Author
Topic: Breaking up Bama: How to save college football?
(Read 29038 times)

bayareabadger · « **Reply #280 on:** January 26, 2021, 04:51:52 PM »

Quote from: 847badgerfan on January 26, 2021, 04:12:34 PM

Having been self-employed for 20+ years, I have a lot to say about this.

One thing I don't like is that the government is going to need the private sector to bail them out for years of poor policy.

Why is that on the private sector, especially those who are self-employed?

I mean, that’s where the money is generated. The only other sector is public, and no one really wants the government to try to elbow into the money-making biz for many reasons.

Then again, the private sector uses many government resources and products, so there’s a little symbiosis there.

847badgerfan · « **Reply #281 on:** January 26, 2021, 04:58:04 PM »

Quote from: bayareabadger on January 26, 2021, 04:51:52 PM

I mean, that’s where the money is generated. The only other sector is public, and no one really wants the government to try to elbow into the money-making biz for many reasons.

Then again, the private sector uses many government resources and products, so there’s a little symbiosis there.

Right, and they are the ones who F'd it all up.

medinabuckeye1 · « **Reply #282 on:** January 26, 2021, 05:04:30 PM »

Quote from: 847badgerfan on January 26, 2021, 04:12:34 PM

Having been self-employed for 20+ years, I have a lot to say about this.

One thing I don't like is that the government is going to need the private sector to bail them out for years of poor policy.

Why is that on the private sector, especially those who are self-employed?

On some level we get what we vote for. If somebody campaigned on fixing SSI/Medicare by raising the age and increasing the rate that person would almost certainly lose. Instead, most people either vote for Democrats because they promise more benefits or Republicans because they promise less taxes. Almost nobody thinks about the back side of either promise:

If you vote for Democrats because they promise more benefits ok, but somebody has to pay for those benefits.
If you vote for Republicans because they promise less taxes ok, but something has to be cut to balance that off.

And honestly, in our modern Congress, moderates are the worst. What passes for a moderate today is someone who is totally intellectually dishonest and votes with the Democrats for more benefits then turns around and votes with the Republicans for less taxes.

Try running for Congress promising less benefits and more taxes, good luck.

If this is too political, delete. I tried to keep it even-handed and not a plug for the Red team or the Blue team but just a point about what we vote for.

847badgerfan · « **Reply #283 on:** January 26, 2021, 05:08:29 PM »

I find that post acceptable. You aren't calling out any names and such. You aren't casting blame. It's fine.

Cincydawg · « **Reply #284 on:** January 26, 2021, 05:09:16 PM »

We did manage to "fix" SS shorter term in 1983 as I recall resulting from a bipartisan commission's recommendations.

Bipartisanship has been replaced by something else, winning at all and any costs.

bayareabadger · « **Reply #285 on:** January 26, 2021, 05:18:32 PM »

Quote from: 847badgerfan on January 26, 2021, 04:58:04 PM

Right, and they are the ones who F'd it all up.

They effed up their side of it, but the private sector likely won’t be doing everything right either. Maybe modestly more right, but in average, likely not a great bit more.

We are a fickle species, and our drives will be venal on all fronts.

bayareabadger · « **Reply #286 on:** January 26, 2021, 05:19:17 PM »

Quote from: Cincydawg on January 26, 2021, 05:09:16 PM

We did manage to "fix" SS shorter term in 1983 as I recall resulting from a bipartisan commission's recommendations.

Bipartisanship has been replaced by something else, winning at all and any costs.

Tribalism, it’s a key to winning elections and getting nothing done, all the while reflecting the people themselves.

betarhoalphadelta · « **Reply #287 on:** January 26, 2021, 05:28:00 PM »

Quote from: medinabuckeye1 on January 26, 2021, 04:02:44 PM

That said, for many years the system (and medicare) did collect more than they paid out and the surplus was theoretically "saved". It wasn't really saved though. Instead, the surplus was "invested" in Federal Treasury obligations. Ie, the Federal Government used the excess on other things they wanted to spend money on and wrote "IOU" on a slip of paper. The Social Security (and medicare) trust funds are nothing more than a bunch of IOU's from the Federal Government.

The equivalent for an individual would be if @FearlessF took the money out of his "Vette Fund" and used it for vacations and meals out while putting IOU's to himself in a box. Then when he had enough IOU's saved up to buy the Vette . . . Well, he couldn't buy the Vette because he wouldn't actually have the money. All he would have is a bunch of IOU's from himself to himself.

I find it odd how so few people understand this...

...and how angry they are when someone points it out, preferring to stick their fingers in their ears and say NANANANANA.

betarhoalphadelta · « **Reply #288 on:** January 26, 2021, 05:31:23 PM »

Quote from: Cincydawg on January 26, 2021, 05:09:16 PM

We did manage to "fix" SS shorter term in 1983 as I recall resulting from a bipartisan commission's recommendations.

Bipartisanship has been replaced by something else, winning at all and any costs.

No we did not, and that's Medina's point.

We "invested" the "surplus" in a "trust fund", which all sounds like good things.

Until you realize that Congress spent the money and replaced it with T-Bills which are only paid back based on the full faith and credit of the federal government [and the future taxes of next-generation ~~suckers~~ income earners].

There's no money in the Trust Fund. Only promises. Promises from our left pocket (income tax payers or the Treasury printing money) to our right pocket (social security / medicare recipients).

medinabuckeye1 · « **Reply #289 on:** January 26, 2021, 05:33:11 PM »

Quote from: Cincydawg on January 26, 2021, 05:09:16 PM

We did manage to "fix" SS shorter term in 1983 as I recall resulting from a bipartisan commission's recommendations.

Bipartisanship has been replaced by something else, winning at all and any costs.

Even there, they didn't really fix it:

Social Security was adopted in 1935. At that time the retirement age was 65 and the life expectancy at birth for an American was 59.9 for men and 63.9 for women. Ie, by the time you were eligible you were already more than five years past the average.

In 1983 life expectancy at birth was up to 71 for men and 78 for women.

Today it is almost 80.

The major changes in 1983 were:

Increased the rate to 15.3% (7.65% each employer/employee)
Raised the eligibility age from 65 to 67 but phased in and not complete until 2027.

So life expectancy increased by about 11 years in the first ~50 years of Social Security so they phased in a two year increase in the retirement age over ~40 years. That isn't even enough to keep up with the increase let alone fix the underlying problem.

Based on the 1983 amendments, retirement age is:

66 for everyone born between 1943 (turning 78 this year) and 1954 (turning 67 this year).
66 and 2 months for those born in 1955 (turning 66 this year, will turn 66 in 2021).
66 and 4 months for those born in 1956 (turning 65 this year, will turn 66 in 2022).
66 and 6 months for those born in 1957 (turning 64 this year, will turn 66 in 2023).
66 and 8 months for those born in 1958 (turning 63 this year, will turn 66 in 2024).
66 and 10 months for those born in 1959 (turning 62 this year, will turn 66 in 2025).
67 for those born in 1960 (turning 61 this year, will turn 67 in 2027).

medinabuckeye1 · « **Reply #290 on:** January 26, 2021, 05:54:55 PM »

The other thing that is killing Social Security is disability. This is the least discussed and least understood facet of the system. The system includes a disability insurance component. In theory, this is supposed to provide a worker with a benefit if that worker becomes unable to work due to some circumstance. In practice there are a vast amount of ridiculous and fraudulent claims.

Example #1:
My wife is a drug an alcohol addiction counselor. I asked her a long time ago how her clients were able to afford drugs/alcohol since almost none of them work. She explained that nearly all of them got what they referred to as "crazy checks". The bottom line is that an addiction is considered a "mental disability" and qualifies for disability benefits.

Now I'm pretty libertarian on drugs generally. If you played in the NFL and made a bunch of cash and now you want to spend your cash sitting around getting high all day well I don't really care. My view changes a LOT when you start asking me to pay for your drugs. IMHO, this simply should not be allowed. Drug and alcohol addicts should be told to get a job not given cash.

Second, the prevalence of disability claims has been rising over time which is the opposite of what should be happening. Over the past 50 years the percentage of jobs requiring heavy physical labor has dropped precipitously. In addition, new Federal Laws have mandated that employers make accommodations for disabled employees. Those two factors *SHOULD* have resulted in a massive REDUCTION in disability claims. Instead disability claims have steadily risen all while the physical demands on employees have diminished and employers have been required to provide accommodations for disabled employees. IMHO the only possible explanation is fraud.

FearlessF · « **Reply #291 on:** January 26, 2021, 06:24:26 PM »

I'm an alcohol addict and I have a decent job

good enough job to pay for Budweiser, Johnny Black, Tito's and Bombay Sapphire

FearlessF · « **Reply #292 on:** January 26, 2021, 06:26:42 PM »

Quote from: medinabuckeye1 on January 26, 2021, 05:04:30 PM

If you vote for Republicans because they promise less taxes ok, but something has to be cut to balance that off.

unfortunately, they rarely cut taxes

and then they add crap that isn't a good investment

Cincydawg · « **Reply #293 on:** January 26, 2021, 06:48:12 PM »

The 1983 was a shorter term fix, as I stated. We could do the same now, I think.

In theory.

Anyone who touches SS now gets scorched.

The solution HAS TO BE either raising revenue (taxes) or cutting benefits. One could magically assume 5% GDP growth perhaps.

I THINK eventually circa 2030 Congress will simply fund SS with "tax" money and change the system entirely. This will be Fed money really, the result of QE Infinity, which is my largest fear for the country outside another war.

Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

The 'Old' CFN/Scout Crowd- Enjoy Civil discussion, game analytics, in depth player and coaching 'takes' and discussing topics surrounding the game. You can even have your own free board, all you have to do is ask!!!

Anyone is welcomed and encouraged to join our FREE site and to take part in our community- a community with you- the user, the fan, -and the person- will be protected from intrusive actions and with a clean place to interact.

Topic: Breaking up Bama: How to save college football?

bayareabadger

Re: Breaking up Bama: How to save college football?

847badgerfan

Re: Breaking up Bama: How to save college football?

medinabuckeye1

Re: Breaking up Bama: How to save college football?

847badgerfan

Re: Breaking up Bama: How to save college football?

Cincydawg

Re: Breaking up Bama: How to save college football?

bayareabadger

Re: Breaking up Bama: How to save college football?

bayareabadger

Re: Breaking up Bama: How to save college football?

betarhoalphadelta

Re: Breaking up Bama: How to save college football?

betarhoalphadelta

Re: Breaking up Bama: How to save college football?

medinabuckeye1

Re: Breaking up Bama: How to save college football?

medinabuckeye1

Re: Breaking up Bama: How to save college football?

FearlessF

Re: Breaking up Bama: How to save college football?

FearlessF

Re: Breaking up Bama: How to save college football?

Cincydawg

Re: Breaking up Bama: How to save college football?