Left-braining on Social Security

[zeitgeist]

 
Only from at dump can you get a thread like this one.  Pull up your waders and wander over to read the whole thing or just catch a few high lights below Check the I like Ike posts at link
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8396507

bvar22  (1000+ posts)         Sun May-23-10 02:50 AM
Original message
How to fix Social Security the "Old Democratic Party" way:
 1)Raise or Remove the Cap.
There are many arguments being offered in opposition to this.
None of these arguments are valid.
Raising the Cap will NOT hurt the Working Class. The majority of Americans in the Working Class are already well below the cap.
Those Americans who are in the Upper Middle Class, and the RICH will simply have to pay a fairer share.

2)Expand the Working Class by Liberalizing and Facilitating Immigration
If the problem is not enough workers to support the retiring "Boomers",
the answer is NOT cutting benefits.
The answer is More WORKERS!
Open America's doors to people who want to WORK for a living, and focus our national effort at creating GOOD jobs with real BENEFITS that will attract the cream of workers from around the World.
I've driven across America, and it is a BIG place. America is no where near Filled Up. There is still plenty of space for WORKERS.
All we need is the jobs.
 
{snip}

yada yada and more yada like above.


5)Break Up the Big Boxes and enact "Fair Competition" legislation that lets Mom & Pop and Family Farms compete with Big Corpo on a level playing field.
Radically De-Centralize and limit Corporate Power. Make THEM compete.
This would do more to create jobs than a government Jobs Program.
Reverse the WalMartization of America, and begin to restore LOCAL economies where money stays in local circulation sustaining local jobs instead of being immediately sucked out to Corporate HQ.

These are just a few things that an Old Style, Pro-Working Class, Pro-LABOR "Democratic Party" could do the "save" Social Security.
Unfortunately, none of these things are even open for discussion in today's "New Democrat" led Party.
They are going to "save" Social Security the "New Democrat" way.
God help the Working Class.

A load of typical stuff follows

Demeter  (1000+ posts)        Sun May-23-10 02:52 AM
Response to Original message
1. In a time of 20% Unemployment, I Hardly Think We Need More Workers
  
 Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

 bvar22  (1000+ posts)         Sun May-23-10 02:58 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. Didn't read the rest of the post...
 ...did ya?

The majority of the post was about creating good jobs for an expanding Working Class.
You know, the USA has successfully done this in the past.
 Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

 William Z. Foster (841 posts)      Sun May-23-10 02:22 PM
Response to Reply #1
19. depends
 Edited on Sun May-23-10 02:23 PM by William Z. Foster
The political right sees the owners and the wealthy as the source of prosperity. The political left sees workers as the source of wealth and prosperity.

What the right wingers fail to see is that every worker is also a consumer. Adding workers adds consumers and demands for services. You are making the same error.

 
 Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

Depends are what you will be wearing Zummie!!

 napi21  (1000+ posts)         Sun May-23-10 03:16 AM
Response to Original message
3. I agree with you. I'm now retired, but during my entire working life,
 I remember the cap on SS beingraised on a reguolar basis. I was always unde the cap so I always paid into SS on my total earnings. What the hell is wrong with doing that same thing now? It's really no big deal and NOBODY would be hurt by doing so. Yea, I know. All the Pubs would scream because TAXES would be being raised1!!! Well, BFD! Get the hell over it!
 Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

Oh my, this could end badly for Yupster. ( any relation to any other Yup??)

Yupster (1000+ posts)      Sun May-23-10 02:19 PM
Response to Reply #6
18. How's about adding a # 4
 4. Make social security universal by bringing in those workers that are currently not in the system, mostly public schoolteachers.

I've never had it explained to me why so many teachers aren't in the system to begin with.
 Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

Hannah Bell (1000+ posts)        Sun May-23-10 04:41 PM
Response to Reply #18
22. i'd support that.  
 WHY ARE CONNECTICUT TEACHERS EXCLUDED FROM SOCIAL SECURITY FOR PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHING SERVICE?

When Congress passed the Social Security Act in 1935, it excluded federal, state, and local government employees from mandatory coverage. The exclusion for state and local public employees was based on constitutional concerns about whether the federal government could impose taxes on state governments. In the early 1950s, Congress passed a law that allowed state and local government employees to be covered if they voluntarily chose coverage in a referendum. The then-members of the Teachers' Retirement System voted against joining the Social Security system. In 1959, at the request of the Connecticut Education Association, the General Assembly prohibited TRS members from holding another referendum (CGS § 5-158(d)). The ban on Social Security coverage for Connecticut teachers remains in place.

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2006/rpt/2006-R-0547.htm  

Yupster (1000+ posts)      Sun May-23-10 05:52 PM
Response to Reply #22
27. This should be overturned  
 as no one else gets to hold referrenda on whether they want to be in social security or not.

I bet doctors would love to set up their own system to cover only themselves, or stockbrokers or lawyers.

The idea that only teachers should enjoy that right should be an easy problem to solve.

Make the universal program universal -- it would ease much of the pressure off the system too besiades being basic fairness in the first place.

Well now what are the chances of killing this golden goose to the tax payer?  Hum?  I can hardly wait for the teachers lobby to join in on this thread.  


 

[Carl]

Those that suck off the teat of public wage never allow themselves the risks that those who have to fund them take.

I do know there is essential government jobs and not all that hold those positions are DUmmies but it does need to be noted that the unions formed to negotiate with government (wtf on that to start with) will never subject anyone to government subsistence.

[The Village Idiot]

Less efficiency!

More Workers!

Less efficiency!

More Workers!


DUmmies

[LC EFA]

I've driven across America, and it is a BIG place. America is no where near Filled Up. There is still plenty of space for WORKERS.
All we need is the jobs.

Yeah. Just get Obama to wave his magic JobWandâ„¢ and all these jobs will magically appear. Maybe dig some jobs out of Obama's stash.

[zeitgeist]

Bonus link on Public Unions:

The central portion of While America Aged: How Pension Debts Ruined General Motors, Stopped the NYC Subways, Bankrupted San Diego, and Loom as the Next Financial Crisis covers the history of public employee unions, which turn out to be a surprisingly recent phenomenon. Politicians were traditionally opposed to public employees’ right to unionize, strike, or collectively bargain for wage and benefit increases. They saw their constituents as the taxpaying public and did not think that the government was such an abusive employer that unionization was necessary to protect workers. Calvin Coolidge, as governor of Massachhusetts, summarized the feeling of the average politician: “There is no right to strike against the public safety by anyone, anywhere, any time.”

The result was that public employees were generally paid less than private sector workers, but could not be fired for incompetence or unproductivity and had better benefits, including small pensions that typically started at age 65 or 70 or upon becoming totally disabled.

http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2009/09/07/history-of-public-employee-unions/

I have a real axe to grind with unions in general but public unions in particular.  

[JohnnyReb]

DUmmie solution: Fire one $14 an hour American and put him on disability. Hire three illegal aliens at $7.25 and WAA-LAA problem solv....hmmmmm.....need more workers.

[Ballygrl]

Immigration isn't going to help Social Security, they tend to work low-wage jobs, and even when they pay into SS, they take more then they give so it's not worth it.

[DumbAss Tanker]

Putting big boxes out of business in favor of mom-and-pops to help Social Security is like trying to put out a fire by throwing gasoline on it.

Knocking off big box stores would probably result in more minimum wage jobs net, just thanks to the lack of an economy of scale working at the retail level.  Of course the vast majority of them would be worse jobs with even fewer benefits, since they'd be stores below minimum-number-of-employee thresholds for any benefits or protections the employees would actually want, and non-union to boot.  Then the lack of efficient distribution and relatively high overhead would cause prices of most consumer commodities to double.  Next, all those workers would demand the minimum wage (Which is all mom and pop can pay them, if that in the case of family dragooned into helping) go up to match.  Finally the people already on Social Security find they can buy about half what the used to be able to buy, and demand their COLA escalate to cover the suddenly-rising cost curve of living. 

Net result, some more people end up with jobs, but the overall quality of the jobs goes down, inflation goes through the roof, and Social Security is in even deeper trouble than it was already.

Brilliant plan.  This DUer must be on Obama's Council of Economic Advisors.

[The Village Idiot]

They won't be non-union.

EVERYONE is going to be forced into a union if they get their way.

Day Care Center owners were forced into a government-controlled "union" in Michigan and there is but 1 owner per business.

[DumbAss Tanker]

They won't be non-union.

EVERYONE is going to be forced into a union if they get their way.

Day Care Center owners were forced into a government-controlled "union" in Michigan and there is but 1 owner per business.

That only makes the employment of anyone besides mom and pop's kids (Which will be an exception, anywhere but Michigan anyway) more problematic, and the cost position of the businesses even worse, so it doesn't change the outcome in a positive way.

[NHSparky]

Bonus link on Public Unions:

I have a real axe to grind with unions in general but public unions in particular.  

Oh, but Cujo will be here any second to tell you what a raw deal he's getting while he finagles multi-million dollar deals for Massport.

[jukin]

1+1 Still does not equal 93.

Good try and I'm sure your fellow inmates think it is marvelous.

[The Village Idiot]

Oh, but Cujo will be here any second to tell you what a raw deal he's getting while he finagles multi-million dollar deals for Massport.

Masspork

lol

[kenth]

What the right wingers fail to see is that every worker is also a consumer. Adding workers adds consumers and demands for services. You are making the same error.

Without a job, what does he consume, besides the family dog? I've never been employed by a poor person.

Down with business, up with jobs! Idiots.

[zeitgeist]

Oh, but Cujo will be here any second to tell you what a raw deal he's getting while he finagles multi-million dollar deals for Massport.

Wait till cooljoke's kid comes home and moves back in all knocked up with a cheeto eatin dummie who can't or won't get a job. I think the kid on "Til Death"  

Cooljoke (or crueljoke as his mother probably called him) was a pistol, mostly going off half-cocked, as stable as nitro.  I keep waiting for his name to turn up in a neighbor or road rage incident.

One day he might just ditch the fry cook Frau and run off with CEO, what a pair they would make, the bag brothers, douche and duffel, they both had the any port in a storm mind set.   I suspect CEO was Algore's gunbearer in Nam and Cooljokes mother's half-brother's cousin's neighbor was up the river in Cambodia with J F Kerry.  

[crockspot]

All we need is the jobs.

No shit, Sherlock. Why do you thing Obama is focused like a laser on creating them?

[BlueStateSaint]

No shit, Sherlock. Why do you thing Obama is focused like a laser on creating them?

That is, if a blunderbuss can be focused . . .