Stimulus package??

[EEinNJ]

I'm glad that itemized list was posted because it provides some meaning to an otherwise intangible omnibus spending bill generically called "stimulus". We can make our own value decisions about the merits of each item, but the fact is the money spent is going someplace, whether infrastructure, education, health & welfare, or extending the safety net when more people will need it for longer. Personally I think all those items are a better bet than more loans to corporations like GM and Citigroup, that will probably never pay it back.
It points out, though, the way legislation is made has not changed- there will still be pork and waste. Obama doesn't write the laws. But he is putting Biden in charge of making sure the money is spent responsibly, and they seem committed to cutting wasteful programs, cutting private contractors, and being honest about the real costs (like the Iraq war).

[cptacek]

Originally Posted by sweeps

As far as food stamps is concerned, that's money that's going to be spent IMMEDIATELY.

I am against spending money on this laundry list of items too, but saying they wouldn't provide stimulus? Come on.

You really think that providing more food stamp money will stimulate the economy? Do you think, then, that everyone in the country should get food stamps? Wow, the economy would skyrocket!

A little facetious, I admit, but if you are of the camp that ALL government spending will stimulate the economy, then you should be against the stimulus package too! You should just want the budget bigger, not a special spending bill in addition to the regular spending bill that will do the same thing.

[GrimJack]

Originally Posted by adam_c

Social Security is a failure because it is a ponzi scheme. The folks on social security today are not reaping the rewards of their life long investment into the system. That money got spent years ago. The are reaping the benefit of current taxation. With life expectancy and cost of living increasing, it takes more and more tax payers at the base to pay benefits to the receivers. Today's tax payers will never see a dime of the money they are paying in. It's a tax. Plain and simple.

The Social Security System is over 1.2 trillion to the good, so it may take a little time to run through that.

Which demonstrates to me that your outlook is very short sighted. After all the money the government has confiscated through the social security tax over the years, you can only point to what is happening in the last six months.

I am sure that this bit has a point but I do not follow - could you restate that.

See, you don't get to tell me that it is all a stereotype. I've been there. I've watched government intervention destroy the human spirit of my family members. I don't know your background, but I'll put my story up against yours any day. This stuff is real to me.

Personal stories are always the most difficult; I will admit that some people play right to the stereotype.

[sweeps]

Originally Posted by cptacek

You really think that providing more food stamp money will stimulate the economy? Do you think, then, that everyone in the country should get food stamps? Wow, the economy would skyrocket!

A little facetious, I admit, but if you are of the camp that ALL government spending will stimulate the economy, then you should be against the stimulus package too! You should just want the budget bigger, not a special spending bill in addition to the regular spending bill that will do the same thing.

If you read my post, it says I am not in favor of throwing money at all those things. I disputed your statement that those things would not cause stimulus. I quote:

Originally Posted by cptacek

I tried to really think (albeit quickly) about if the above things would stimulate the economy. There are a LOT of other things shown in that document that I could also point out, but the above ones jumped out at me immediately as not stimulative.

Although arguably fiscally irresponsible, putting a whole bunch of money in something like food stamps will cause immediate stimulus because that money will be spent right away. It will be MUCH more stimulative than, say, a broad tax rebate. Why? Because you and I and millions of other people will just stash that rebate check in savings.

[adam_c]

Good morning, GrimJack. I hope you have enjoyed this as much as I have. Something tells me this thread is not going to be around much longer.

Originally Posted by GrimJack

The Social Security System is over 1.2 trillion to the good, so it may take a little time to run through that.

Can you cite your reference for that, please?

I am sure that this bit has a point but I do not follow - could you restate that.

No, but I'll clarify. Your comment was, "where would they be today?" as if the events of the last six months would somehow validates the need for century long program of taxing people in the prime of their working years, depriving them of the opportunity to use that money as they see fit, only to return it to them at the end of their life with this admonition of "see, you would be eating dogfood and living on the streets if we hadn't forced you to give us this money."

Okay, since SS seems to be one of your favorite topics for this debate,

1. please tell us how all those SS tax dollars have been invested over the years that they are providing such a suitable return for retirees.
2. If SS is anything but a ponzi scheme, why can't it be voluntary?

Personal stories are always the most difficult; I will admit that some people play right to the stereotype.

Did you ever the movie Good Will Hunting? Loved that movie. Especially the part where Robin Williams & Matt Damon are sitting on the park bench and Williams tells Damon- "I bet if I ask you about love, you would quote me Shakespeare, but you've never held a woman on the beach. If I asked you about war, you could quote a thousand statistics, but you've never held a friend as he dies in your arms." (paraphrasing here).

I suspect you can quote me all sorts of statistics about SS, but you've never sat with your 68 year old Grandmother who is scared to death because $1200/month SS is all they have and if she gets a job, they will decrease her benefits. And she realizes that this was the golden dream??

You can quote me statistics about the benefits of food stamps and how healthy kids are more productive citizens, but you have never had a conversation with someone who has given up hope of getting off the system.

So yeah, you have played right into the stereotypes. You've given every typical liberal answer possible to this thread.

[GrimJack]

Originally Posted by adam_c

Good morning, GrimJack. I hope you have enjoyed this as much as I have. Something tells me this thread is not going to be around much longer.

I am actually enjoying this - though sometimes I get 'invested' in my position.This thread was actually closed for a brief period; I got paranoid about breaking a rule somewhere so i spent most of an hour trying to figure out what went wrong and finally sent a message to the Mods asking what happened. Jeffrey responded that he did not know and re-opened the thread(whew!)

Can you cite your reference for that, please?

Dang! I knew I shoulda bookmarked that page - give me a moment...... Here is a1998 Senate Budget Committee session transcript - I will continue to look for a more current accounting

No, but I'll clarify. Your comment was, "where would they be today?" as if the events of the last six months would somehow validates the need for century long program of taxing people in the prime of their working years, depriving them of the opportunity to use that money as they see fit, only to return it to them at the end of their life with this admonition of "see, you would be eating dogfood and living on the streets if we hadn't forced you to give us this money."

You cannot time the market. Of course, I use the current problems as an example because the market gains are averages over long periods of time; at any instant in time there is no predicting where the market will be. Also keep in mind that it is a VERY recent invention that a person could buy less than a 'round lot' (100 shares); mutual funds are a recent invention, IRAs are a recent invention along with 401ks (401ks were invented to give really wealthy individuals another way to sequester money and only recently became available to the common folk). Until Social Security came along, you worked until you died or went to 'the poor house'; if you were really lucky, you had a pension (speaking of which, once 401ks became available to common folk - most pension plans were cashed out).

Okay, since SS seems to be one of your favorite topics for this debate,

1. please tell us how all those SS tax dollars have been invested over the years that they are providing such a suitable return for retirees.

They are invested in the US economy via treasury bonds

2. If SS is anything but a ponzi scheme, why can't it be voluntary?

Most people do not worry about retirement until after their kids are out of the house, by which time, they have lost the most valuable invention of the 20th Century - compound interest).

Did you ever the movie Good Will Hunting? Loved that movie. Especially the part where Robin Williams & Matt Damon are sitting on the park bench and Williams tells Damon- "I bet if I ask you about love, you would quote me Shakespeare, but you've never held a woman on the beach. If I asked you about war, you could quote a thousand statistics, but you've never held a friend as he dies in your arms." (paraphrasing here).

The closest you will ever get to an answer from me is that I joined the Marine Corps in 1968 - and I was old when I went in

I suspect you can quote me all sorts of statistics about SS, but you've never sat with your 68 year old Grandmother who is scared to death because $1200/month SS is all they have and if she gets a job, they will decrease her benefits. And she realizes that this was the golden dream??

You bring up memories of my father's death from cancer - let me quote about every 'contestant' on the Jerry Springer show - You do not know me. I am not on this thread to drag my emotions for public display so I am going to say something harsh - I don't care about the pain you've suffered. So you are saying your grandmother would be better off w/o 1200/month and should just go to work? Your grandmother had 1200/month from SS what are you whining about?

You can quote me statistics about the benefits of food stamps and how healthy kids are more productive citizens, but you have never had a conversation with someone who has given up hope of getting off the system.

So yeah, you have played right into the stereotypes. You've given every typical liberal answer possible to this thread.

You are whining because SS did not pay your grandmother enough but you want to take SS away from everybody.

Given up hope of getting off the system - the system kicks her out after 5 years - the welfare system was 'reformed 15 years ago to have a lifetime limit of 5 years. You dang crackhead conservatives can't help but whine about granny not getting enough from SS to live on so everybody should suffer.

(I really do not mean to kick your grandmother but you held her up in front of you - ooh, now I am getting too harsh for me.)

A quick calculation says that in order to have 14,400 annual income with a 'safe' withdrawal of 4%, you would need 360,000 invested - this is a quickie calc based on the 'rule of 25' and does not take into account inflation. How much did your grandparents make in their entire lifetime?

[adam_c]

They are invested in the US economy via treasury bonds

So, let me get make sure I understand this. The Government takes money in the form of taxes. Then it loans that money to itself in the form of a treasury bond and promises to pay that money back in the future with interest.

Most people do not worry about retirement until after their kids are out of the house, by which time, they have lost the most valuable invention of the 20th Century - compound interest).

So, the beauty of the SS system is that it forces individuals to invest (and I use that very loosely) so they can take of advantage of the valuable compound interest they earn by allowing the government to take the money and then loan it back to itself in the form of a treasury bond.

The closest you will ever get to an answer from me is that I joined the Marine Corps in 1968 - and I was old when I went in

Thank you for your service. I mean that.

I don't care about the pain you've suffered.

And here we get to the crux of our disagreement. Of course you don't care about another individual's pain. I've yet to meet a liberal who does. They want to implement sweeping programs that don't work, then chalk every instance of its failure up to "well that's just anecdotal".

So you are saying your grandmother would be better off w/o 1200/month and should just go to work? Your grandmother had 1200/month from SS what are you whining about?
You are whining because SS did not pay your grandmother enough but you want to take SS away from everybody.

I'm saying that I wish they had not spent their working years believing a lie that if they just pay their taxes, the government would take care of them when they reached retirement age.

It is interesting to me that you have consistently referred to my comments as "whining". I'm not whining at all. I'm demonstrating to you in a logical and orderly fashion that government welfare programs are no benefit to its citizens.

My point isn't that Social Security didn't pay her enough. My grandparents would be better off if it had never been in the first place because their financial decisions were based on their trust that what the government provided would be sufficient. They were lied to, pure and simple. The money they are receiving is not a return on their investment. It is welfare. They are wards of the state. I'll prove that in just a moment.

Given up hope of getting off the system - the system kicks her out after 5 years - the welfare system was 'reformed 15 years ago to have a lifetime limit of 5 years. You dang crackhead conservatives can't help but whine about granny not getting enough from SS to live on so everybody should suffer.

Again, you're argument isn't based in reality. I know these people. They are still on the system and the people working in the system make every effort to encourage and help them to stay there. That's how they get their funding for next year.

Crackhead conservative? I'll blame that lapse of judgment on the fact that you were writing after midnight.

(I really do not mean to kick your grandmother but you held her up in front of you - ooh, now I am getting too harsh for me.)

Somehow, I don't believe a word of that.

A quick calculation says that in order to have 14,400 annual income with a 'safe' withdrawal of 4%, you would need 360,000 invested - this is a quickie calc based on the 'rule of 25' and does not take into account inflation. How much did your grandparents make in their entire lifetime?

I hope we can put this SS discussion to rest and move on to something more interesting. You began by claiming that SS was the government's biggest success story.

You follow up by telling me that it is currently $1.5 Trillion in the black with an investment strategy of selling treasury bonds to itself.

Then you back up your claim that it is a better system by pointing out that my grandparents could not have generated this level of return on their own, which leads me to ask, who's money are they getting now? SS is not an investment. They aren't retired, they are wards of the state. This is a welfare program.

You mentioned earlier that no one lives comfortably on welfare. You're right. SS will keep the lights on and that's about it. It would be nice if folks had been told that a little sooner.


Side note. I absolutely love this country. I had to defend this country to my progressive cousin who thinks we're evil imperialist. This is the best place on the planet. But I disagree with you that SS and food stamps are two of our bigger accomplishments. I believe them to be two of our bigger failures. You and I don't have to agree on that, which is also one of the beauties of our country. There is room for both of us.

2nd side note. I don't have pain. I thank God that I grew up the way I did. I grew up learning you have to save up to buy things. I learned that you don't ever get to stop working hard, unless you want to end up on welfare. I learned you better never stop learning or the world will pass you by. I learned that one of the goals of every parent is to make sure your kids have a chance for a better life than you had.

Those lessons don't come from homes on welfare. That's all I'm saying.

cheers,
Adam C

[GrimJack]

Originally Posted by adam_c

Quote:
(I really do not mean to kick your grandmother but you held her up in front of you - ooh, now I am getting too harsh for me.)

Somehow, I don't believe a word of that.




cheers,
Adam C

I no longer respect you enough to continue.

[cptacek]

Originally Posted by GrimJack

I no longer respect you enough to continue.

Translation: "Drat, he proved me wrong with the rest of his argument, so I'm not going to talk to him anymore."

[GrimJack]

Originally Posted by cptacek

Translation: "Drat, he proved me wrong with the rest of his argument, so I'm not going to talk to him anymore."

You are an ignorant twit who accepts personal insult is height of intellectual discourse. Why do you even bother to post when you have nothing to contribute?

I take the time to post thoughtful, semi-articulate positions, trying to make points with wit and nuance and humor (to be honest, I really like my sense of humor - heck, I even snigger at some of the points I make) - I even make sure to go back and remove emotionally laden words with more neutral meanings. I love discussion and argument but I detest willful ignorance. Appeals to emotion, ridicule, spite, are not acceptable forms of debate.

Adam_C has ignored every single point I have made and chooses his points from Rush's Talking Points Memo; I do not think he reads the underpinnings for concepts he espouses. Seeing the world in black and white - as a 'zero sum game' is not a nuanced point of view.

[adam_c]

I take the time to post thoughtful, semi-articulate positions, trying to make points with wit and nuance and humor (to be honest, I really like my sense of humor - heck, I even snigger at some of the points I make) - I even make sure to go back and remove emotionally laden words with more neutral meanings. I love discussion and argument but I detest willful ignorance. Appeals to emotion, ridicule, spite, are not acceptable forms of debate.

Mr. GrimJack, with all due respect, you strike me as a double minded man; unstable in all his ways. You began this thread with three requirements of others; a. Read the document (you had not), b. no name calling (Crackhead Conservative?) and c. no labels unless you can explain how the label is accurate (far right=....).

You ask several members if they "want children to starve?", but proclaim, quite proudly it seems, "I don't care about the pain you've suffered."

I'm beginning to think this was a fruitless endeavor.

Adam_C has ignored every single point I have made.

Horse pucky. You said, "SS is the government's greatest success story." I agreed, adding that it simply demonstrates the failure of our government.

You said, "SS money is invested in Treasury Bonds", which is another way of saying it goes straight to general revenues with an IOU for the future.

You point out that my grandparents could not have amassed the amount of principle needed to generate $14K a year under historical market conditions. I pointed out that they can't get those returns from Treasury Bonds either.

You point out that no one lives comfortably on welfare. I agreed and pointed out that SS is in fact welfare because the money paid in by the participants could never have returned the amount they are receiving now. They are receiving someone else's money. They are wards of the state.

and chooses his points from Rush's Talking Points Memo; I do not think he reads the underpinnings for concepts he espouses. Seeing the world in black and white - as a 'zero sum game' is not a nuanced point of view.

You still don't get it. I don't "espouse concepts". I explained to you how my own upbringing and the things I have witnessed helped to build my core beliefs. I don't just debate this stuff, I believe this stuff. If Rush wants to borrow those thoughts for his talking points, I guess I'll let him.

I suspect we're done here. I wish you well.

Adam C

[GrimJack]

Originally Posted by GrimJack

You are an ignorant twit who accepts personal insult is height of intellectual discourse. Why do you even bother to post when you have nothing to contribute?

I take the time to post thoughtful, semi-articulate positions, trying to make points with wit and nuance and humor (to be honest, I really like my sense of humor - heck, I even snigger at some of the points I make) - I even make sure to go back and remove emotionally laden words with more neutral meanings. I love discussion and argument but I detest willful ignorance. Appeals to emotion, ridicule, spite, are not acceptable forms of debate.

Adam_C has ignored every single point I have made and chooses his points from Rush's Talking Points Memo; I do not think he reads the underpinnings for concepts he espouses. Seeing the world in black and white - as a 'zero sum game' is not a nuanced point of view.

Oh, crap - I forgot to walk away from my keyboard before posting, sigh.

[GrimJack]

@Adam_C: you held your crying grandmother in your arms - she was going to have to go to work because her SS was not enough to support her; you were too lazy, too dumb, too something to learn how income affects SS.

When I pointed out how much your grandparents would have had to have saved to produce the SS income she was crying about, you complained that your grandparents were deprived of the enjoyment of the payroll tax while they could have enjoyed it. This implies that you would prefer to have held your crying grandmother in your arms when she worried about having to go to work with no SS to help.

You think food stamps are a terrible thing so your grandmother would get no food support. I expect that you are against gov. supported housing.

The government is taking care of your grandmother; the government provides a floor below which she cannot fall. Saying that if the government had not put false expectations into their heads means they would have done better is not supported by anything in the data.

You find me heartless because I do not care about the pain you have suffered and yet every sentence in which you mention your pain - you specifically say that I have not suffered pain; that I do not know the pain of....

You still do not get what a line is; you do not get humor. You do not understand the difference between welfare and social security. You claim that your relatives are able to bypass the welfare '5 year limit'. You claim family members to support all of your assertions - the reason I do not accept anecdotal stories over statistics is because there is no way I can verify what you say whereas if you had some sort of data to back up what you say, I could go look at the data.

You are correct this conversation is pretty much of a waste because we are speaking 2 different languages that only appear to have words in common.