It is sad to see Schumer and Reid call privatization "the end of social security." That is not rational nor based on the facts, at least based on the existing proposal.
In that proposal, only a small percentage and then gradually up to 41% could go into a private investment account only taken out later when collecting social security. The account is guaranteed against loss.
But the main effect will allow for higher returns than the artificially low one that the government selfishly limits unrealistically and harmfully. And it will relieve the burden of social security and allow people to retire earlier - without a cost to the taxpayers.
It does not 'end' social security. It instead opens social security and provides a basis for people being able to retire early, while guaranteeing against loss. Read The Private Account.
Of course, new ideas and enhancements are welcome and should be brought forth, but our representatives should be educated (Educating Our Representatives) so that they can make good decisions.
These two representatives are sincere and ardent, but they need to be informed and learn to operate for the greater good. Read Rating The Politicians, which puts forth the standards and characteristics we should look for in our representatives.
To your rational consideration,
The Rational Non-Politician
(They could object because it takes money away from government "revenue", because the government has been taking the money and spending it as if it is theirs [though added to the Trust Fund]. But it takes a good long term unselfishness to accept doing it for the better good in the long run - and the representatives will just have to deal with the unavailability of those monies in the private account, for the short term. Read Social Security to see the idea of "pay as you go", which is what has put us into this dilemma.
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Educate Reid, Schumer, Sanders, etc. Re: Social Security
We are in trouble when our congressman don't understand basic math and compound interest. They say "there is no social security problem" and it seems they believe it, so that conclusion must be a product of lack of understanding.
Einstein talked about the most powerful thing in the world being "compound interest". Basically, $1 invested now at 10% will result in $1.10 at the end of a year and $1.21 at the end of two years. To understand further read Compound Interest - An Essential Understanding.
The CBO says all of the social security trust fund will run out by 2037 and then we'll be short 25% on benefits to be paid out at the time. After 2037, there's no more left in the trust fund, so we have to fund the difference somehow. Doesn't that make sense? (Unless we want to not pay people what they are due.)
The CBO says that we would need to set aside $6.6 trillion dollars now if we were to cover that whole liability; if we wait til 2037, we would need $15 trillion (more than our current GDP and over seven times all of our current government revenues, including social security taxes and medicare taxes!)
Read Unfunded Liabilities to learn what is meant by all of these shortfalls in social security, plus medicare. Read also what our true public debt is.
Call the politicians and ask them to be educated in this and THEN to express their conclusion, based on understanding and actual facts.
The Rational Non-Politician
See Educating The Politicians, which is what we should require of the politicians before expressing their opinions and especially before they vote!
Also, if you would pass the message on to Ed Schultz, Lawrence O'Donnell, Rachel Maddow - and I don't recall the others right now - others who have made comments about social security that show a lack of understanding.
The CBO is the Congressional Budget Office, the government organization that calculates the effects of government programs, etc.
Einstein talked about the most powerful thing in the world being "compound interest". Basically, $1 invested now at 10% will result in $1.10 at the end of a year and $1.21 at the end of two years. To understand further read Compound Interest - An Essential Understanding.
The CBO says all of the social security trust fund will run out by 2037 and then we'll be short 25% on benefits to be paid out at the time. After 2037, there's no more left in the trust fund, so we have to fund the difference somehow. Doesn't that make sense? (Unless we want to not pay people what they are due.)
The CBO says that we would need to set aside $6.6 trillion dollars now if we were to cover that whole liability; if we wait til 2037, we would need $15 trillion (more than our current GDP and over seven times all of our current government revenues, including social security taxes and medicare taxes!)
Read Unfunded Liabilities to learn what is meant by all of these shortfalls in social security, plus medicare. Read also what our true public debt is.
Call the politicians and ask them to be educated in this and THEN to express their conclusion, based on understanding and actual facts.
The Rational Non-Politician
See Educating The Politicians, which is what we should require of the politicians before expressing their opinions and especially before they vote!
Also, if you would pass the message on to Ed Schultz, Lawrence O'Donnell, Rachel Maddow - and I don't recall the others right now - others who have made comments about social security that show a lack of understanding.
The CBO is the Congressional Budget Office, the government organization that calculates the effects of government programs, etc.
Saturday, February 12, 2011
HIDDEN EXTRA DEBT: $2.5 TRILLION
If a corporation promised a future retiree a pension, the corporation would have to record that amount as a liability and then note it down as an expense of doing business during the year the liability was incurred.
The US government does not do this basic required accounting.
So, we think the deficit is "only" $1.6 trillion this year, but it is actually MORE if we consider our unpaid future extra liabilities we incurred this year.
Congressmen, and maybe even the President, do not understand this. Harry Reid and Barbara Boxer have said "There is no problem with social security. We have a huge surplus" - But, with thinking and an analysis and understanding of the facts and factors involved, I declare those are "unknowledgeable" statements, completely incorrect and misunderstood. (I am not optimistic about our legislature adequately dealing with what is needed!!!!)
Medicare is behind $36.3 trillion, considering all that we've promised in the future (minus what will be paid).
Social Security is behind $7 trillion. (And those are the low estimates.)
I hope the congressmen, and perhaps the reader, reads, on the related site:
The Unfunded Liabilities Explanation (kind of an Accounting 101)
Social Security - What is the real liability?
Medicare - This is a bigger problem. Get the whole perspective.
The problem is solvable if we do the practice of "handling a problem while it is little so that it does not get big" - except it is already very, very big, but we can prevent being run over by a big freight train, if we anticipate - and use our reasoning power, with the facts and consulting the true experts.
Will we face the biggest problem of our era? Will Congressmen learn and then deal with it?
I certainly hope so!!!
The NonPolitician
As always, corrections, additions, and feedback are always welcome.
The US government does not do this basic required accounting.
So, we think the deficit is "only" $1.6 trillion this year, but it is actually MORE if we consider our unpaid future extra liabilities we incurred this year.
Congressmen, and maybe even the President, do not understand this. Harry Reid and Barbara Boxer have said "There is no problem with social security. We have a huge surplus" - But, with thinking and an analysis and understanding of the facts and factors involved, I declare those are "unknowledgeable" statements, completely incorrect and misunderstood. (I am not optimistic about our legislature adequately dealing with what is needed!!!!)
Medicare is behind $36.3 trillion, considering all that we've promised in the future (minus what will be paid).
Social Security is behind $7 trillion. (And those are the low estimates.)
I hope the congressmen, and perhaps the reader, reads, on the related site:
The Unfunded Liabilities Explanation (kind of an Accounting 101)
Social Security - What is the real liability?
Medicare - This is a bigger problem. Get the whole perspective.
The problem is solvable if we do the practice of "handling a problem while it is little so that it does not get big" - except it is already very, very big, but we can prevent being run over by a big freight train, if we anticipate - and use our reasoning power, with the facts and consulting the true experts.
Will we face the biggest problem of our era? Will Congressmen learn and then deal with it?
I certainly hope so!!!
The NonPolitician
As always, corrections, additions, and feedback are always welcome.
Friday, February 11, 2011
Mubarak Set Up Huge Foundation
Now is the time for Mubarak to prove that he truly does love Egypt - by setting up a huge foundation for the benefit of Egyptians.
If he is to prove himself and not be considered as a tyrant who exploited Egypt for his own wealth, he would keep a billion or so for himself and contribute the rest to a wonderful humanitarian helpful foundation for the Egyptians. $30 billion at least.
Sir, I challenge you to prove your love for Egypt.
This would be an incredible legacy that would make you one of the biggest patriots of all time.
What will you choose?
If he is to prove himself and not be considered as a tyrant who exploited Egypt for his own wealth, he would keep a billion or so for himself and contribute the rest to a wonderful humanitarian helpful foundation for the Egyptians. $30 billion at least.
Sir, I challenge you to prove your love for Egypt.
This would be an incredible legacy that would make you one of the biggest patriots of all time.
What will you choose?
Friday, December 31, 2010
HOW MUCH IS IT WORTH TO SAVE OTHERS' LIVES?
THE ONLY THING NECESSARY FOR THE TRIUMPH OF EVIL IS FOR GOOD MEN TO DO NOTHING.
Edmund Burke
The question above is unanswerable in absolute terms, for it is based on a value judgment and on values. One part is judging the value of a life of another, from our own perspective. The other side is about what values we will fight for and what do we value, such as freedom and/or freedom for others.
Much of mankind has learned the value of cooperation with others. They have formed codes of "morality" designed to preserve the communities. Morality as an imposed value has worked more than it has not worked. But those who think more deeply about it find that they must harken back to asking whether the moral value or rule is still workable and ethical.
I know that if I am being threatened directly by armed men and am trapped, I will fight for my life.
But will I fight for another person's life? No, I won't, unless it serves in some way my selfish purposes and saving my own life because of us all fighting together.
Surely, I must defend against my being harmed physically. As a people, we must fight to protect ourselves against such harm.
But when it goes further out to the more abstract level, what is the right thing to do?
Most people will say attacking the Al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan made sense. Beyond that, there is a debate.
Iraq was a stretch, but what were we to do once we discovered that there were no weapons of mass destruction? Were the world leaders who projected that Saddam Hussein would create weapons of mass destruction if allowed to continue to defy the international inspectors? Who knows. Perhaps they were right. People's lives were lost. Our soldiers' lives were lost - was it worth it to lose those lives, which we surely valued more than a foreigner's life? Was it worth losing Iraqi lives?
How can the worth be measured?
Happiness (or reduction of misery) is difficult to measure. So, in a global sense, the best measure might be lives saved that would have been otherwise lost. Though it is a guess, a reasonable guess will give us an answer to this.
"The result: 138 Iraqis and other Arabs killed per day, and 497 refugees created. That is what we're stopping in Iraq." Blogoram.com, NoBody Count . Saddam Hussein's Iraq was directly responsible for 1.26 million Iraqis and other Arabs deaths and for 4.54 million refugees. We can't quantify the number of deaths resulting from displacement and worsening of conditions to live. The current war has saved over 400,000 lives on an estimated basis that would have been lost due to Hussein - plus whatever other lives would have been lost due to terrorists that have been eliminated. (The above reference was included in the comprehensive Iraq war coverage by MarkHumphrys/Iraq., in which the weird, unsound estimates have been logically addressed, with facts to back them up.)
There is clearly no doubt that the net benefit to the world of this was high.
And, still, there is the question of whether it was worth the lives of American troops, in terms of themselves and the effect on their families. There is no way to determine that from their viewpoint. The world did, however, benefit and mankind did, so in terms of theoretical ethics "the greater good for the people involved" was accomplished.
Still, I am saddened by it all. But that is the level of our world so far. The real question is what can we do about it that is a quantum leap forward, but without losing lives!!!!
The Rational Problem Solver
For this and related questions and discussions link into Peace And Saved Lives - What Urgency Is There?
Whatever the conclusion is.
Edmund Burke
The question above is unanswerable in absolute terms, for it is based on a value judgment and on values. One part is judging the value of a life of another, from our own perspective. The other side is about what values we will fight for and what do we value, such as freedom and/or freedom for others.
Much of mankind has learned the value of cooperation with others. They have formed codes of "morality" designed to preserve the communities. Morality as an imposed value has worked more than it has not worked. But those who think more deeply about it find that they must harken back to asking whether the moral value or rule is still workable and ethical.
I know that if I am being threatened directly by armed men and am trapped, I will fight for my life.
But will I fight for another person's life? No, I won't, unless it serves in some way my selfish purposes and saving my own life because of us all fighting together.
Surely, I must defend against my being harmed physically. As a people, we must fight to protect ourselves against such harm.
But when it goes further out to the more abstract level, what is the right thing to do?
Most people will say attacking the Al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan made sense. Beyond that, there is a debate.
Iraq was a stretch, but what were we to do once we discovered that there were no weapons of mass destruction? Were the world leaders who projected that Saddam Hussein would create weapons of mass destruction if allowed to continue to defy the international inspectors? Who knows. Perhaps they were right. People's lives were lost. Our soldiers' lives were lost - was it worth it to lose those lives, which we surely valued more than a foreigner's life? Was it worth losing Iraqi lives?
How can the worth be measured?
Happiness (or reduction of misery) is difficult to measure. So, in a global sense, the best measure might be lives saved that would have been otherwise lost. Though it is a guess, a reasonable guess will give us an answer to this.
"The result: 138 Iraqis and other Arabs killed per day, and 497 refugees created. That is what we're stopping in Iraq." Blogoram.com, NoBody Count . Saddam Hussein's Iraq was directly responsible for 1.26 million Iraqis and other Arabs deaths and for 4.54 million refugees. We can't quantify the number of deaths resulting from displacement and worsening of conditions to live. The current war has saved over 400,000 lives on an estimated basis that would have been lost due to Hussein - plus whatever other lives would have been lost due to terrorists that have been eliminated. (The above reference was included in the comprehensive Iraq war coverage by MarkHumphrys/Iraq., in which the weird, unsound estimates have been logically addressed, with facts to back them up.)
There is clearly no doubt that the net benefit to the world of this was high.
And, still, there is the question of whether it was worth the lives of American troops, in terms of themselves and the effect on their families. There is no way to determine that from their viewpoint. The world did, however, benefit and mankind did, so in terms of theoretical ethics "the greater good for the people involved" was accomplished.
Still, I am saddened by it all. But that is the level of our world so far. The real question is what can we do about it that is a quantum leap forward, but without losing lives!!!!
The Rational Problem Solver
For this and related questions and discussions link into Peace And Saved Lives - What Urgency Is There?
Whatever the conclusion is.
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Healthcare Bill For 9/11 First Responders
The Republicans have set themselves up to look cruel and heartless, while they are actually behind providing special health care benefits to first responders to cover the bad effects of inhaling particles and of being on the site. Each one who I've seen asked the specific question about what they want responds to say that they want to do the compassionate thing for those "heroes".
Yet they sound like they are on the opposite side. They are so intent on doing the process rightly and with the proper economics that they only talk as if they are trying to block the bill, period.
But I note that they are only asking for the opportunity to ask questions and to go through the normal process involved in creating something that works and is cost efficient. Apparently those who have studied it are struck with its inefficiency in providing the benefits. And they are also pointing out that the Democrats are violating their own "pay as you go" policy, as the Dems have not reduced expenses elsewhere but only raised taxes in what they refer to as "closing a tax loophole" (not actually correct, as it passes additional costs on to Americans ultimately, so it is the equivalent of an extra tax and not a spending reduction).
The Republicans are objecting to the tendency of trying to jam through legislation without everybody understanding it, just so the Dems can "get it done." The most prominent example of this was in Nancy Pelosi urging to just pass the big health care bill without reading, one of her most famous statements: “... we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it."
The Democrats have passed some historic and beneficial bills, but they seems to have gotten so used to ramrodding it that they might have lost the "centering" and proper considering that is required to do a good job (as did the Republicans when they had power).
But now it is time to go back to proper process - and to see that neither party is an ogre, but are just people with a different way of doing things, but with good motivation to do the right thing.
I vote for what is the "proper" "thinking" way. And I urge the Republicans to make it known that they care also.
The Rational Problem Solver
Yet they sound like they are on the opposite side. They are so intent on doing the process rightly and with the proper economics that they only talk as if they are trying to block the bill, period.
But I note that they are only asking for the opportunity to ask questions and to go through the normal process involved in creating something that works and is cost efficient. Apparently those who have studied it are struck with its inefficiency in providing the benefits. And they are also pointing out that the Democrats are violating their own "pay as you go" policy, as the Dems have not reduced expenses elsewhere but only raised taxes in what they refer to as "closing a tax loophole" (not actually correct, as it passes additional costs on to Americans ultimately, so it is the equivalent of an extra tax and not a spending reduction).
The Republicans are objecting to the tendency of trying to jam through legislation without everybody understanding it, just so the Dems can "get it done." The most prominent example of this was in Nancy Pelosi urging to just pass the big health care bill without reading, one of her most famous statements: “... we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it."
The Democrats have passed some historic and beneficial bills, but they seems to have gotten so used to ramrodding it that they might have lost the "centering" and proper considering that is required to do a good job (as did the Republicans when they had power).
But now it is time to go back to proper process - and to see that neither party is an ogre, but are just people with a different way of doing things, but with good motivation to do the right thing.
I vote for what is the "proper" "thinking" way. And I urge the Republicans to make it known that they care also.
The Rational Problem Solver
Saturday, December 11, 2010
Educaton And Charter Schools
Yes, I realize that there is a strong lobby of the teacher's unions to keep the status quo at public schools. But the public interest is in having a much better education for the students. And, if teachers are qualified, tthey need not be protected from losing their jobs as they can work with the charter schools.
The charter schools will take the same fees and costs that are paid for each student in the public schools and provide better education, using the efficiencies and motivation of private business to solve problems better than government.
Other than special interests, is there any reason not to take the much better education? Are we willing to compromise at such a great cost: the loss for a lifetime of lower quality education?
Now is the time to stop settling for mediocrity and let's get our education up there so that each student stands a better chance for a good future and so that the U.S. stays productive. The types of jobs that will be available in the US are the high knowledge jobs - and they are the ones that provide high salaries, for they are the high-value-providing jobs. If we don't do this on an urgent basis, we will find ourselves too far behind, with vacant high value jobs that have to be filled by foreigners.
Please choose and act with the greatest urgency and don't put up with less than high urgency action by the legislature - it is our very future as a nation and our individual prospecrity that is at stake!
The Rational Problem Solver
The charter schools will take the same fees and costs that are paid for each student in the public schools and provide better education, using the efficiencies and motivation of private business to solve problems better than government.
Other than special interests, is there any reason not to take the much better education? Are we willing to compromise at such a great cost: the loss for a lifetime of lower quality education?
Now is the time to stop settling for mediocrity and let's get our education up there so that each student stands a better chance for a good future and so that the U.S. stays productive. The types of jobs that will be available in the US are the high knowledge jobs - and they are the ones that provide high salaries, for they are the high-value-providing jobs. If we don't do this on an urgent basis, we will find ourselves too far behind, with vacant high value jobs that have to be filled by foreigners.
Please choose and act with the greatest urgency and don't put up with less than high urgency action by the legislature - it is our very future as a nation and our individual prospecrity that is at stake!
The Rational Problem Solver
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)