<p>I don't know why but the world seems to move at a slower pace on the UChicago board compared to other boards. Maybe Chicagoers just don't like discussion boars but it would really be nice to have more posts and threads coming up.</p>
<p>how about politics? how do you people like the new social security program, if it gets passed by congress?</p>
<p>I haven't heard much about a new program, would you like to enlighten me?</p>
<p>i think it'd be great. you get to decide what you want to do with your money you'll be getting after you retire, right?</p>
<p>I find this really amusing how America is debating whether to privatize the social security system or not.
Look at the disparity.
There are countries where getting welfare benefits is almost impossible because there is no program as such. As for mine, the life expectancy rate is 56 and people are supposed to retire at 62. You'll be dead by the time you receive the benefits.</p>
<p>It's a great world though!!</p>
<p>I think its a load of crap.</p>
<p>i'm with you ottothecow. privatizing social security will only make the entire system extremely unstable..in a few years there will not even be a social security system. the life expectancy rate in the US is 56?? i'm sure its much longer. where did you get that from?</p>
<p>The problem with the plan, is not the plan, it's the objectivity of the plan. Social security, lets face it, has to be fixed, and an increasing amount of young people would really like to have their own "individual" accounts (this is the point that both the left and the right will agree to...). However, the problem comes to how and when to fix the problem. Bush is selling his plan by scaring the people into thinking that the SS fund is going literally broke, which is wrong, because the fund will never be technically "insolvent"...it will only be forced to decrease benefits to 70 cents on the dollar compared to the current pay out. Ok, so, this is where the "unworkable" parts of the Bush plan comes in. The new plan proposes to make 4% individual accounts (which take away from the current fund) and promises to maintain the level of benefits for persons currently over 45 (or is it 50? forgot, but that's the ballpark area). As a result, there is to be a large gap made by taking the 4% out of the SS fund while maintaining the SAME benefits, and it entails a 1-2 trillion bucks transition to cover the gap made by the 4%. Alright. So, where does the Bush administration propose to get money to cover the 4% gap? From the 4% accounts themselves ofcourse! (genius...the hypocrisy of politics!) So, the government will basically have this policy that if you make money on the individual accounts, you'll still have to pay a part of that account back to government, if the money remains stable, you'll still have to pay a part of that account back to the government, and if the account goes bear...well, sucks for you. Alright, so, the point is, after you pay back the government with the account money, your original benefits has already been cut, and the end result is that the new plan's end result is not much different from the result you'll have ended up with if you did nothing at all to the current program: it'll all revert back to 70cents on the dollar in 2042. It does nothing to solve the pay-out problem. The idea is a good one, but the problem isn't the idea of the plan, it is how the administration sorta kinda linked it to being an answer to the whole social security problem itself - on that point, it does nothing to solve the SS fund's insolvency (70 cents on the dollar) in 2042. </p>
<p>But, don't worry, I am pretty sure the plan will not pass. The actual plan is even more complicated and longer than "Hillary-care" in the Clinton administration. Many Republicans are not going to suport it, and the Democrats are firmly against it, and Bush is having a really hard time convincing the country that the plan actually works...The good thing is that an administration has finally mustered up enough guts to deal with some looming questions behind Social Security, regardless of its end result. Hopefully, this will instigate further debates and come up with better ways to fix Social Security.</p>
<p>I agree. It's good that the issue is coming up because this is the major issue. The 2004 election was a shame, if I might say. The big vote getters were concerning religion, what the two did 30 years ago, and their credibility. The first two are meaningless, and the last one deals with their ability to get things done. Needless to say, neither candidate was very good.</p>
<p>Social security, if it's such an important topic as Bush mentioned, should have gotten more light in the election...but foreign policy always seems to overshadow everything during an election.</p>
<p>As for the plan itself, it runs on the belief (which is contigent with Bush's upper tier tax cuts) that privatization will allow people to invest their money into the economy and into corporations. There is no guarantee, however, that these corporations will use this money to improve and strengthen their companies. They might just raise their paycheck a few hundred thousand more...</p>
<p>When the Democrats start pointing out that even after the benifits cuts that will be needed, that people will not get a bigger check per month under the new system, the masses will turn against it. Add to that Bush states that massive amounts of money will be needed to bail out Social Security. What does he call the money that will be needed to get his new system running?</p>
<p>I think this new system is overdue because SS even started. The first person who received their SS checks only put around 10-20 dollars into SS. That person received more than 100 times what they put in. It should never be that way. People should watch out for themselves.</p>
<p>People watching out for themselves is a major part of retirement. You cannot retire on SS; it only works as a suplement that is resistant to inflation and market failures. On top of SS you should have savings and private investments. SS is immune to inflation because the money isnt stored, it is shifted. Ten years ago, people payed into SS and SS payed out to retired people. Now, 10 years later, inflation means retired people need raised benefits but it also means that workers' wages have gone up thus negating inflation. It is immune to market failures simply because the money is not in the market. If a person's private investments deteriorate, their SS benefits do not change because they are detatched.</p>
<p>This setup means that if you privitize part of the worker contributions, the SS income drops while the payouts have to remain the same. This puts a strain on the reserves for the current retirees and then ones the people with private accounts retire, the system has the EXACT SAME problems as it does now (except for being 4% smaller incomes and payouts). I'll agree that SS needs change if it is to last but privatization is not the answer. SS is a tax not a bank account. The money I pay into it is not mine any more than my income tax is mine. The money goes almost directly to some 85 year old woman's benefit check. If I want to invest MY money (which should be done), I do it from the money that belongs to me and not from a glorified tax break.</p>
<p>I support smokers and tobacco companies.</p>
<p>in regards to smokers and tobacco companies, i think that they are infringing on other people's rights. yes, it is their right to destroy or protect their own lungs; however, smokers are also polluting the air that the rest of us breathe. in a more immediate context parents who smoke and who subject their kids to smoky air in their homes and/or vehicles are slowly murdering their children. i do not support the slow and deliberate murders of thousands, even millions, of american children by the people closest to them.</p>
<p>I highly doubt second hand smoke is as dangerous as you say it is. However, people who choose to committe slow sucide will put a lot of money into SS and will end up not getting most of it back in return because they will have died before then. Therefore, everybody else will get more. They have the choice and others have the money, its a win-win situation. I hope I don't burn in hell.</p>
<p>spending several hours in a room filled with dense smoke as found in a smoker's home while they're smoking is equivalent to two or three cigarettes. young children in a smoke filled home can't leave and escape the smoke that burns their lungs.</p>
<p>"spending eight hours in a smoky bar is equivalent to smoking half a pack of cigarettes" - New York Daily News
Saturday, November 9th, 2002</p>
<p>First, get out of the smokey bar and find something better to do.
Second, children should be be subjugated to that kind of abuse. A law should be passed that you could only smoke outside when there are other people living in your house.</p>
<p>what about people that work in the smoky bar? although nobody is forcing them to work there, but extreme poverty can lead people to work in places and situations in which they would not otherwise work. destitution is the equivalent of having a guy to your head in terms of the pressure put on people to find work, any kind of work. people should not have to subject themselves to a slow and painful death in order to avoid more immediate starvation.</p>
<p>It is all supply and demand. When other people refuse to work at smoky bars, wages will naturally go up to attract people. Therefore, anybody who is willing to take that position will be paid enough to cover the excess health damage they will receive from working there. They could easily be strippers and make more money if they are willing to bruise their dignity.</p>
<p>Another point of interest: today, I was backing up "sweat-shops" in an argument with my friend. Sweat-shops raise living standards in poor countries that are unable to create enough jobs for their citizens without foreign investments. Nobody is forcing them to work at sweat-shops; they do it because it pays better than working at a farm. If they dont want to work, they could go back to the farm. Protests are nothing but a bunch of trouble makers who either a) have their own special interest in mind (protecting their own manufacturing jobs) or b) they are ill-informed people with a lot of time on their hands. </p>
<p>If people have choices and adequate information/education for choosing the best choice for themselves, then nothing should be illegal. Anything done unwillingly or done out of pure ignorance should be regulated. Therefore, I support tobacco companies as long as they have that warning label on packages. Any excess tax should only be use to cover negative externalities such as pollution.</p>
<p>Livening things up a bit...</p>
<p>It looks like the president does invisible drugs now :).</p>