Orrin Hatch destroys Dan

[franklin]

The problem is Brigham didn't specify the "measures" in the economic proclamation and so this would only be an assumption on our parts. You don't specify the measures either besides trust busting in past conversations on hacks.

In the speech including the grain confiscation quote he says he'll give them a price he considers fair. The co-op idea is another measure that requires actions by the people instead of by the government.

Other things I like: Interest rate policy goes a long way to distribute wealth evenly while respecting property rights and low taxation. Wall Street goes to great lengths getting special policies and protections in place designed to reverse this democratic effect.

Most deductions and subsidies in fact favor the rich at the expense of the poor. Some 75% of all mortgage interest write-offs go to citizens of the richest 3 cities. The charitable giving deduction needs to go as well. Outdated farm bills can go. I think the Cargill family will do just fine without subsidies considering they do over $100 billion annually in revenue. Government can either own the buildings they occupy or could sell them into social security as a way to start solving the ponzi issue with the program. Same goes for utilities and toll roads. There's no reason to privatize this stuff when we have pools of money to buy it all, and could manage it all under a government program designed to operate as a private enterprise would by incentivizing contracted management companies.

I've also gone on about how excessive welfare enriches the guys at the top and squeezes the people in the middle. Profit margins go up when you pay people to consume while not producing. Welfare has the opposite efffect of helping families when it results in more people needing it.

Redistribution is a term with ugly connotations attached to it. I look at things more in terms of distribution and how things can be achieved without government tax and spend policies.

I need to clarify that I meant modern Mormons most likely agree with Lincoln's assessment of polygamy as the twin plague with slavery so they have no problem venerating the man.
This does bring up another point about Brigham. He was a polygamist, and Benson wasn't.

I think you're out in left field here.

 

[franklin]

I think one of the better, and easier, fixes is to raise the retirement age of social security by 5-7 years. However, I don't know if that would work for occupations such as mining. Is that what you had in mind?

Although, I don't think Republicans are any better as tackling the social security demographics.

That's pretty drastic, but yeah, essentially. If we did something like that then we would have to expand the long term disability side of it for those with broken bodies. I also wouldn't mind as much a comfortable government pension scheme if it were more of a self funding sovereign wealth fund type of program (see above post).

 

[Stoked]

That's pretty drastic, but yeah, essentially. If we did something like that then we would have to expand the long term disability side of it for those with broken bodies. I also wouldn't mind as much a comfortable government pension scheme if it were more of a self funding sovereign wealth fund type of program (see above post).

Expand it how? There is not a time limit on how long an individual can draw Social Security Disability or Supplemental Security income.

Do you perhaps mean by allowing dependants (auxilaries) to draw for a longer amount of time (say age 22 instead of 18 for minor children) or loosen the definition of disability?

 

[franklin]

I meant expand the funding for it, or being willing to fund it. My point is we can't put a blanket retirement age onto 300,000,000 people. There needs to be protective provisions for those who truly need to retire at 62, 67, or 49.

 

[Stoked]

I meant expand the funding for it, or being willing to fund it. My point is we can't put a blanket retirement age onto 300,000,000 people. There needs to be protective provisions for those who truly need to retire at 62, 67, or 49.

There are two major problems with the funding of Social Security.
1. The funds have been raided by Congress for many years. This decreases the amount of surplus in those programs
2. The influx of the baby boomers and the size of families now versus 30 years ago. There has been a steady decline in the numbers of workers for each retiree.

Now there are certain protections in place for 62-70. The full retirement age (FRA) for an individual is on an upward sliding scale based on your date of birth. Right now the age is 66 for those coming in. For you and I it is set at 67 right now. That FRA is when you will receive 100% of your retirment amount based on your incoem history. Now you can still retiree at 62 but you take a reduced amount based on the number of months that you retire early. The opposite applies if you retire late all the way up to 70. Those are called "delayed retirement credits" or "DRCs". Those go by month as well. So a guy who files at 68 will get over their 100% and a person who files at 63 will get less but they can both still qualify.

This is ignoring all income and other tests to qualify for retirment benefits.

Edit: The major ways to "expand funding" are raise the Social Security tax, make all jobs pay into that tax (such as most state government jobs and California teachers) or divert extra funds away from something else such as education, military or roads.

 

[One Brow]

You. I'm not sure why.

I'm trying to have fun with you here, man. Don't go getting all serious on me.

Sorry. Some other posters took it so seriously, I forgot you wouldn't. I should have known better.

 

[One Brow]

Edit: The major ways to "expand funding" are raise the Social Security tax, make all jobs pay into that tax (such as most state government jobs and California teachers) or divert extra funds away from something else such as education, military or roads.

Right now, jobs that do not pay into the system get no benefits from the system. Usually, those benefits are replaced with the pension that replaces Social Security (in Illinois it is SURS). Enrolling more people increases the scale of the problem, rather than solving it.

Also, no one has raided Social Security. It has bought many US Treasury bonds, and is relying on teh government to pay them back, but that is not a raid.

One option to improve solvency, besides increasing the retirement age, is keeping benefits capped while removing the cap on payouts (urrently around $110,000). No doubt many will view this as "soak the rich".

 

[franklin]

There are two major problems with the funding of Social Security.
1. The funds have been raided by Congress for many years. This decreases the amount of surplus in those programs
2. The influx of the baby boomers and the size of families now versus 30 years ago. There has been a steady decline in the numbers of workers for each retiree..

Wow, stroked, you really know a lot about this stuff and say things no one else ever does. Can you give us a rundown of the entire system? That raiding the funds stuff sounds awful! Are you saying congress is stealing the Treasury notes and spending them for private gaIn? How are they getting away with this raiding?

 

[Stoked]

Wow, stroked, you really know a lot about this stuff and say things no one else ever does. Can you give us a rundown of the entire system? That raiding the funds stuff sounds awful! Are you saying congress is stealing the Treasury notes and spending them for private gaIn? How are they getting away with this raiding?

Guess I missed the part where you covered new ground breaking territory.

As for how congress gets away with stuff: people are stupid

 

[Stoked]

Some changes that should be made are:

Absolving the Lump Sum Death Payment
Instituting a Part A Medicare premium for all people
Prosecuting fraud (rampant) by going after the prosecutors

Not fixes as much as changes that are long overdue.

 

[TroutBum]

I am not a bully.

 

[Gameface]

I am not a bully.

Sometimes you are.

 

[TroutBum]

Sometimes you are.

This makes me sad.

 

[Stoked]

This makes me sad.

Then stop being a bully.

 

[TroutBum]

Then stop being a bully.

Cram it up your cram hole, Stroked. TROUTBUM, TROUTBUM, TROUTBUM!

 

[Stoked]

Cram it up your cram hole, Stroked. TROUTBUM, TROUTBUM, TROUTBUM!

Theres the Trout I like. So stop mopping around and let your balls drop.

 

[PearlWatson]

In the speech including the grain confiscation quote he says he'll give them a price he considers fair. The co-op idea is another measure that requires actions by the people instead of by the government.

If you are going to continue to generalize from one quote to the other I need the source for the first quote.
I thought we were talking about "using government to break down the imbalances created by wealth," so why would you include co-op's as "another measure." Wouldn't a co-op be a measure in agreement with Benson not opposed to?

Other things I like: Interest rate policy goes a long way to distribute wealth evenly while respecting property rights and low taxation. Wall Street goes to great lengths getting special policies and protections in place designed to reverse this democratic effect.

Most deductions and subsidies in fact favor the rich at the expense of the poor. Some 75% of all mortgage interest write-offs go to citizens of the richest 3 cities. The charitable giving deduction needs to go as well. Outdated farm bills can go. I think the Cargill family will do just fine without subsidies considering they do over $100 billion annually in revenue. Government can either own the buildings they occupy or could sell them into social security as a way to start solving the ponzi issue with the program. Same goes for utilities and toll roads. There's no reason to privatize this stuff when we have pools of money to buy it all, and could manage it all under a government program designed to operate as a private enterprise would by incentivizing contracted management companies.

That statement scares me.
Interest rate policy? You mean jacking with the interest rate at all or what?

I've also gone on about how excessive welfare enriches the guys at the top and squeezes the people in the middle. Profit margins go up when you pay people to consume while not producing. Welfare has the opposite efffect of helping families when it results in more people needing it.

Redistribution is a term with ugly connotations attached to it. I look at things more in terms of distribution and how things can be achieved without government tax and spend policies.

"Tax and spend policies" do sound a lot safer than redistribution, but then I remember the grain confiscation measure and pools of money comment.

I think you're out in left field here.

In what way?

 

[franklin]

If you are going to continue to generalize from one quote to the other I need the source for the first quote.
I thought we were talking about "using government to break down the imbalances created by wealth," so why would you include co-op's as "another measure." Wouldn't a co-op be a measure in agreement with Benson not opposed to?

Sorry for the lack of clarity. I prefer "first best" solutions and figured the extras I listed might appeal to you more than some communistic sounding rhetoric. I don't see much of a reason to "soak the rich" with taxes when we haven't taken away all of their subsidies. Seems like everyone can agree to that, yet there's this "getting mine" problem that tends to stand in the way.

Thanks for keeping me honest by requesting the quote. Here: https://scriptures.byu.edu/jod/jodhtml.php?vol=03&disc=16

That statement scares me.

I don't see why. If it's a function of government then why should private industry lay any claim? Do you want to sell the White House to George Soros (insert favorite boogeyman there) and force us to rent this historical structure from him?

I get the reasoning behind not wanting anyone to lay claim on the government but this is a good compromise IMO. We're already enrich ing the elite through policy here and I see no reason to change that to shoring up the biggest bankrupting threat of the day. Free market advocates should be against the current policy by definition and out of princip

Interest rate policy? You mean jacking with the interest rate at all or what?

It's complex, but yes basically. "Jacking" infers unfair manipulation, etc. I'm an advocate of structure & predictability, as all the major economic camps are. Fairness & confidence by extension are centrally important. There are ways to partially solve the Greenspan Bubble issue by minimizing "jacking" from the equation.

In what way?

Accounting for your history of not being very familiar with LDS culture, I'd say you have completely misread the polygamy issue. It's anecdotal, sure, but I would guess most LDS members would defend polygamy as a necessity of circumstance rather than shun it like you've portrayed.

 

[northeast]

There is this thing called CSpan where you can see our congressman opening their mouths and saying things.
Based on first hand observation, Orin Hatch is terrible.
Seniority in Congress is bad, because it leads to terrible people having too much power and staying in office too long.

 

[PearlWatson]

Sorry for the lack of clarity. I prefer "first best" solutions and figured the extras I listed might appeal to you more than some communistic sounding rhetoric. I don't see much of a reason to "soak the rich" with taxes when we haven't taken away all of their subsidies. Seems like everyone can agree to that, yet there's this "getting mine" problem that tends to stand in the way.

Thanks for keeping me honest by requesting the quote. Here: https://scriptures.byu.edu/jod/jodhtml.php?vol=03&disc=16

I don't see why. If it's a function of government then why should private industry lay any claim? Do you want to sell the White House to George Soros (insert favorite boogeyman there) and force us to rent this historical structure from him?

I get the reasoning behind not wanting anyone to lay claim on the government but this is a good compromise IMO. We're already enrich ing the elite through policy here and I see no reason to change that to shoring up the biggest bankrupting threat of the day. Free market advocates should be against the current policy by definition and out of princip

It's complex, but yes basically. "Jacking" infers unfair manipulation, etc. I'm an advocate of structure & predictability, as all the major economic camps are. Fairness & confidence by extension are centrally important. There are ways to partially solve the Greenspan Bubble issue by minimizing "jacking" from the equation.

Accounting for your history of not being very familiar with LDS culture, I'd say you have completely misread the polygamy issue. It's anecdotal, sure, but I would guess most LDS members would defend polygamy as a necessity of circumstance rather than shun it like you've portrayed.

Thanks for the source. I was able to see more of where you are coming from with it. He was anti-speculation. He was telling Mormons with excess grain to give it to the poor in exchange for work instead of selling it to the "gentiles" who would turn around and screw the poor and ignorant Mormons migrating in who didn't know its worth.

The rest of your explanations are persuasive.

I may have misread modern Mormon views on polygamy. My point was that their leadership changes stances based on circumstances and their members follow suit...it is perfectly reasonable to prefer Benson over Brigham based on current circumstances. Although I still think both leaders were addressing economics from different angles and wouldn't necessarily be on opposing sides in a debate.