The democrats' "100 hour" set of policies if elected

[Craig234]

One problem I see with the Swedish model is it only allows for 2.5% of income to go into an individual account. That would decrease the gains of privatization because the management expenses would be fairly high relative to the returns. This is due to the fact that it still takes nearly the same amount of resources to manage $500 as it does to manage $5000.

Are the 2.5% funds invested privately handled by for-profit companies, or something else (e.g., government)?

 

[HombrePequeno]

Originally posted by: Craig234

One problem I see with the Swedish model is it only allows for 2.5% of income to go into an individual account. That would decrease the gains of privatization because the management expenses would be fairly high relative to the returns. This is due to the fact that it still takes nearly the same amount of resources to manage $500 as it does to manage $5000.

Are the 2.5% funds invested privately handled by for-profit companies, or something else (e.g., government)?

I'm not 100% sure on that one but from what I'm reading right now it seems the National Social Insurance Board manages it. I could be wrong but I haven't seen any mention of a private management system.

 

[Craig234]

I could be fine with a system like that.

Look, odn't confuse my position that I'm opposed to private sector financial firms - I'm not.

I wand them in business and I don't want the government replacing them; I do want the government regulating them (a la Elliot Spitzer's lawsuits against some of the abuses).

My concern is when they are out to gouge the public by designing some scheme for great profits at taxpayer expense, and donating their way to getting congress to pass it.

Social Security is the ultimate cow for them to milk, and I do not want a corrupt program.

The way it is now, these big firms make a killing by lobbying congress to pass laws which make their schemes for the ultra wealthy illegal, at our expense.

Just look at the huge scandal of the Cayman Islands off-shore tax dodges - hundreds of billions out of the tax income, at the expense of the nation's budget, for the wealthy.

 

[HombrePequeno]

Originally posted by: Craig234
I could be fine with a system like that.

Look, odn't confuse my position that I'm opposed to private sector financial firms - I'm not.

I wand them in business and I don't want the government replacing them; I do want the government regulating them (a la Elliot Spitzer's lawsuits against some of the abuses).

My concern is when they are out to gouge the public by designing some scheme for great profits at taxpayer expense, and donating their way to getting congress to pass it.

Social Security is the ultimate cow for them to milk, and I do not want a corrupt program.

The way it is now, these big firms make a killing by lobbying congress to pass laws which make their schemes for the ultra wealthy illegal, at our expense.

Just look at the huge scandal of the Cayman Islands off-shore tax dodges - hundreds of billions out of the tax income, at the expense of the nation's budget, for the wealthy.

I'll agree that we need to use caution when putting hundreds of billions of dollars into investments. The thing is, is that unethical businesses are the exception rather than the rule. Their are hundreds of thousands of businesses out there, of course there are going to be a few bad apples. I don't think I would support a privatized plan managed by a private company. That leaves little room for competition which means they can charge higher management fees. I'm also not sure I'd want the government handling, seeing as how they screw a lot of things up. I would support a firm that is partially private but overseen by the government.

My basic point is that privatization can be made to work (evidenced by the other countries that have made it work). Too many people give into the fear mongering thrown out by Democrats saying our current system is fine and if it's changed, the elderly will be up Sh!t Creek without a paddle.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Craig234
Just look at the huge scandal of the Cayman Islands off-shore tax dodges - hundreds of billions out of the tax income, at the expense of the nation's budget, for the wealthy.

Those are criminal tax fraud and treated as such. The IRS and DoJ have been aggresively pursuing them for years now. Lot of people in federalprison for that crap.

The FBI, SBI, DoJ , US Attorney General and all the local law enforcement agencies just busted a financial planning outfit in my little town for that crap last month. They arrived simultaneously at the guys home & offices with guns drawn shouting through bullhorns etc. Then moving vans arrived and carted away all the records and such.

BTW: "Hundreds of Billions" out tax revenue overstates things "a bit". If the loss in tax revenue was that high it would mean trillions were invested off-shore. We don't even have that much total currency in circulation (less than trillion as of June 06) . You can't wire transfer real estate ec.

The so-called S "Trust Fund" strikes me as one of the most mis-understood concepts in the history of mankind. It would be stupid to hoard a cash stockpile from the receipts of SS tax revenue. It would sit without being invested and lose value to inflation. So, the money is invested in government paper (interest bearing, but that's mostly an esoterical budgetary concept anyway - paying/charging interest to yourself), which is the safest, most conservative investment possible. These are what guys referr to as "IOU's".

You really wanna see some shenagins? Hoard the SS funds and then decide to invest them somewhere other than with US gov.

Fern

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: daveymark
LMAO! the dems just lost a bunch more votes by releasing that "plan"

Keep telling yourself that. We'll see what party lost more of its votes soon enough :laugh:

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Craig234
Just look at the huge scandal of the Cayman Islands off-shore tax dodges - hundreds of billions out of the tax income, at the expense of the nation's budget, for the wealthy.

Those are criminal tax fraud and treated as such. The IRS and DoJ have been aggresively pursuing them for years now. Lot of people in federalprison for that crap.

The FBI, SBI, DoJ , US Attorney General and all the local law enforcement agencies just busted a financial planning outfit in my little town for that crap last month. They arrived simultaneously at the guys home & offices with guns drawn shouting through bullhorns etc. Then moving vans arrived and carted away all the records and such.

BTW: "Hundreds of Billions" out tax revenue overstates things "a bit". If the loss in tax revenue was that high it would mean trillions were invested off-shore. We don't even have that much total currency in circulation (less than trillion as of June 06) . You can't wire transfer real estate ec.

Fern

The commonly used figures I've seen are that globally, there's about $11.5 trillion in these things costing governments an estimates $255 billion; $10 to $20 billlion for the US.

Many of the schemes are not illegal; Halliburton under Cheney created at least 20 new tax havens in the Cayman islands reportedly. Legality is the problem with the big donors.

Analogy: some people were (are) getting away with terrible human rights violations in the Marrians(sp?) islands, where cheap Chinese labor in slave-like conditions at very low pay was used to make clothing that could get the 'made in the USA' label; normal people would want to do something to fix that, and the Senate even did, but the Tom DeLay House did not pass the bill; DeLay just blocked it.

You guessed it - the profiteers had paid off Jack Abramoff, who had DeLay visit for a golf trip, where he praised the profiteers in glowing terms, promising he'd block any reform.

Similarly, reform of these tax havens can be blocked, and bad ones can be legalized, with the corruption so high.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Craig234
Well, of course the ideologues are incapable of understanding the benefits of the democrats' plans - they just blindly spout the ideology, oh nos government interference in something.

The republicans count on the easily duped - allowing them to get, for example, the huge drug donations in exchange for a giveaway of tax dollars by banning the government from negotiating drug prices - and the republican cult members say oh, that's ok, just don't elect the democrats.

I think rational people will largely see these as good, and hopfully we'll get to see them enacted, though I expect we'll see a whole lot more vetoes from Bush all of a sudden.

rational people would support fixing social security once and for all (which the dems don't support)
rational people know that a nominal wage increase doesn't change real wages and the underlying reality of the low-skills labor market
rational people would be for the roll back of ALL subsidies, not just those to one disfavored industry

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Craig234
Well, of course the ideologues are incapable of understanding the benefits of the democrats' plans - they just blindly spout the ideology, oh nos government interference in something.

The republicans count on the easily duped - allowing them to get, for example, the huge drug donations in exchange for a giveaway of tax dollars by banning the government from negotiating drug prices - and the republican cult members say oh, that's ok, just don't elect the democrats.

I think rational people will largely see these as good, and hopfully we'll get to see them enacted, though I expect we'll see a whole lot more vetoes from Bush all of a sudden.

rational people would support fixing social security once and for all (which the dems don't support)

Yes, they do; the first step is blocking its destruction by the republicans.

rational people know that a nominal wage increase doesn't change real wages and the underlying reality of the low-skills labor market

They know that this will help and that it's not the whole answer.

rational people would be for the roll back of ALL subsidies, not just those to one disfavored industry

Each deserves its own analysis; ending one big political handout of tax money is better than not ending it in this case IMO. I don't see you proving the republicans are better.

 

[imported_Lothar]

What was the republican leadership's official response to these policies?

 

[Puffnstuff]

Seems to me that both parties are guilty of doing a jim dandy job of undermining the soverienty of this nation and bringing the constitution to nought.

 

[Craig234]

I simply didn't see how taking away money from the oil companies will cause a lowering in price.

You're just missing the point I made. Is it 'taking money from the oil companies' to stop giving them taxpayer money in a subsidy?

If you want to say it is, then again I ask, why not double the subsidies and 'lower prices' further? If not, why do the first subsidies?

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: Lothar
What was the republican leadership's official response to these policies?

I think it was something along the lines of this...

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Genx87

No, we won't. That date is far further in the future. There is an 'actual' trust fund in the sense that we're collecting the extra taxes for it; however, all presidents since it was createrdunder Reagan as a scam have spent all the money (one more reason we should have had Gore as president, who pledged to stop that).

It's a disaster that we owe trillions to that fund now.

No it isnt, 2018 or 2017 is still the magical date at which point the general budget fund will have to start paying for SS.

The trust fund is bunk. A bunch of IOU's to the govt that the govt will have to pay for in the end.

I would love to be able to run a trust fund like the govt. When it is time to take money out of it make my neighbor the bill.

No, it isn't. Those "magical dates" are based on assumptions that may not be true and have been provably UNTRUE in the past. It's quite possible that there is NO problem to worry about, especially with this great economic growth you guys keep talking about. The "IOU" bullshit stems from President Bush's statement based on the profound misunderstanding of the decade as to what T-bills are, the fact that you guys keep repeating it is NOT making you look any smarter.

 

[Zebo]

rational people know that a nominal wage increase doesn't change real wages and the underlying reality of the low-skills labor market

Sure it does help. Are you saying inflation will happen nixing whatever incease they got? Never does upon a min wage increae. Heres why. Very few peoples work for min wage. Your wage won't change. Mine won't the CEO's won't. Thus costs don't change as much as wages go up for those who benefit from the wage increase. All it does is put the lower class at a little better parity with the middle. I see nothing wrong with that. Should be $12 since illegals won't even work for less than that where I live but $7.25 is progress/

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

Originally posted by: Craig234
And those republicans have the interests of the common guy as all they care about.

Snippy one liners don't change the fact that social security is a popular, efficient, successful program at nearly eliminating real poverty for the elderly and disabled, and all the 'reforms' o the table are aimed at virtually destroying it to remove voters of the biggest reminder of a great democrat program, skim off the money to wall street, and have a wedge issue.

It's so efficient that we'll have to raise taxes in 2018 just to pay for the outgoing benefits. Don't believe there is an actual Trust Fund. That's a load of BS.

Did you even read the proposals for Social Security partial privatization? They would in no way destroy it. The main proposal called for the option of privatization of up to 4% of your income (up to $1000) if you're under 40. How the hell would that destroy Social Security? At least two-thirds is still going to the government for redistribution to the elderly. Grannie wouldn't be SOL because she would still be paid for through other revenue.

I'll tell you the only reason why it shouldn't currently be privatized: our budget is nowhere near balanced. This coupled with the fact that the proposals weren't allowed to add in a tax increase for the transition to privatization made the ideas were pretty much DOA.

So what is your proposal to keep SS afloat? In the current situation we can either raise taxes, cut benefits, or a combination of both. Yes, we could remove the cap but that would just be delaying the inevitable as we would have to start paying for the rich as well. That also would kind of go against the idea of SS which is keeping the elderly and disabled out of poverty.

And for fvck's sake, Sweden which is one of the most socialist countries around is doing it. Doesn't that tell you that privatization isn't all bad?

That part I bolded is the fundamental problem with privatization, the explanation of how we meet CURRENT social security obligations seems to involve a lot of hand-waving and not too many real ideas. I'm not opposed to the a private system itself, but I don't see how the transition can be accomplished without screwing over people who have already paid a fair amount into social security OR spending HUGE amounts of money to make up the shortfalls such a transition would involve.

As far as Social Security being in trouble, THAT is the load of BS. Yes, there is a potential for a shortfall...there is also a potential for having more money in Social Security by 2018 than there is TODAY, in other words, no problem at all. But you want to know the real dirty secret? The shortfall could come about because the large numbers of people retiring all at once when the baby boomers start getting social security checks...and those are the very people we CAN'T trash social security for since they've spent their entire lives paying into it. Whatever we do to pay their benefits while us young folks are off investing in Enron stock could easily make up the temporary shortfall from baby boomers retiring. The problem has been dramatically overstated and the whole social security privatization debate is way more about dismantling any social program possible than it is about "saving" anything.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Zebo

rational people know that a nominal wage increase doesn't change real wages and the underlying reality of the low-skills labor market

Sure it does help. Are you saying inflation will happen nixing whatever incease they got? Never does upon a min wage increae. Heres why. Very few peoples work for min wage. Your wage won't change. Mine won't the CEO's won't. Thus costs don't change as much as wages go up for those who benefit from the wage increase. All it does is put the lower class at a little better parity with the middle. I see nothing wrong with that. Should be $12 since illegals won't even work for less than that where I live but $7.25 is progress/

Ok, if the minimum wage is increased to $7.25 an hour, what do you think happens to the people that were already making $7.25 an hour?

Very few people work for minimum wage, you said it yourself, so why raise it? To make people "feel good" about helping the working poor? Thats silly, if someone is stuck at minimum wage and they are not in highschool then they have some serious problems. I got my first raise out of minimum wage when I was 15 working at McDonalds, and I couldn't even cook the burgers yet.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Zebo

rational people know that a nominal wage increase doesn't change real wages and the underlying reality of the low-skills labor market

Sure it does help. Are you saying inflation will happen nixing whatever incease they got? Never does upon a min wage increae. Heres why. Very few peoples work for min wage. Your wage won't change. Mine won't the CEO's won't. Thus costs don't change as much as wages go up for those who benefit from the wage increase. All it does is put the lower class at a little better parity with the middle. I see nothing wrong with that. Should be $12 since illegals won't even work for less than that where I live but $7.25 is progress/

Ok, if the minimum wage is increased to $7.25 an hour, what do you think happens to the people that were already making $7.25 an hour?

Very few people work for minimum wage, you said it yourself, so why raise it? To make people "feel good" about helping the working poor? Thats silly, if someone is stuck at minimum wage and they are not in highschool then they have some serious problems. I got my first raise out of minimum wage when I was 15 working at McDonalds, and I couldn't even cook the burgers yet.

I can think of lots of reason why/ puts more money in circulation stimulating economy since those peoples will spend most of the excess they gained. But the main reason is $7.50 or whatever min wage is now anit shat anit fair anit livable IMO. " To make people "feel good" about helping the working poor? " In a word, yea. But I also think you'd get better moral and service (costco vs Sams club employee comes to mind) paying a decent wage.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Zebo

rational people know that a nominal wage increase doesn't change real wages and the underlying reality of the low-skills labor market

Sure it does help. Are you saying inflation will happen nixing whatever incease they got? Never does upon a min wage increae. Heres why. Very few peoples work for min wage. Your wage won't change. Mine won't the CEO's won't. Thus costs don't change as much as wages go up for those who benefit from the wage increase. All it does is put the lower class at a little better parity with the middle. I see nothing wrong with that. Should be $12 since illegals won't even work for less than that where I live but $7.25 is progress/

Ok, if the minimum wage is increased to $7.25 an hour, what do you think happens to the people that were already making $7.25 an hour?

Very few people work for minimum wage, you said it yourself, so why raise it? To make people "feel good" about helping the working poor? Thats silly, if someone is stuck at minimum wage and they are not in highschool then they have some serious problems. I got my first raise out of minimum wage when I was 15 working at McDonalds, and I couldn't even cook the burgers yet.

I can think of lots of reason why/ puts more money in circulation stimulating economy since those peoples will spend most of the excess they gained. But the main reason is $7.50 or whatever min wage is now anit shat anit fair anit livable IMO. " To make people "feel good" about helping the working poor? " In a word, yea. But I also think you'd get better moral and service (costco vs Sams club employee comes to mind) paying a decent wage.

I think you missed my point, once you raise the minimum wage, then the people that were making a few dollars above minimum wage are now at the minimum wage and are going to get raises, etc... etc...

Minimum wage is not meant to be a liveable wage, nor should it be. Minimum wage is meant to be a starting point. Like I said, I got a raise when I was 15, why in the world would an adult not be able to make more than the minimum wage?

 

[Zebo]

Oh one stipulation is I would rid the unions being tied to a min wage multiplier (this is the main reason businesses hate min wage, not the min wage itself)

 

[JD50]

Also, how would it put more money into circulation? Its not like that extra 2 dollars an hour just falls from the sky into the hands of the workers, that money is already in circulation.

 

[Zebo]

I think you missed my point, once you raise the minimum wage, then the people that were making a few dollars above minimum wage are now at the minimum wage and are going to get raises, etc... etc...

Creep only happens with unions since many are tied to a multiplier of min. Doesn't happen. How I wish it happend, certainly nothing to complain about if it did. Incidently I never heard anyone complain about a raise before.

This is like MLK day. If I were a clansman I'd still enjoy my new holiday.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: JD50
Also, how would it put more money into circulation? Its not like that extra 2 dollars an hour just falls from the sky into the hands of the workers, that money is already in circulation.

What happens when you put money in the pockets of people who don't have very much? That's right, they spend it, I don't, I have everything I need. In the case of say a $12 min wage, you would see an explosion of demand, including demand for durable goods like refrigerators, TV sets, and home improvements. Why you might even ignite an economic boom as these workers spend their fattened paychecks. Like all economic booms, this would further increase demand for labor, further driving up wages as the labor market tightened. It would also spur investment to provide goods for this newly vibrant economy.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: JD50
Also, how would it put more money into circulation? Its not like that extra 2 dollars an hour just falls from the sky into the hands of the workers, that money is already in circulation.

What happens when you put money in the pockets of people who don't have very much? That's right, they spend it, I don't, I have everything I need. In the case of say a $12 min wage, you would see an explosion of demand, including demand for durable goods like refrigerators, TV sets, and home improvements. Why you might even ignite an economic boom as these workers spend their fattened paychecks. Like all economic booms, this would further increase demand for labor, further driving up wages as the labor market tightened. It would also spur investment to provide goods for this newly vibrant economy.

That money would be coming from people like me, middle class. Money which I am already spending but now I am spending more on a new microwave at Wal-Mart so some slacka$$ that doesn't want to take the time to better himself can stay content at minimum wage. So basically, redistrubution of wealth.

Instead of enabling people to stay at no skill minimum wage jobs why not encourage them to be a more productive member of society and work up through the job ranks like millions of Americans have done, myself included.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: JD50

That money would be coming from people like me, middle class.

You said your wage would go up earlier? So what's the problem?

You act as if the money supply is fixed. It's not. Continuing on with this theme of putting money in the pockets of the people on the bottom, creating demand and stimulating investment. People now are going to banks for loans to expand business, start new businesses, etc the bank then essentially prints money out of thin air, that right air, based on thier fractional reserve and lends it out. Everyone gets rich. The bankers, the business owners and workers. .It's not a lose win situation as you make it out to be. Nor have you shown how your wage will be depressed at all.