How many times will Social Security be . . .

[piece-itpete]

Indeed. Clinton and Obama too, I'd say

Pete

[BlueStreak]

What are they going to go after next, Pete? What are you willing to give up to appease the Gods of Capitalism next time around? 'Cuz, you know it won't stop here. Where do you draw the line? Tell me, what am I going to be "socialist pussy" for expressing concern about next?

"The market will determine...............", as if "the market" is something with a mind of its own, completely beyond anyones control. Bull, pure and utter bull. I'm tired of having my intelligence insulted with that garbage.

Dave

[whell]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

What are they going to go after next, Pete? What are you willing to give up to appease the Gods of Capitalism next time around? 'Cuz, you know it won't stop here. Where do you draw the line? Tell me, what am I going to be "socialist pussy" for expressing concern about next?

"The market will determine...............", as if "the market" is something with a mind of its own, completely beyond anyones control. Bull, pure and utter bull. I'm tired of having my intelligence insulted with that garbage.

Dave

Starting with the new deal and accelerating since then, government has been driving social policy through businesses and the workplace. There are some elements of this that may have made sense at one time, some still might. However, I believe we've stretched the boundaries of what makes sense, and when the system starts to fail, we blame "big business". We don't blame "big government", when it was "big government" that mandated, funded, and made promises regarding Social Security, Medicare, Unemployment, Health Care, Family Leave time, etc., or required or assumed that businesses would "always" be able to assume those responsibilities for their employees.

However, rather than ask what we must "give up to the Gods of capitalism", I propose a different question: What responsibility does the employer have to fund the health and retirement needs of their employees, beyond what is agreed to between the employer and the employee at the time of hire? Where does this responsibility flow from? Where has the employer agreed to assume this responsibility other than competing for labor in the marketplace?

For what its worth: pensions - aka defined benefit plans - have receded from the corporate landscape because they have become to expensive to maintain and too expensive to operate. This expense is not limited to the accumulated payment obligations to retirees (though some plans certainly made some dopey actuarial assumptions - no worse than those made by those who set up Social Security back in the day I'd suggest). The funding and administrative expenses have become especially burdensome. Defined contribution plans allow employers to continue funding employee retirement, and provide the flexibility to limit or curtail contributions when business conditions sour: something that defined benefit plans don't allow.

[piece-itpete]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

What are they going to go after next, Pete? What are you willing to give up to appease the Gods of Capitalism next time around? 'Cuz, you know it won't stop here. Where do you draw the line? Tell me, what am I going to be "socialist pussy" for expressing concern about next?

"The market will determine...............", as if "the market" is something with a mind of its own, completely beyond anyones control. Bull, pure and utter bull. I'm tired of having my intelligence insulted with that garbage.

Dave

Central control of the economy is the goal of anyone wishing control of the people. The efficiency of a free market has been proven beyond doubt. The failure of central planning has also been proven beyond doubt.

I'd be willing to offer up Obama

Excellent post Whell.

Pete

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by whell

For what its worth: pensions - aka defined benefit plans - have receded from the corporate landscape because they have become to expensive to maintain and too expensive to operate. This expense is not limited to the accumulated payment obligations to retirees (though some plans certainly made some dopey actuarial assumptions - no worse than those made by those who set up Social Security back in the day I'd suggest). The funding and administrative expenses have become especially burdensome. Defined contribution plans allow employers to continue funding employee retirement, and provide the flexibility to limit or curtail contributions when business conditions sour: something that defined benefit plans don't allow.

Bullshit, my former employer was/is profitable has fully funded its employee retirement plan and I don't doubt but what they will continue to be profitable.

They seem to be able to administer the retirement plan and even provide COLA when warranted.

The problem here is in part based on some idiotic rules such as quarterly reporting whose sole benefit is to profit takers on Wall Street.

Dave is correct in stating that the so called "free market" as some self-regulating sentient being is an insult to any intelligent person. It never has been truly free in any case but has been manipulated from within.

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

Central control of the economy is the goal of anyone wishing control of the people. The efficiency of a free market has been proven beyond doubt. Pete

Granted it sure was very efficient in damn near starting another depression.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

What responsibility does the employer have to fund the health and retirement needs of their employees, beyond what is agreed to between the employer and the employee at the time of hire? Where does this responsibility flow from? Where has the employer agreed to assume this responsibility other than competing for labor in the marketplace?

Thoughtful post, but it seems to me that funding for health insurance or retirement has to come from somewhere. It either comes from the state through general taxation or through the employer through wages and benefits. Pick your poison.

As you are certainly aware, during WWII, wage and price controls were placed upon American employers (rightly or wrongly). To compete for workers, companies begin to offer health benefits, giving rise to the employer-based system. Inertia, along with GOP scare tactics, keeps it that way.

[piece-itpete]

The US economy is far from free. The way it is regulated is often the problem, conveniently laid at capitalism's feet to shed the blame off the demogoges/politicians who screwed it up in the first place.

Pete

[piece-itpete]

Btw the OP does point out the elephant in the room (not the GOP one ).

SS has already started cashing IOUs. Time to pay the piper. Again. And his bill is high.

Pete

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

The US economy is far from free. The way it is regulated is often the problem, conveniently laid at capitalism's feet to shed the blame off the demogoges/politicians who screwed it up in the first place.

Pete

It's about as free as any in a modern society. I guess we could go back to a barter system.

Like it or not, modern capitalism needs regulation (albeit smart regulation). Enron, WorldCom, Leaman Bros, ... should make that perfectly clear. Like it or not, greed is endemic to the human condition.