4 ms·

Well, the Government is an order of magnitude worse than the most inefficient huge companies. The Social Security System is one of the tightest ships in the wo

by pj 18y ago

Well, the Government is an order of magnitude worse than the most inefficient huge companies. The Social Security System is one of the tightest ships in the world. You can't even get index funds with lower management fees in the private sector, because profit wants to be made and should be made.

xenophanes 18y ago
You're holding up social security as the pinnacle of efficiency, without a citation? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt The link says social security is short 7 trillion dollars of 2008 money to pay for its obligations over the next 75 years. 7 trillion dollars is a lot of money... Whatever the reason this happened, doesn't it indicate the less Government the better, to lower the risk of them losing trillions of dollars?
- pj 18y ago
  I'm sorry, it was a bad idea to bring up Social Security. My only point was that the management of the legal requirements for the organization are very very small relative to the amount of funds that are flowing in and out. I do agree that there are fundamental flaws in the Social Security System and I have said many times, though not here, that I will gladly pay into social security and never receive any benefits. I don't see any other solution and I am volunteering to take the hardship. If enough people join me, we can fix social security. Like a balloon that slowly deflates through controlled exhaustion...
  - redrobot5050 18y ago
    No, social security was a good example and a good idea. Does anyone remember the parody of Gore on SNL saying "Lockbox"? Does anyone remember why? See, GM is in trouble (and claiming its workers cost $75/hr) because it had huge pension obligations, but instead of saving some of its revenue for when the chickens came home to roost, it'll will just bank on the company's revenue growing without bound (like homeowners banked on their property values). The only problem is when this doesn't happen. Now, the government, instead of spending its money wisely and saving it for the social security insolvency that hangs over our heads, decided (under Bush II) to issue one-time "tax rebates" to stimulate the economy. Anytime we actually have money to pay into social security, we use it for some stopgap measure like paying down our trade deficit, tax rebates, etc. If we followed a rational funding policy for Social Security, both in good times and in bad (like when you make steady payments on a mortgage) then we wouldn't be worried about it.
    - deleted 18y ago
      [deleted]
- msg 18y ago
  7 trillion / 75 on the other hand is less than 100 billion a year. There are some other ongoing programs I could mention to put that number in perspective. Also, while Social Security may be short now (or in the first break-even year, 2013 or so depending on who you ask, but even then the program won't be broke, it will just be spending more than it receives) for demographic reasons it will be long later for the same demographic reasons. The larger problem of debt forecasting over an even shorter time horizon (remember when we had a ten-year surplus of trillions, at the end of Clinton's second term) makes me dubious that even your 7 trillion number will be accurate.
  - xenophanes 18y ago
    You didn't factor in the interest on the 7 trillion.

by pj 18y ago

xenophanes 18y ago

You're holding up social security as the pinnacle of efficiency, without a citation? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt The link says social security is short 7 trillion dollars of 2008 money to pay for its obligations over the next 75 years. 7 trillion dollars is a lot of money... Whatever the reason this happened, doesn't it indicate the less Government the better, to lower the risk of them losing trillions of dollars?

pj 18y ago
I'm sorry, it was a bad idea to bring up Social Security. My only point was that the management of the legal requirements for the organization are very very small relative to the amount of funds that are flowing in and out. I do agree that there are fundamental flaws in the Social Security System and I have said many times, though not here, that I will gladly pay into social security and never receive any benefits. I don't see any other solution and I am volunteering to take the hardship. If enough people join me, we can fix social security. Like a balloon that slowly deflates through controlled exhaustion...
- redrobot5050 18y ago
  No, social security was a good example and a good idea. Does anyone remember the parody of Gore on SNL saying "Lockbox"? Does anyone remember why? See, GM is in trouble (and claiming its workers cost $75/hr) because it had huge pension obligations, but instead of saving some of its revenue for when the chickens came home to roost, it'll will just bank on the company's revenue growing without bound (like homeowners banked on their property values). The only problem is when this doesn't happen. Now, the government, instead of spending its money wisely and saving it for the social security insolvency that hangs over our heads, decided (under Bush II) to issue one-time "tax rebates" to stimulate the economy. Anytime we actually have money to pay into social security, we use it for some stopgap measure like paying down our trade deficit, tax rebates, etc. If we followed a rational funding policy for Social Security, both in good times and in bad (like when you make steady payments on a mortgage) then we wouldn't be worried about it.
  - deleted 18y ago
    [deleted]
msg 18y ago
7 trillion / 75 on the other hand is less than 100 billion a year. There are some other ongoing programs I could mention to put that number in perspective. Also, while Social Security may be short now (or in the first break-even year, 2013 or so depending on who you ask, but even then the program won't be broke, it will just be spending more than it receives) for demographic reasons it will be long later for the same demographic reasons. The larger problem of debt forecasting over an even shorter time horizon (remember when we had a ten-year surplus of trillions, at the end of Clinton's second term) makes me dubious that even your 7 trillion number will be accurate.
- xenophanes 18y ago
  You didn't factor in the interest on the 7 trillion.