Sanders: 'We have got to apologize for slavery

[jamil]

I was reading a book last night and one of the Princeton mottos was included: "In the Nation's Service". I believe that motto has been around since 1902 when Woodrow Wilson assumed the presidency of Princeton. It is similar in many ways to JFK's "Ask not what your country can do for you.." inaugural address.

Today it seems we've moved to "Every man for himself".

I think we all agree that federal power has grown too large and has too much of an effect on the lives of ordinary citizens. Powerful enterprises working hand in hand with government can only lead to corruption.

Last night I was also thinking about wealth concentration and what it will mean in a couple generations. Will your grandkids be able to afford a home...or even buy a home? Will the rentiers own most of the housing? It has happened in big cities. Will future REIT's buy the best neighborhoods in your town? I don't know if it will happen, but it could happen. Continue to leave wealth in the hands of a few and it will happen. Just a matter of when. It has happened with farmland since the 1930's and many ag states have put in place laws protecting family farms....I guess that's a social policy though....

As Steve said, common ground. I think we agree on the problem. I'm not sure we necessarily agree on causes or solutions.

There is another factor here......pure greed. When is enough going to be enough.

Greed is a problem that can't be solved completely. The effects of greed are most augmented when greed infiltrates a powerful government. And that happening is inevitable. We should fear a government powerful enough to force us to buy a product from a private corporation. That is a crony capitalists wet dream.

Taxation is a policy, not necessarily an organization. We have to pay off the debt run up by unfunded wars and the Keynesian approach to the recession. I don't consider social security to be ideally suited to be in the hands of the federal system Better it was set up as a quasi-corporation with many more options to fund retirement. I'd like it out of the hands of the politicians. Do an actuarial valuation of the present obligations to those over 55. Fund any shortfall over the next 20 years and then set up a real semi-voluntary pension system (mandatory minimum contributions or we'll end up paying for those who don't participate, plus voluntary additional contributions for those who wish to do so and investment options for all voluntary contributions).

I have to say I'm pleasantly surprised by your ideas on how to handle SS.

Ideally, I don't believe that government is the right mechanism to involve itself in people's retirement. But stopping it altogether is not realistic. That's just not going to happen. So I'm very open to transitioning to something that works better, something that shifts more of the responsibility to individuals. And I actually like your idea a lot.

 

[steveh_131]

I have to say I'm pleasantly surprised by your ideas on how to handle SS.

NO. LET THE OLD PEOPLE STARVE.

Actually I like it ok, too. Obviously it's not the ideal solution, which would be to get rid of it altogether, but it is a step in the right direction.

 

[jamil]

It's not the exact same, but the victim is still out of the money because of gross negligence instead of willful theft. With that line of thinking no one ought to get in legal trouble for accidentally hitting and killing a pedestrian with a car. Just let the community shun them.

I don't see a problem with investors suing CEOs for negligence if they have a case. But what you're talking about requires a government way more powerful than it should be.

This is why I am for keeping businesses in check from becoming too big to fail. If they get too big, split them up and let them compete. It'll weed out the bad and/or dumb seeds over time. If one fails there will be a line of companies to pick up the pieces. But I do like your idea if they must exist.

Keeping a business in check? So do we create a Department of Corporate Size? Again that's just way more power than I think the government should have. I'd rather they just never do bailouts.

 

[Woobie]

I was reading a book last night and one of the Princeton mottos was included: "In the Nation's Service". I believe that motto has been around since 1902 when Woodrow Wilson assumed the presidency of Princeton. It is similar in many ways to JFK's "Ask not what your country can do for you.." inaugural address.

Today it seems we've moved to "Every man for himself".

I think we all agree that federal power has grown too large and has too much of an effect on the lives of ordinary citizens. Powerful enterprises working hand in hand with government can only lead to corruption.

Last night I was also thinking about wealth concentration and what it will mean in a couple generations. Will your grandkids be able to afford a home...or even buy a home? Will the rentiers own most of the housing? It has happened in big cities. Will future REIT's buy the best neighborhoods in your town? I don't know if it will happen, but it could happen. Continue to leave wealth in the hands of a few and it will happen. Just a matter of when. It has happened with farmland since the 1930's and many ag states have put in place laws protecting family farms....I guess that's a social policy though....

You and I have agreed on very little in this thread. Until now. I have to say your idea makes a lot of sense. It looks like it would be cheaper for the taxpayer, return more to the worker, and give people control that right now is solely in the hands of gov't. It also accounts for real world we live in, not the one we all want.

 

[Woobie]

I don't see a problem with investors suing CEOs for negligence if they have a case. But what you're talking about requires a government way more powerful than it should be.



Keeping a business in check? So do we create a Department of Corporate Size? Again that's just way more power than I think the government should have. I'd rather they just never do bailouts.

Let me get this straight. There is a legal mechanism through the courts by which people who have suffered financial loss due to the negligence of another can recover part or all of their losses, and that mechanism does not require government regulation? That's just crazy talk.

 

[jamil]

Tell me about Elon Musk and NASA please.

And Pluto.

Sure. Elon Musk is a crony capitalist whose business model depends on government subsidies. NASA should be abolished. If we need space exploration, space explorers should pay for it.

As for Pluto?

[video=youtube;uxBDN9ywgcY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxBDN9ywgcY[/video]

 

[steveh_131]

I don't see a problem with investors suing CEOs for negligence if they have a case. But what you're talking about requires a government way more powerful than it should be.

Exactly. Civil courts exist for these things without writing obtrusive, ineffective regulations.

 

[JS1911]

Not everyone that owns a firearm is a republican.

If they feel like they want to enter this conversation, they are free to do so. The only reason I'm sticking it out is because I came to this site because of guns and this political forum is so lopsided that I might as well be reading "The Hill" or "Breitbart".

Now now, don't fret Skippy. You still have Anarchist Butters on your side.

 

[Libertarian01]

Tell me about Elon Musk and NASA please.

And Pluto.

Care I not if I must stand alone in my bunker on my island defending the thought: Until Hell freezes over PLUTO IS A PLANET!!!

Now, back to your regularly scheduled debate that has gone completely astray from the original point.

Regards,

Doug

 

[1DOWN4UP]

I'm not sure I understand you Steve. I'm saying we still would have to each fund a social security system, but there would be a base mandatory funding from each of us and elective/optional funding above that should we choose to do so. We can't let people decided not to participate because they'll be asking for a handout in the future...at least some of them will. I guess this has a lot of the ideas in the "Bush" plan, but I don't really remember that plan all that well.

Americans are terrible savers. We need some form of mandatory plan. Put everyone in it. Government employees, military, etc.

Social security today is fairly successful. I'll put a chart in below. What doesn't work well is disability and that's where the bottom feeders go. Lots of fraud and abuse.

Type of beneficiary	Beneficiaries	Total monthly benefits (millions of dollars)	Average monthly benefit (dollars)
Number (thousands)	Percent
Total	59,530	100.0	72,613	1,219.77
Old-Age and Survivors Insurance	48,609	81.7	61,507	1,265.34
Retirement benefits	42,468	71.3	54,702	1,288.05
Retired workers	39,505	66.4	52,708	1,334.21
Spouses of retired workers	2,306	3.9	1,566	679.20
Children of retired workers	658	1.1	427	650.03
Survivor benefits	6,141	10.3	6,805	1,108.25
Children of deceased workers	1,935	3.2	1,612	833.35
Widowed mothers and fathers	138	0.2	128	928.93
Nondisabled widow(er)s	3,808	6.4	4,877	1,280.71
Disabled widow(er)s	259	0.4	187	721.49
Parents of deceased workers	1	(L)	1	1,126.46
Disability Insurance	10,921	18.3	11,106	1,016.93
Disabled workers	8,939	15.0	10,416	1,165.20
Spouses of disabled workers	146	0.2	46	316.15
Children of disabled workers	1,837	3.1	644	350.80
SOURCE: Social Security Administration, Master Beneficiary Record, 100 percent data.
NOTE: (L) = less than 0.05 percent.
CONTACT: (410) 965-0090 or statistics@ssa.gov.

Americans are terrible savers,and I do agree.We do have a mandatory plan,and it is being robbed blind.I do not feel it is successful,because the time I reach my time to draw,it will be broke.Ted Kennedy was the clown who fought Bush when he wanted to pay us Boomers because we were told that when we were of age,It would be broke.Ted said that we were to stupid to invest ourselves. Be happy you got yours,because I have no faith in the entire shell game.

 

[Alpo]

If it is made into an annuity/pension plan and the rest of the stuff is lopped off (disability, survivors, spousal benefit), it could be a VERY successful plan. Need disability coverage? Buy insurance. Survivors and spouse? You get the proceeds of the old man's fund at his death, which can be rolled over into your own plan or distributed as dad saw fit in his will.

Medicare is a marginally good plan as it stands, but we still have to buy supplemental coverage because of government shortfalls. There really is no need to be all that different with social security.

 

[Leadeye]

NO. LET THE OLD PEOPLE STARVE.

Actually I like it ok, too. Obviously it's not the ideal solution, which would be to get rid of it altogether, but it is a step in the right direction.

Watch out for old people, at least some of them.

 

[MisterChester]

I don't see a problem with investors suing CEOs for negligence if they have a case. But what you're talking about requires a government way more powerful than it should be.



Keeping a business in check? So do we create a Department of Corporate Size? Again that's just way more power than I think the government should have. I'd rather they just never do bailouts.

I'd rather they not bail them out either. Unfortunately it has become expected of the government to write a blank check to banks and money businesses for their own failures. They know they can threaten the government with "hellfire and brimstone will rain if you don't give us money!" and it works, because if they go out of business then politicians will lose a lot of future campaign money.

 

[BugI02]

America Lost $10.2 Trillion Of Wealth In 2008 - Business Insider

I think at least a RICO investigation would have sufficed. Worked on the mafia.

It was a distillation process, kind of like making Brandy. America lost Trillions so the kleptocracy could pocket billions

 

[BugI02]

There are some common themes arising in this thread, along with a couple of extras to help illustrate, that I would like to bring to everyone's attention:

Collective bargaining = good. Collective bargaining agents controlling government by buying politicians = bad

Profit = good. Profitable companies controlling government by buying politicians = bad

Owning your own assets = good. Giving your assets to government instead of your kids = bad

Giving money to help people = good. Giving money to government so they can waste it in the name of helping people = bad

Anybody see any commonality here? Oh, and if you're confused:

Money = tool. Tools are tools, they don't have a will, can't choose to do good things or bad things. They are just applied to a task by someone who is good or evil or a moron.

Beyond a certain point, A tool in whose hands. "Ye cannot serve God and mammon."

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

When you think about it, how is it fair that some people have the extra income to save in a 401k account and others don't. It only makes sense to raid those accounts and give the money to the poor and downtrodden.

Soon enough....Soon enough....

 

[BugI02]

Yeah, and hiding your rep in offshore accounts shouldn't be allowed either. Everyone should see how much rep you've hoarded away.

And all those people with the golden rep balls...stars...whatever, they just take all the rep so the rest of us can't have any. We should shame them for taking it all for themselves. They're all members of the rep pyramid club, AKA the "I've-got-mine" club. And the more they take, the less we have. I mean, it's like a pie. If their slice is bigger, that means my slice is smaller. I just want my fair share. Equal slices for all.

Edit: Um. wait. never mind the comment about hiding rep in offshore accounts.

Believe in America! Invest in the Caymans. - M Romney

 

[BugI02]

I'm not sure I understand you Steve. I'm saying we still would have to each fund a social security system, but there would be a base mandatory funding from each of us and elective/optional funding above that should we choose to do so. We can't let people decided not to participate because they'll be asking for a handout in the future...at least some of them will. I guess this has a lot of the ideas in the "Bush" plan, but I don't really remember that plan all that well.

Americans are terrible savers. We need some form of mandatory plan. Put everyone in it. Government employees, military, etc.

Social security today is fairly successful. I'll put a chart in below. What doesn't work well is disability and that's where the bottom feeders go. Lots of fraud and abuse.

Type of beneficiary	Beneficiaries	Total monthly benefits (millions of dollars)	Average monthly benefit (dollars)
Number (thousands)	Percent
Total	59,530	100.0	72,613	1,219.77
Old-Age and Survivors Insurance	48,609	81.7	61,507	1,265.34
Retirement benefits	42,468	71.3	54,702	1,288.05
Retired workers	39,505	66.4	52,708	1,334.21
Spouses of retired workers	2,306	3.9	1,566	679.20
Children of retired workers	658	1.1	427	650.03
Survivor benefits	6,141	10.3	6,805	1,108.25
Children of deceased workers	1,935	3.2	1,612	833.35
Widowed mothers and fathers	138	0.2	128	928.93
Nondisabled widow(er)s	3,808	6.4	4,877	1,280.71
Disabled widow(er)s	259	0.4	187	721.49
Parents of deceased workers	1	(L)	1	1,126.46
Disability Insurance	10,921	18.3	11,106	1,016.93
Disabled workers	8,939	15.0	10,416	1,165.20
Spouses of disabled workers	146	0.2	46	316.15
Children of disabled workers	1,837	3.1	644	350.80
SOURCE: Social Security Administration, Master Beneficiary Record, 100 percent data.
NOTE: (L) = less than 0.05 percent.
CONTACT: (410) 965-0090 or statistics@ssa.gov.

Hi, Alpo. Isn't the rule of thumb that only 1/3 of professional money managers beat the appropriate benchmark? I can only believe lesser mortals will do worse. I think it is too much money chasing too little gains and will only distort the market while feathering the nests of a bumper crop of 'investment professionals'. Individuals voluntarily moved to prepare for the future, saving from their own pockets, I think will be much more motivated to due diligence. It would probably be good to expose them to basic finance in late high school and again in early college, with the courses not being elective. I wish someone had sat me down in my late teens or early twentys and mapped out what investing just 10% of my earnings every year would do for me.

 

[BugI02]

This is why I am for keeping businesses in check from becoming too big to fail. If they get too big, split them up and let them compete. It'll weed out the bad and/or dumb seeds over time. If one fails there will be a line of companies to pick up the pieces. But I do like your idea if they must exist.

Giving a governmental entity the power to split corporations 'judged' TBTF just establishes another pathway to corruption. What's the futures predicted cost of buying a legislator on the TBTF sub-committee.

 

[BugI02]

Steveh and others are right - more government is never the right answer. Maybe one man, one vote instead on one share, one vote to shake up corporate governance would help