LawTalkers - Pepper sprayed for public safety.

LawTalkers (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/index.php)

- Politics (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)

- - Pepper sprayed for public safety. (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=863)

Re: Pepper sprayed for public safety.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch (Post 469287)

FYI, my view is virtually quoted from the 2012 report of the SS and Medicare Trustees. Such silly, crazy, "serious" people they are.

No, they only get to be VSPs when they start advocating benefit cuts in order to "save" social security.

Re: Pepper sprayed for public safety.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 469292)

If you want a heavy duty data dive, I can send you to the sources, but the other categories are mostly pension related, which apparently in the SS administration's eyes is not either earned (e.g., income from current employment or an active trade or business) or unearned (e.g., income from investments and assets, which includes IRAs and 401Ks). There is a strange logic to that - perhaps it could be called "previously earned". That income is declining with increasing rapidity.

One thing the SSA has is lots of data.

That's pretty standard usage.

But what's confusing to me is what the percentages are of. I thought at first they were percentage of total income for benefit recipients in each age group, but if that's it, I don't understand why they don't sum to 100.

Re: Pepper sprayed for public safety.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 469294)

Hmm. I sense a Very Slow Reader here.

Re: Pepper sprayed for public safety.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 469295)

Hmm. I sense a Very Slow Reader here.

You expect me to read what you write?

Pensions. Got it.

ETA: Actually, that just raises other questions. What are these non-investment, non-wage sources of income for the people under 64? Or maybe they are other types of government benefits (as these folks who are either disabled or recipients of survivor benefits). Regardless, I'm still surprised that the three categories are such a low percentage of income for the two younger groups.

Re: Pepper sprayed for public safety.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 469293)

No, they only get to be VSPs when they start advocating benefit cuts in order to "save" social security.

It's "wrong and foolish" to think that spending less is one way to reduce deficit spending?

Your level of smugness is majestic, though I guess if it's compared to Krugman it isn't so bad.

Re: Pepper sprayed for public safety.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 469292)

If you want a heavy duty data dive, I can send you to the sources, but the other categories are mostly pension related for the retirees, which apparently in the SS administration's eyes is not either earned (e.g., income from current employment or an active trade or business) or unearned (e.g., income from investments and assets, which includes IRAs and 401Ks). There is a strange logic to that - perhaps it could be called "previously earned". That pension income category is declining with increasing rapidity.

The younger recipients may be getting money from other gov't programs, other insurance, etc.

One thing the SSA has is lots of data.

People under 18 derive 73% of their income from pension-related sources?

Re: Pepper sprayed for public safety.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch (Post 469245)

Ultimately, the country has to find a way to reduce the cost of entitlements. The longer smart people who are sympathetic to the less fortunate of our society -- people like you and Ty -- go on saying 'there is no way to save costs' the closer we get to a crisis point and lose the opportunity to make intelligent decisions.

I didn't say there was no way to cut costs. My point is the Ryan/Romney plan is based on an understanding that you can't cut benefits for the elderly because they care and they vote. If that's the case, saying you'll preserve their benefits but cut the benefits of future generations is a fool's errand, because once those people grow older, they will care and they will vote, and a future Congress will undo the cuts.

Sebby would point out that current officeholders don't really care what happens in the future and just want to get re-elected, which tends to suggest that Ryan and Romney know that this is a shell game.

Re: Pepper sprayed for public safety.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 469248)

Means testing and/or taxing more of the benefit should be non-controversial. Obviously, it's not, but it should be.

It's controversial because everyone understands that you need middle-class support to maintain the viability of the program, politically speaking.

Consider mass transit. Poor people take bus service, which blows. Wealthier people take, e.g., commuter rail, which doesn't. Bus service doesn't have to blow -- see, e.g., shuttles at airports -- but once poor people are the constituency, it will predictably be denied resources and will blow.

Quote:

But even if it was, it doesn't save much money.

That too.

The future entitlement problem is rising health-care costs.

Re: Pepper sprayed for public safety.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch (Post 469298)

People under 18 derive 73% of their income from pension-related sources?

Did you read the "for the retirees"? Or the explanation of what covered it for that age group?

I sense another VSR.

Re: Pepper sprayed for public safety.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch (Post 469297)

It's "wrong and foolish" to think that spending less is one way to reduce deficit spending?

It is if you think you're "saving social security" by gutting it.

Re: Pepper sprayed for public safety.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 469296)

Let me see. I wrote "The younger recipients may be getting money from other gov't programs, other insurance, etc."

It may not surprise you that people getting disability from SSI sometimes also have other disability coverage, or that children who are SSI beneficiaries might also get, say, welfare or VA benefits?

I really can give you all a link to the SSA site. Or. you. could. google. ". social. security. ".

Re: Pepper sprayed for public safety.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 469256)

Perhaps. Although I guess I don't really think even Ryan is that stupid.

Why not? He is proposing a cocktail of massive short-term tax cuts with long-term entitlement cuts. As I've been saying, the entitlement cuts will never stick, because the entitlees will get old and demand Social Security and health care, and Future Congress won't be able to say no, for exactly the same reasons that Ryan isn't proposing short-term benefits cuts. By then, Ryan will be retired or dead, so it won't be his problem.

All the people who try to wish away the cost of "entitlements" don't want to deal with the fact that lots of voters really want these things.

Re: Pepper sprayed for public safety.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 469300)

It's controversial because everyone understands that you need middle-class support to maintain the viability of the program, politically speaking.

I believe that's what I said in my next sentence.

Re: Pepper sprayed for public safety.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 469257)

The only way to fix HC costs is to:

1. Pare down third party payer involvement (Medicare/Ins, etc.). Make it more a real market, where people buy a thing and see and feel how much it costs. This will immediately, radically, bring down unit prices and overconsumption. [Trust me on this. The mark-up is hugely driven by provider efforts to offset low insurance and medicare reimbursements.]

2. Do not allow anyone to make the argument, "But Americans do not want to take care of their own health care directly. They want insurance and have been trained to expect that." Tough shit. Welcome to life. Be responsible for yourself or else.

3. Make HC insurance actual insurance. Right now, it's a TPA, and a shitty one at that. Imagine telling your mechanic, "Here's my payment card. Submit it to my policy provider and two months from now, they'll tell you whether they'll pay or not, and how much if they do. If they don't, send me a bill for the 1000% marked-up service charge I'll never be able to afford, and won't pay."? HC insurance should cover catastrophic and chronic illnesses. Preventative care is on the purchaser's dime.

Nothing, nothing, nothing in this world involving a third party payer can be applied across the board to a population as huge as ours. It allows the lazy, the dumb, and the opportunistic endless avenues through which to avoid responsibility on one hand, and bleed a system to death for profits on the other. These collective systems are excess credit by another name - and too much credit breeds nothing but inflation, bubbles, and inevitable collapse. See also: Student loans, Subprime mortgages, Credit cards.

The direct purchaser model has to be slowly re-established.

The only way to fix rising costs from car accidents is:

1. Pare down third-party payer involvement (insurance companies). Make it more a real market, where people buy a thing and see and feel how much it costs. This will immediately, radically, bring down unit prices and overconsumption. [Trust me on this. People will drive much more carefully when they're paying to repair their own cars and have to cover their passengers' medical bills.]

2. Do not allow anyone to make the argument, "But Americans do not want to bear the risks of catastrophic car accidents directly. They want insurance and have been trained to expect that." Tough shit. Welcome to life. Be responsible for yourself or else.

Re: Pepper sprayed for public safety.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch (Post 469272)

Do you think that will be eternally true? That there will be no constraint whatsoever on how much the federal government can borrow?

I think the idea that there is some constraint is a thing of the past, and also the future.

We have lots of politicians who have learned to get elected by decoupling spending from taxing. I don't see any politicians losing their job over this. The constraint comes when politicians lose their jobs if they're not responsible. When do you see that coming?