned, no cap!

 

[bullfrog !]

I disagree, but this thread is about social security. *cough* Bullfrog *cough*

Seems that cough is getting bad! lol!!!

 

[mpruet]

Make wage earners pay into SS on EVERY dollar earned, no cap!

I see a problem with just doing that and nothing else. Social security currently has a surplus of funds because of all of the funding done by the baby boomers. Far more people were paying payroll taxes into SS than drawing from it. That isn’t the case any more. And now the number of people drawing SS is much larger as the baby boomers are drawing SS.

Also there was a significant inflationary period during the baby boomers were paying payroll taxes into SS. That means the value of the dollar being paid to the boomers is not nearly as valuable as the dollar that the boomer paid into SS. To compensate the boomer gets more dollars from SS than would have been the case when he was funding SS.

To make matters worse, the excess SS money coming in is ‘invested’ in government bonds, and those bonds are not keeping up with current inflation. That means that the longer a dollar remains in the SS fund, the less real value it has. So unless the fund is invested in something which has a better return than inflation, it will continue to shrink in value.

And then there’s the problem of just how much would not having a SS cap bring in. Currently the cap is $147K. The median individual annual salary is $54,860 and the average $59,384. That means the cap is almost three times the median salary. All of this means that simply removing the cap would not really bring in that much more funding. Some, but doubtful that it would bring in enough to make up the decline in the fund.

Also don’t forget that there is a big difference between salary, which funds SS, and wealth, which does not. The income of the really wealthy folks is not from a salary, but from growth of existing assets and grants such as options. Neither of these fund SS as they are capital gains and not salary.

 

[bullfrog !]

I believe we discussed this earlier in the thread. There are just too many loopholes for the wealthiest to define earnings or salaries and they can afford law firms and accountants to find them or lobbyists to promote them.

 

[user 22017]

I think we can and should separate the people of another country and the government and/or oligarchy that controls them (and sometimes - us.) There are forces in the world that are more concerned with making the world better for the elite - of which they are part. Nor is our country immune to that. But, for now, most democracies have some built-in guard rails to protect the rest of us.

IMO, Russia, China, and some other countries are currently governed by people and systems that would be happy if the more democratic countries became the same as theirs. They have and are interfering in the politics and economies of other countries - including ours.

We are ALREADY at war with them. Happily not in a hot war, but certainly in an information and digital war. Just this last week US officials delivered a warning that Chinese hackers are targeting infrastructure. WASHINGTON, Jan 31 (Reuters) - Hackers linked to the Chinese government are targeting critical U.S. infrastructure, preparing to cause "real-world harm" to Americans, FBI Director Christopher Wray told a congressional committee on Wednesday. Russia has morphed and modernized its information warfare into what Rand describes as "the contemporary Russian model for propaganda as “the firehose of falsehood” Nor are they the only ones to employ this strategy.

*Note: sorry about this digression from talking about SS, but some earlier posts made me want to address this.

You gotta know your history: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuxnet

 

[mpruet]

I believe we discussed this earlier in the thread. There are just too many loopholes for the wealthiest to define earnings or salaries and they can afford law firms and accountants to find them or lobbyists to promote them.

Yes, but not just the wealthiest. Consider the farmer. He is not employed by anyone and receives no salary. He initially pumped what funds he had into his land and from year to year lives in debt from the time he plants seeds until he sells his crops. He might have some chickens, maybe a garden, and maybe some cattle. He gets most of his food from those. When he sells his crops, the bulk of the money goes back into the farm. He pays off the debt from last year’s seeds and maybe takes a small percentage for items he can’t produce on his farm.

It’s only when he sells his farm that he makes any real money.

A similar scenario exists for most self-employed folks. They tend to make their real money from when they sell their business.

But that’s not a salary - it’s capital gains.

 

[Gr8ful]

I'll argue democracy is the wrong word for the U.S.A. because it is. You can claim your a monkey but it doesn't make it true. Show me where it says we're a democracy in the constitution! Below are meaning of both terms IN WEBSTERS ORIGINAL DICTIONARY! Case Closed! Anyone can change Wikipedia!

Did you mean: democracy webster's original dictionary definition
DEMOCRACY, noun [Gr. People, and to possess, to govern.] Government by the people; a form of government, in which the supreme power is lodged in the hands of the people collectively, or in which the people exercise the powers of legislation.

Did you mean: constitutional republic webster's original dictionary definition
Republic Definition & Meaning
Merriam-Webster
https://www.merriam-webster.com › dictionary › republic
The meaning of REPUBLIC is a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president.

 

[wanderlust]

It's says Republic not Democracy.

Where is the word democracy in the Constitution?​

According to that logic, in USA there are no women (or no constitutionally protected rights of women) because "woman" is not mentioned in the constitution. Neither is "Privacy".

USA is a kind of republic (res publica == Latin for "public affair" or commonwealth).

USA is constitutional (as compared with Britain, which lacks constitution) presidential (not parliamentary, so no prime minister) federal (so we have states) representative democracy (== with democratically, "by people", elected representatives).

It NOT a direct democracy, but it does not mean it is not a democracy.

It is also not a parliamentary democracy, even if USA has parliament (congress). There are few republics with the parliament and president, but the government is run by prime minister.

What does it mean that USA is not democracy? What would be different if it WAS a democracy?

 

[RonDean]

I'll argue democracy is the wrong word for the U.S.A. because it is. You can claim your a monkey but it doesn't make it true. Show me where it says we're a democracy in the constitution!

Did you mean: democracy webster's original dictionary definition
DEMOCRACY, noun [Gr. People, and to possess, to govern.] Government by the people; a form of government, in which the supreme power is lodged in the hands of the people collectively, or in which the people exercise the powers of legislation.

No... I said Oxford and that's what I meant. I won't waste my time in meaningless arguments over semantics or dueling sources. Just explain what point you are trying to make - if any.

 

[Gr8ful]

We wouldn't vote for a congress or senate if we were a democracy. It would be a majority vote of the people. Just show me where the constitution says democracy.
Websters was published in 1828, Oxford in 1884. If we we're a democracy why didn't H. Clinton win in 2016 as she got more votes?

 

[Happy Camper]

Democratic Republic

 

[wanderlust]

We wouldn't vote for a congress or senate if we were a democracy. It would be a majority vote of the people.

Senators ARE voted by majority of voters in every state. And same is for every Representative in every district. Only the president is not voted directly (not "democratically"), but by the electorate college, with majority in most states. IIRC only two states (MA, NE) assign electors by district, and not as a whole, to a winner of the popular vote in each state.

Founders wanted checks and balances. Their idea of democracy was quite different too (who can vote): only white male property owners.

 

[Gr8ful]

So far I've shown written proof from history, Everyone claiming democracy have just opinions with NO FACTS so I'm done until I see historical facts. Don't make me quote Mark Twain on you!

 

[mpruet]

Well I think we should do away with Social Security, Medicare, and Medicad. And we should just shoot old folks who didn’t save enough to be self sufficient, or so like the Inuit use to do - take ‘em out and let the bears get ‘em…

(Wonder if this comment will get the discussion back on target?)

 

[Gr8ful]

I think we should separate medicaid, SSI, snap & other welfare programs away from social security as we paid 13% of our wages for social security. I also think government workers should pay & get SS & not some special programs. I don't mind helping people in need but SS is paid by us but blurs the SS lines.

 

[bullfrog !]

I’ve been waiting quite a while to for my party to announce its platform! Lol!!! You forgot woman’s rights!

 

[Gr8ful]

Democratic Republic

A safe you tube from 1966

 

[mpruet]

I think we should separate medicaid, SSI, snap & other welfare programs away from social security as we paid 13% of our wages for social security. I also think government workers should pay & get SS & not some special programs. I don't mind helping people in need but SS is paid by us but blurs the SS lines.

Sorta. While SS administers the other programs, the money does not come from the SS fund.

 

[user 22017]

Well I think we should do away with Social Security, Medicare, and Medicad. And we should just shoot old folks who didn’t save enough to be self sufficient, or so like the Inuit use to do - take ‘em out and let the bears get ‘em…

(Wonder if this comment will get the discussion back on target?)

You joke but there are those on the right who want it to happen. Not shooting them, but withholding care.