it is, of course, much more complicated than that.
yes, the Social Security benefits are connected to the cost of living increase, but are usually a year or two behind, and sudden changes in the inflation rate (like, say, during reagan's early years when he instituted the same damn policies that bush is reenacting now, only with the interest rates still being low which they weren't in the early 80s) can really screw things up in the short term.
and that inflation is going to happen, and soon. the low interest rates are going to go back up again; the feds simply can't afford to keep them that low. Remember, the feds get tax money on the interest, not on any actual loan itself as a sale, so one of the reasons the deficit is where its at is because the feds are getting next to no tax money when the interest rates are next to nothing.
it was all supposed to re-encourage investment (wall street works by *very* short-term loans to actually move the cash around, because there's simply no way the banks can really conduct business fast enough to keep up; those rates are the ones the feds keep adjusting and are currently near zero. all other rates relate to those rates in one way or another, usually with a 3-6 month delay, sometimes shorter.).
unfortunately, VC and other investors are still terrified that there simply won't be another big boom industry to replace the web as the cutting edge (see this article for some details). The result, with plenty to sell and nobody buying, is the threat of deflation hanging over our heads, something the republicans consider a sign of the apocolypse (even though most reasonable people immediately realize it'll pass, and quickly, without having any intervention required -- Adam Smith asserted that much over 200 years ago).
So to counter that threat, they will, believe it or not, finally start to raise the rates...and once they do and realize its not hurting anything in the short term, they'll raise it a jump, which will get wall street to drop by 300 points in an hour, but stablize within the week (watch for it to happen on a tuesday; monday bad news stays with them for a while, but tuesday bad news is always something "temporary", 9/11 excluded, and quickly recovered by friday).
Well, that jump will directly cause an jump-increase in the CPI within 4 months (something they WANT to have happen, 'cause again its more tax revenue without raising taxes, just like the real estate stuff i've posted about before). Social Security will, of course, be 2 years behind and seniors suffering all along.
During the Clinton days, SS benefits were managed by somebody who realized and acounted for the delays, and seniors knew it was a good thing.
BushCo promised not to touch those, but is about to, and betray yet another group he stole from the democratic voter base by promising to play with the issues that usually were democratic issues. hopefully those who voted democrat in the 80s and 90s will realize when the republicans promised to do stuff about medicare, social security, and labor (things usually democrat candidates promoted), they were either 1) lying, or 2) aware they were going to screw it up (medicare), or 3) not aware, but so incompitent they screwed it up anyways (labor).
lets face it, the republicans can almost successfully bomb the shit out of anything (but so can the democrats, which people should remember; clinton fired a few successful volleys at the middle east in his day), but aren't worth a damn for helping anybody but their own rich heinies...which are the only things they care about in the first place.
Here's where you and I part ways-- I think SS should be abolished anyway. It's an inter-generational ponzi scheme that has long outlived its' original purpose. People can do better investing on their own and the government shouldn't be taking anyone's money to support this nonsense. The whole scheme relies on an ever-increasing base of population to work (breed! breed! breed!), which is a sure fire way to destroy quality-of-life overall.
i never said it was a good system, i just feel that if they're managing *my* money, they'd better manage it correctly (which out of their absolute greed, the republicans refuse to do).
but yeah, the system is based on faulty 40s/50s post-new-deal reasoning that simply doesn't (and certainly shouldn't) apply today. It also was based on the "average" lifestyle of the "average" middle class, one of the many things based on social statistics (which were common justifications for many socialist reforms, in America and Europe, for the previous 100 years).
One of its original tenants was the idea that by the time a family retires, they own a house and aside from property taxes, have no "rent" so the income they get only has to go to food and clothes. It utterly failed to account for facts like most people won't own a home or will have to sell it because they're too old to maintain it, or because they get sick and have to move into a nursing home (at 2 to 3 times what they would pay for a "normal" apartment or mortgage of the same size).
It was sold to the American public as providing an "ideal" retirement lifestyle for an "average" person, when neither of those ever existed or could ever exist outside of the hollywood-influenced imagination.
so no, i don't think we're disagreeing all that much here. but just as long as they *do* have my money, i'm going to want it back someday. maybe if it gets abolished, i'll send them a bill.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2004-02-27 01:14 pm (UTC)yes, the Social Security benefits are connected to the cost of living increase, but are usually a year or two behind, and sudden changes in the inflation rate (like, say, during reagan's early years when he instituted the same damn policies that bush is reenacting now, only with the interest rates still being low which they weren't in the early 80s) can really screw things up in the short term.
and that inflation is going to happen, and soon. the low interest rates are going to go back up again; the feds simply can't afford to keep them that low. Remember, the feds get tax money on the interest, not on any actual loan itself as a sale, so one of the reasons the deficit is where its at is because the feds are getting next to no tax money when the interest rates are next to nothing.
it was all supposed to re-encourage investment (wall street works by *very* short-term loans to actually move the cash around, because there's simply no way the banks can really conduct business fast enough to keep up; those rates are the ones the feds keep adjusting and are currently near zero. all other rates relate to those rates in one way or another, usually with a 3-6 month delay, sometimes shorter.).
unfortunately, VC and other investors are still terrified that there simply won't be another big boom industry to replace the web as the cutting edge (see this article for some details). The result, with plenty to sell and nobody buying, is the threat of deflation hanging over our heads, something the republicans consider a sign of the apocolypse (even though most reasonable people immediately realize it'll pass, and quickly, without having any intervention required -- Adam Smith asserted that much over 200 years ago).
So to counter that threat, they will, believe it or not, finally start to raise the rates...and once they do and realize its not hurting anything in the short term, they'll raise it a jump, which will get wall street to drop by 300 points in an hour, but stablize within the week (watch for it to happen on a tuesday; monday bad news stays with them for a while, but tuesday bad news is always something "temporary", 9/11 excluded, and quickly recovered by friday).
Well, that jump will directly cause an jump-increase in the CPI within 4 months (something they WANT to have happen, 'cause again its more tax revenue without raising taxes, just like the real estate stuff i've posted about before). Social Security will, of course, be 2 years behind and seniors suffering all along.
During the Clinton days, SS benefits were managed by somebody who realized and acounted for the delays, and seniors knew it was a good thing.
BushCo promised not to touch those, but is about to, and betray yet another group he stole from the democratic voter base by promising to play with the issues that usually were democratic issues. hopefully those who voted democrat in the 80s and 90s will realize when the republicans promised to do stuff about medicare, social security, and labor (things usually democrat candidates promoted), they were either 1) lying, or 2) aware they were going to screw it up (medicare), or 3) not aware, but so incompitent they screwed it up anyways (labor).
lets face it, the republicans can almost successfully bomb the shit out of anything (but so can the democrats, which people should remember; clinton fired a few successful volleys at the middle east in his day), but aren't worth a damn for helping anybody but their own rich heinies...which are the only things they care about in the first place.
no subject
Date: 2004-02-28 07:50 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-02-28 09:28 am (UTC)but yeah, the system is based on faulty 40s/50s post-new-deal reasoning that simply doesn't (and certainly shouldn't) apply today. It also was based on the "average" lifestyle of the "average" middle class, one of the many things based on social statistics (which were common justifications for many socialist reforms, in America and Europe, for the previous 100 years).
One of its original tenants was the idea that by the time a family retires, they own a house and aside from property taxes, have no "rent" so the income they get only has to go to food and clothes. It utterly failed to account for facts like most people won't own a home or will have to sell it because they're too old to maintain it, or because they get sick and have to move into a nursing home (at 2 to 3 times what they would pay for a "normal" apartment or mortgage of the same size).
It was sold to the American public as providing an "ideal" retirement lifestyle for an "average" person, when neither of those ever existed or could ever exist outside of the hollywood-influenced imagination.
so no, i don't think we're disagreeing all that much here. but just as long as they *do* have my money, i'm going to want it back someday. maybe if it gets abolished, i'll send them a bill.