(no subject)
Dec. 28th, 2008 06:02 amOh, and that whole Madoff thing, and the Ponzi scheme? (I kept referring to it as "that thing that reminds me of Fonzi from Happy Days" because, having never heard of it before, I couldn't ever come up with Ponzi before I actually sat down and read a few articles about it.) Does this system of taking the next guy's money, promising big returns that you can't actually pay out on, and branching out to more and more people as time goes on in a structure that eventually collapses into a pile of economic ruin not remind anyone else of, I don't know, SOCIAL SECURITY?
Edit: Oh, LOL. At the bottom of the Wikipedia article for Ponzi Scheme (because I had to pull it up because I kept wanting to call Madoff 'Maddow') there's a link to an Internet Archive copy of a page from the Social Security Administration entitled "Is Social Security a Ponzi Scheme?" Guess what they're going to try to tell us? I wonder if that's why the page is (presumably, as the linker had to resort to an archive) no longer up--they realized "Yeah, guys. This is sort of bullshit. We totally are a Ponzi Scheme." /edit
Note to Washington. We gave you a Democratic Senate, a Democratic House, and a Democratic executive. You've been claiming for ages that that's what you need--let's get to fixing this thing, people. (Yeah, I just watched the West Wing episode "Slow News Day", wherein Toby tries to fix SS.)
Am I a bad liberal if I think we should raise the retirement age more? I mean, as much as it sucks for the workers, the argument is absolutely right that we're living ages beyond what we were when the system was enacted, and that it wasn't set up to support people for decades. On the other hand, living longer doesn't mean productive longer, so that's hard to get around--physical jobs you can't stay in for too much longer, and when there's threat of mental decline, that takes out a lot of possibilities like medicine, stuff you've got to be sharp for. Balancing act. I don't think we can raise it to, idk, 75 or anything, but doing the math (which, if it weren't pushing 6am with me still awake, I'd totally do right now) and figuring out how much longer proportionally we're living than we were back in 1935, mixed in with some stat on productive/workable living age (as there's no doubt somebody on one of the sides of the issue did one) should give a good number. And still make it flexible, like it is now--you can retire earlier, but just not draw quite as much.
Not that that'll be anywhere near the amount of fixing it'll take, but still. Also reading the Blagojevich report. Is it just because I'm from Saint Louis, a stone's throw from Illinois, that I can't understand why people can't pronounce "Blagojevich"? I think all the talking heads just sound stupid when they call him "Blahgo".
And I mentioned earlier watching CSPANtoday yesterday. Twas because there was nothing good on while I was exercising, plus it was the SCOTUS arguments on that Kennedy v. Louisiana child rape being a capital crime case, which I posted once or twice about in the spring when they heard the arguments and possibly again when they handed down the decision in June. I totally want to be on the Supreme Court. First, because that's pretty much the coolest branch. They've kept a lot of the shrouded mystery and. . . idk, honor that's been killed by all the scandal and such in the other two branches. Plus, it's about a bazillion times better than regular judging, because if they have a question, they just interrupt you. And Scalia made a joke, which made me LOLOL just because. . . I mean, powdered wigs (which I'd totally bring back), and old guys with robes, and heavy cases that go down in history and such; you don't expect one of them to make a funny. That's the other thing though--sure, Congress can make laws, and the President can sign them or not, but only the Supreme Court really gets to send them back with not only the "4srs? bitchplz" of rejection that the President's veto can do, but the establishment of sweeping precedent that governs jurisprudence on levels reaching from the highest courts all the way down to cops reading people Miranda, and remains doing so for centuries. I wrote a couple of things on the Court for polisci that I should throw down here sometime I'm not supposed to be sleeping (I'm not really feeling that tired, but the drastic increase in typing errors killing my backspace key begs to differ), one on the modern court's lack of efficacy reigning in the expanded powers of the Bush administration and one on Justice Stevens and term limits. Because fun.
Edit: Oh, LOL. At the bottom of the Wikipedia article for Ponzi Scheme (because I had to pull it up because I kept wanting to call Madoff 'Maddow') there's a link to an Internet Archive copy of a page from the Social Security Administration entitled "Is Social Security a Ponzi Scheme?" Guess what they're going to try to tell us? I wonder if that's why the page is (presumably, as the linker had to resort to an archive) no longer up--they realized "Yeah, guys. This is sort of bullshit. We totally are a Ponzi Scheme." /edit
Note to Washington. We gave you a Democratic Senate, a Democratic House, and a Democratic executive. You've been claiming for ages that that's what you need--let's get to fixing this thing, people. (Yeah, I just watched the West Wing episode "Slow News Day", wherein Toby tries to fix SS.)
Am I a bad liberal if I think we should raise the retirement age more? I mean, as much as it sucks for the workers, the argument is absolutely right that we're living ages beyond what we were when the system was enacted, and that it wasn't set up to support people for decades. On the other hand, living longer doesn't mean productive longer, so that's hard to get around--physical jobs you can't stay in for too much longer, and when there's threat of mental decline, that takes out a lot of possibilities like medicine, stuff you've got to be sharp for. Balancing act. I don't think we can raise it to, idk, 75 or anything, but doing the math (which, if it weren't pushing 6am with me still awake, I'd totally do right now) and figuring out how much longer proportionally we're living than we were back in 1935, mixed in with some stat on productive/workable living age (as there's no doubt somebody on one of the sides of the issue did one) should give a good number. And still make it flexible, like it is now--you can retire earlier, but just not draw quite as much.
Not that that'll be anywhere near the amount of fixing it'll take, but still. Also reading the Blagojevich report. Is it just because I'm from Saint Louis, a stone's throw from Illinois, that I can't understand why people can't pronounce "Blagojevich"? I think all the talking heads just sound stupid when they call him "Blahgo".
And I mentioned earlier watching CSPAN