"N2EY" wrote:

It's important to remember that the Social Security system
doesn't just support retirees. Also, there is no "means test"
- folks over a certain age get their SS retirement benefits
no matter how much income they have, whether it be from
investment or employment. (snip)


Many have wrestled with that for years. Some argue the wealthy don't need
the benefits. Others argue if everyone pays into the system, everyone should
collect later in life. In the end, if the goal is to provide a solid
parachute, the current system is not that bad.


Another factor is that as our life expectancies increase,
more and more people outlive their SS contributions.
(snip)


Another serious problem. It wouldn't have been so bad had the government
invested that money over the years so it could bring in a healthy return,
but they didn't. So what do we do now? First of all, money is available
without raising taxes. The government collects billions of dollars in taxes
each year. The question is where that money is spent. Do we buy new military
hardware and finance art shows, or do we provide for the elderly? If we want
to do all of that, we have to raise taxes. If we only want to do some of it,
and cut some, we don't need to raise taxes. Some say cut the benefits for
the elderly and keep the other stuff. I think we should cut some of the
other stuff and keep the benefits for the elderly.


You might want to look up where the military budget
actually goes. A big percentage of it is spent on pay
and benefits to military personnel, retirees and
dependents.


That is less so today. Even though the military budget has continued to
climb, the number of active duty personnel has decreased(less than half what
is was twenty-five years ago). Likewise, benefits for dependents have also
decreased. For example, dependents used to receive free medical care. Today,
they pay fees for any medical treatment, with that treatment additionally
subsidized by a medical plan paid for by the active duty spouse.

There is also a built-in inefficency in the military system today. For
whatever reason, many of the jobs once done by active duty personnel (cooks,
clerks, admin, maintenance, recreation, and medical) are now done by
civilian employees, many earning much higher wages, benefits, and
retirement. Likewise, many technical jobs are now handled by contract
companies, whose employees also often earn much higher wages, benefits, and
retirement. As a result, it is now much more expensive to staff those jobs.

Some of the less skill oriented civilian jobs were once open to
dependents. Sadly, even this is rarely the case anymore. In many places
overseas, for example, dependents can no longer find work simply because
most of the jobs (especially the ones that pay fairly well) are reserved for
civilians (often local nationals). As a result, dependents are usually left
with the part-time jobs at the BX/PX, snack bars, fast food joints, or they
can bag groceries at the commissary.


And people vote for those politicians because they're
"pro-business".


People vote for those "pro-business" candidates because they're mislead
about what "pro-business" really means. If any candidate actually told the
truth and said he supports immigration because that would drive down wages
for everybody and employers like low wages, that candidate probably wouldn't
get more than a handful of votes (and most of those from business owners).
Instead, candidates talk about supporting business to help stimulate the
economy and create jobs. What is never said is that the only "economy" being
stimulated is the profits of big business and the only jobs being created
are low paying ones. Of course, since both political parties support big
business, voters don't have an alternative choice anyway.


You might want to check into what the average person's
standard of living is like in many of those countries -
particularly when it comes to how much a house or car
costs. Dave, K8MN has lived in many foreign countries...


Homes are expensive because there are a lot of people living in a
relatively small area. This happens anytime there are large numbers of
people living in fairly crowded conditions (New York, for example).
Apartment prices are not any higher. We pay more for our apartment now than
we did in Germany (and this one is smaller). As for the cost of
automobiles, I have no idea what Dave is talking about. Where I lived, car
prices were nearly the same as here. If anything, there is a greater
selection of lower priced models (our car prices are getting pretty darn
high).


It's not impossible - the question is, what do you want to
give up? Or should I Say - what are *we* willing to give up?


I've already answer that - "immigration" and "decent (not astronomical)
profits for business."


For example, tonight on NBC there is a popular half hour
TV comedy whose 6 main characters are paid 1 million
dollars each - per episode! Are we willing to give up the
free market that makes such salaries possible?


If it takes that to insure decent wages for all Americans, I'm certainly
willing. But I don't think it is going to take that. Instead, we can cut
immigration and take steps to prevent factories from moving overseas (one
way might be to require American companies that move factories overseas to
pay import tariffs and duties just like any other foreign business). We
could also put caps on corporate profits without much damage to the overall
free market system (Bill Gates, as an extreme example, can survive on a
little less money). Increasing the minimum wage to more realistic levels
might help. And, if companies don't get the hint and try to pass that on to
consumers while keeping profits extraordinarily high instead, we can start
regulating major consumer goods (with the idea in the beginning of driving
prices down). All this has been done, to some degree, in Europe and Asia
with no ill effects. By the way, taxes in Europe have nothing to do with
this discussion. If we continue to insist on no national health care system
and few government aid programs like those seen in Europe, taxes won't have
to be raised.


Are we willing to give up low prices on imported goods
and pay a lot more for American made things? Drive a
smaller car, live in a smaller house, walk more, fly less,
own fewer things, make things last and last because we
can't afford new ones?


That is a gross exaggeration and you know it, Dave. Nothing that drastic
will be required. I've already outlined some of the far less intrusive steps
we can take in the previous paragraph.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/