HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: curt@ekhadafi.austin.ibm.com (Curt Finch 903 2F021 curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com 512-838-2806)
Subject: Social Security
Summary: bites down hard
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1992 20:41:43 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: IBM AWD, Austin

wrr3118@tamsun.tamu.edu (Rick Russell) writes:
>In article <BzMAHL.1p9G@austin.ibm.com> dewey@vpdbox.austin.ibm.com writes:

>>      I thing we can all agree that if you took the money the Govt. is
>>      taking in the name of SS and put it in a private-plan, you'd
>>      do better in the long run.

>Is this true? I mean, as it stands now, you make much, much more money
>from social security than you put in. Of course, I don't think this
>scheme can continue, but as it stands now, SS is an excellent 'deal'
>for the people who collect on it...

>The system, as it stands now, is a scam and a dodge designed to
>provide welfare for the elderly. I have no objection to welfare in
>general, but it needs to be called what it is.

I don't really feel like looking up the definition of welfare, but
doesn't it usually refer to helping the poor?

Social Security benefits the wealthy far more than the poor.  The
richer you are at retirement, the bigger your monthly check.  It's
reverse welfare.  It's extra regressive.  The wealthy are taxed less
(as a percentage of total income - it stops at 59k gross salary or
whatever) and receive more benefits when they retire.

It's a little perverse isn't it?  The richest segment of our
population, the aged, receive continuous handouts from young wage
earners far in excess of their own contributions when those same young
people have not a prayer of ever collecting this freebie themselves.

The problem with our federal government is not that it spends too much
on the poor - far from it.  The problem is that we spend too much on
middle and upper middle class 65 year olds with two homes and a fancy
car.

Isn't it odd that Democrats, supposedly the party of the down-trodden,
are so completely in favor - almost to the point of unanimity - of this
twisted state of affairs.  (My apologies to Mr. Tsongas.)

-- 
curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com (Curt L. Finch) | AIX NFS/NIS Field Quality 
My views are unrelated to my employer's    |        Austin, TX
 - Begin means testing of Social Security, Medicare and Farm Subsidies now. -
From: bboerner@novell.com (Brendan B. Boerner)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Social Security
Date: 2 Jan 93 20:49:16 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Novell, Inc. --Austin

In article <1993Jan2.142741.1552@rpp386> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>No, Social Security today is NOT welfare.  The returns on your Social
>Security "investment" are just as awful today as they were 10 or more
>years ago - even if you are "rich".  Social Security was never
>intended to be a "retirement" program - it is supposed to supplement
>other arrangements for retirement.  As for being "rich", if you made
>the maximum for the years before they screwed around with the code
>in the 80's, you'd still get less than the poor people who didn't.
>And if you have any significant income, you'd get even less still.
[...]
>That you get all of your money back in a few years is only a consequent
>of an average life expectancy of 67 or so back in the 30's and 40's.

John,

If you retired 4 years ago and have received all of your money by
today, because life expectancy was estimated to be lower 47 years ago
or because you just happened to live longer or whatever, would you be
demanding to to continue to receive your SS check?  If not, fine, but
when I call SS welfare for the old, I do so because of the recipients
who have received there payin + interest (lousy as it may be) and still
want it coming, not because "it's their money" (it isn't) but because
"they're entitled to it".


>People who don't own their own home by the time they are 65 do not
>deserve to get more money than those who exercised self-restraint and
>managed to actually pay off a mortgage.  Unlike you, I believe money
>should be given to people based on whether or not they earned the
>money.  Not based on how poorly they managed their own money.


Wow, I've stated in several posts that I think that SS should be
abolished so folks can sink or swim on there own and now I'm accused of
trying to do the opposite.  Let me say it again in case you missed it -
John, I really, really, really do want to you to be able to control how
you fund your retirement.  If there was legislation in Congress to pay
out lump sums and phase out SS, I'd call up Pickle, Gramm and Bentsen
and plead for them to vote for it.  So lay off on the class envy
crap, ok?

Brendan
-- 
Brendan B. Boerner    Phone: 512/346-8380    MHS: bboerner@novell
Internet: bboerner@novell.com     \  Please use either if replying
   or  Brendan_Boerner@novell.com /  by mail exterior to Novell.
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: "Scott Bates Guthery" <p00197@psilink.com>
Subject: Social Security
Reply-To: guthery@slcs.slb.com
Organization: Schlumberger
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 15:59:09 GMT
X-Mailer: PSILink-DOS (3.3)

Here's a modest suggestion.  How about all the people that make the
rules for and adminster Social Security have to be covered by it?  No
small part of the Social Security mess is due to the fact that the
folks who design it (your elected representatives) and the folks that
adminster it (the Federal bureaucracy) are covered by their own independent
retirement plan and don't really care if Social Security works at all.

Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: jfh@rpp386 (John F. Haugh II)
Subject: Re: Social Security
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Organization: Los Tejanos SCUBA Club and Beer Joint, Austin, Tejas
Distribution: tx
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 02:06:48 GMT

In article <1993Jan2.154128.4616@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>Watch -
>
>>In:	$55,000/yr * 13% * 47 years = $336,050
>>Out:	$16,800/yr * 8 years = $134,400
>
>Now check up his sleeve for that guy making $150,000 when he retires and
>for the scheme that kept that poor guy at the same pay level (which
>just HAPPENED to coincide with where the income cap on Social Security
>is) for FORTY SEVEN YEARS.

I'm sorry, but something about this doesn't parse.  The woman who
retires at age 67 making $150,000 per year will receive the same
benefits as the man who retires at age 67 making $55,000 per year.

Since Social Security is based on 35 years of average earnings,
the woman making $150,000 will have to have been making that much
(and it doesn't matter anyhow, since making above the limit doesn't
boost your average any more than earning exactly at the limit)
for those 35 years.  The net result is that the man who never made
it over the limit will receive the exact same check as the woman
who always made 3 times the limit.  In fact, the man who always
made the limit will do better than the woman who worked exactly
10 years (40 quarters) and earned 3 1/2 times the limit for each
of those years.

NB: The limit was $55,500 this year, and the retirement portion was
12.4%.  Medicare, which is 2.9% of gross earnings, continues until
$130,200.
-- 
John F. Haugh II                  [ PGP 2.1 ] !'s: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151           [ DoF #17 ]        @'s: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org
From: xmpcwsh@dp7up.com (Bill Harris)
Subject: Bill Clinton Statue Committee
Organization: Dr Pepper Company/The Seven-Up Company, Dallas
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 92 16:35:27 GMT


A friend of mine found this, and don't know who the author is to give the
credit to.


		   BILL CLINTON STATUE COMMITTEE
			1040 Buffoon Street
		        Little Rock AR 72205

Dear Friend,

	We have the distinguished honor of being on the committee for raising 
five million dollars for placing a statue of Bill Clinton in the Hall of Fame in
Washington D.C. .

	This committee was in a quandary as to where to place the statue.  It
was not wise to place it beside the statue of George Washington, who never told
a lie, nor beside Jesse Jackson, who never told the truth, since Bill Clinton
could never tell the difference.

	We finally decided to place it beside the statue of Christopher
Columbus, the greatest Democrat of all.  He left not knowing where he was 
going, did not know where he was, returned not knowing where he had been and
did it all on borrowed money.

	Over 5,000 years ago, Moses said to the children of Israel, "Pick up 
your shovels, mount your asses and camels, and I will lead you to the Promised
Land."  Roosevelt said, "Lay down your shovels, sit on your asses, and light
up a Camel.  This is the Promised Land."

	Now, Bill Clinton is going to steal your shovels, kick your ass, 
raise the taxes on Camels, and mortgage the Promised Land.

	If you are one of the fortunate people who has anything left after
paying taxes, we expect a generous contribution to our worthwhile project.

Respectfully,


BILL CLINTON STATUE COMMITTEE


P.S.  Is is said that Bill Clinton is considering changing the Democratic Party
emblem from a donkey to a condom, because it stands for inflation, protects a
bunch of pricks, halts production and gives a false sense of security while
being screwed.

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Harris - MIS				xmpcwsh@dp7up.com
Dr Pepper/The Seven-Up Company			The opinions expressed are my
Dallas, Texas  					own. (emphasis on the period)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: curt@ekhadafi.austin.ibm.com (Curt Finch 903 2F021 curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com 512-838-2806)
Subject: Farm subsidies are bad.  Here's why.
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 16:09:20 GMT
Organization: IBM AWD, Austin

The following words about farm subsidies come from John Strong....
------------------------------------------------------------------

Did you read the survey on agriculture in the Dec. 12-18 Economist? I'm
browsing through right now it while I wait for a program to finish
executing. It looks pretty good. It starts out by debunking some myths
about what will happen to the countryside if farming is ever dereg-
ulated. The prospects for consumers is really exciting if we can ever
get over knee-jerk fear of change.

Check out this quote:

In present-day agriculture, "the interests of the consumer is almost
constantly sacrificed to that of the producer; [the system] seems to
consider production, and not con- sumption, as the object of all
industry and commerce."

That was Adam Smith writing about mercantilism in 1776.  "Little has
changed" since then, The Economist observed.

When I read this I was struck with a huge irony: all the left-wing net
pundits, the Fred McCalls, are constantly advocating what they think
are consumption oriented economic policies (short-term stimuluses,
etc.), and yet in the name of keeping consumption up, the policies they
recommend usually end up giving market distorting advantages (sometimes
outright handouts) to producers, prolonging economic realities that may
well be roadblocks in the way to future enhanced consumption.

The extreme example of this kind of thinking can be seen in the phil-
osophy of the Russian apparachiks now recoiling from the processes of
liberalization. The new prime minister, sadly, is a case in point (His
name is Chemyrdyn? or something like that). He wants to stop the preci-
pitous decrease in "production", but a precipitous slide in production
is exactly what Russia needs right now, because what is being produced
is not adding value by the standards of the world market in 1992 (Note
that it might have constituted a value-add in *1892*).  In fact, it has
been shown that Russian industry is so inefficient (again, by 1992
standards) that it actually serves as a value *subtractor*. In other
words, if every Russian worker quit working today and then the country
simply sold all raw materials currently used by Russian industry on
world markets, it would actually *increase* the Russian GNP.

But, hell no, we must stay focused on the Holy Grail of Production At
All Costs (cf. Perots: let's make computer chips come hell, high water,
or superior Japanese alternatives). To hell with what markets tell us
about the value of what we produce.

- J.

------------------------------------------------------------------
Those are John Strong's words......

-- 
curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com (Curt L. Finch) | AIX NFS/NIS Field Quality 
My views are unrelated to my employer's    |        Austin, TX
 - Begin means testing of Social Security, Medicare and Farm Subsidies now. -
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Is there a difference?
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 15:17:02 GMT

In <72646@cup.portal.com> Visionb@cup.portal.com (Vision Two Tester) writes:

>"There's not a dime's worth of difference; both political parties are alike." 
>"I vote for the person, not th e party."
>"If I'm anything, I'm Independent."
> 
>     A lot of Americans feel this way today and certainly, the 
>voters' instinct for electing the right candidate at the right
>time, regardless of party, has proven itself time and again.
> 
>     Few would question the importance or the power of the
>Independent vote in deciding closely contested elections.  
>And it is true that both parties are alike in many respects. 
> 
>     However, to ignore a candidate's party affiliation is to 

>miss out on one of the great advantages of the two-party 
>system.  The very reason that a candidate is listed as 
>REPUBLICAN or a DEMOCRAT is that he or she subscirbes 
>to the basic political philosophy for which party stands. . 

Sorry, but given the untruth of this premise, the conclusion that one
should heavily consider party affiliation of the candidates when
voting simply doesn't make much sense.  The reason a candidate is
listed as REPUBLICAN or DEMOCRAT depends on quite a number of factors,
and I quite frankly don't see a lot of 'basic political philosophy'
involved.

Needless to say, I find your characterizations of the political
parties to be biased, and silly in the extreme.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: sang@ross.com (nobody)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: City Council & CO Ammendment 2
Date: 22 Dec 92 21:15:19 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: nowhereimportant
Originator: sang@sedona

>In article <1h4vikINN5e6@im4u.cs.utexas.edu> flatau@cs.utexas.edu (Arthur Flatau) writes:
>>In article <BzM45J.2E14@austin.ibm.com> alan@auntbea.austin.ibm.com (Alan R. Weiss) writes:
>>>[...]
>>>
>>>  That the City Council
>>>of Austin made this statement on moral grounds is much to its credit.
> 
> I'm not sure I want the city council making any kinds of moral 
> judgements.  Aren't these the same people who want to stop development
....
> become quite valuable?   Whether one agrees with the CO Ammendment or not,
> I don't think it's the gov't's place to make moral judgements, which is
> probably the best argument against the CO Ammendment in the first place.
>  

by (almost) the same token, why should anyone make any judgement on how colorado
citizens voted  regarding laws *they* have to abide by?
more over, why is it that the people who are calling for the boycott are the 
same people who argue that religious right-wingers have no business 
pushing *their* moral values on other people?

why??!?!?!

-- 
-temporary sig file 
-nothingnothingnothing
From: wrr3118@tamsun.tamu.edu (Rick Russell)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Social Security Buyout Plan.
Date: 25 Dec 1992 16:59:50 -0600
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station, TX
Distribution: tx
NNTP-Posting-Host: tamsun.tamu.edu

In article <BzMAHL.1p9G@austin.ibm.com> dewey@vpdbox.austin.ibm.com writes:

>	I thing we can all agree that if you took the money the Govt. is
>	taking in the name of SS and put it in a private-plan, you'd
>	do better in the long run.

Is this true? I mean, as it stands now, you make much, much more money
from social security than you put in. Of course, I don't think this
scheme can continue, but as it stands now, SS is an excellent 'deal'
for the people who collect on it...

The system, as it stands now, is a scam and a dodge designed to
provide welfare for the elderly. I have no objection to welfare in
general, but it needs to be called what it is.
-- 
#      Rick Russell | TAMU Meteorology | wrr3118@tamsun.tamu.edu       # 
#     "I am Elfy of Atlantis." "I am Jo-Jo of Munchkinland."           #
#     "We are Elfy and Jo-Jo!"                                         #
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: paul@NeoSoft.com (Paul Hutmacher)
Subject: Re: Social Security
Organization: Greater Montrose UFO Appreciation Society & Data Haven
Distribution: tx
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 04:23:27 GMT

In article <Bzvw5J.1KEo@austin.ibm.com> curt@ekhadafi.austin.ibm.com (Curt Finch 903 2F021 curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com 512-838-2806) writes:
>It's a little perverse isn't it?  The richest segment of our
>population, the aged, receive continuous handouts from young wage
>earners far in excess of their own contributions when those same young
>people have not a prayer of ever collecting this freebie themselves.

Oh pooh.  That same argument of not having any social security left for 
the contributors is the same one used two generations ago.  They're the
ones now collecting.

I for one am going to hedge my bet and contribute heavily to my 401k
though.

-- 
Paul Hutmacher     | "These things happen.  One day you run everything
paul@NeoSoft.Com   |  and the next day you run like a dog." -- HST
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally)
Subject: Re: Protectionism and Japan
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Distribution: usa,tx
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 23:41:48 GMT

In article <BzICM4.26ot@austin.ibm.com> curt@ekhadafi.austin.ibm.com (Curt Finch 903 2F021 curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com 512-838-2806) writes:
>In article <1714@airgun.wg.waii.com> reed@rd08.wg2.waii.com writes:

>If every country in the whole world has joined together in a grand
>effort to sell us steel at way below cost, the we should not look
>a gift horse in the mouth.  We should take it.  We should close
>down our steel plants, sell them for scrap metal, retrain those workers
>to do something else, and with all the billions of dollars left over,
>buy ourselves all new cars.

	Would this not subject us to these countries' whims, and  
put us in a poor trade position, leverage-wise? How costly would it
be to retrain those workers? Would they move to the auto industry,
where, apparently, jobs will be created?

>If we take the free steel, we can make cars cheaper and sell them
>here and sell them in other countries with a huge competitive advantage.
>And if Japan won't let us sell cars there either, there's still lots
>of other countries to sell to.

	This sounds good. As I've said, I don't have a grasp of macro-
economics, but there must be a catch, no? They say there's no such
thing as a free lunch- what repercussions if we accept the free steel?
None, do you think? 

>>free trade on our part hurts only ourselves.
>
>	It helps us.  We're getting stuff for free.  

	I will accept this, since you and Doug seem to agree. I just don't
get it, however. Free? Never known good marketeers to make such mistakes,
without ulterior motives.


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Mullally (rocky@sugar.neosoft.com) PH:713-681-2495
"We need stronger death penalties..." George Bush, debate #2
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: bboerner@novell.com (Brendan B. Boerner)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Social Security Buyout Plan.
Date: 23 Dec 92 19:54:21 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Novell, Inc. --Austin

In article <BzMAHL.1p9G@austin.ibm.com> dewey@vpdbox.austin.ibm.com writes:
>	Ignoring the point that the young who are being screwed(myself 
>	included) will be paying for SS for their parents or grandparents,
>	wouldn't it be better to only pay for SS for another 10 or 20
>	years(in decreasing amounts) than for the rest of your working life?

Wouldn't it be better to NOT pay for SS for the next 10-20 years, and
tell those already collecting it to bug off?  So my parents or
grandparents are collecting SS already, BFD, I've already told my
parents that they shouldn't entertain any ideas of mooching off of me
in their golden years.

I suppose that pragmatically, what you're proposing is what will be
needed to extricate ourselves from SS, but at the same time, there'd
need to be a lot of shouting from the rooftops, "hey you young 'uns,
you're getting screwed to pay for your elders mistakes!"  Perhaps then
we wouldn't make the same mistake again.

>	I thing we can all agree that if you took the money the Govt. is
>	taking in the name of SS and put it in a private-plan, you'd
>	do better in the long run.

Yes, we can, we just don't agree on how to do that.

Brendan
-- 
Brendan B. Boerner		Phone: 512/346-8380
Internet: bboerner@novell.com	MHS: bboerner@novell
Please use ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ if replying by mail exterior to Novell.
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Social Security
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Distribution: tx
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 15:25:05 GMT

In <1992Dec27.190501.9404@rpp386> jfh@rpp386 (John F. Haugh II) writes:

>In article <Bzvw5J.1KEo@austin.ibm.com> curt@ekhadafi.austin.ibm.com (Curt Finch 903 2F021 curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com 512-838-2806) writes:
>>Social Security benefits the wealthy far more than the poor.  The
>>richer you are at retirement, the bigger your monthly check.  It's
>>reverse welfare.  It's extra regressive.  The wealthy are taxed less
>>(as a percentage of total income - it stops at 59k gross salary or
>>whatever) and receive more benefits when they retire.

>This is simply false, and I wish you would either back it up or stop
>writing it.

>The wealthy are taxed the same percentage as a fraction of taxable
>income.  They then receive benefits which DECLINE as the taxable
>fraction of their income increases.  I recently posted tabular data
>directly from the Social Security administration which shows that,
>based only on FICA income, a person making an average of $20K per
>year will receive approximately twice the benefits of a person making
>$55K.  (The exact ratio, which is calculated below, is about 8 to 5).

Yes, as a fraction of 'FICA taxable income', but given a $55k cap on
FICA taxable income, compute what percentage of income someone making
$150k is paying.  You will see quite clearly that SS taxation is flat
to $55k and highly regressive thereafter.  Unless you draw the
'wealth' line at $55k (which seems damned low to me), the statement
that the wealthy are taxed less as a percentage of total income is
quite correct.

As for the benefits at retirement, I'm curious.  If your income vastly
exceeded $55k for the 5 years prior to retirement, is your SS pension
based on $55k or on your total income?  If the former, your point is
at least SOMEWHAT correct.  If the latter, you're once again playing
games by selecting the number at the ceiling as your 'rich' figure.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: tx.politics