The return of common sense, aided and abetted by judges who stick to the constition as written and not parsed by activist judges who find or create law out of thin air.

I think in the case of asbestos, the question is who will bear the burden of the damage done — even if by innocents. Should it be just those victims? should it be all of us taxpayers? should it be ‘us’ to the extent that we are related to the asbestos industry, and profited and benefitted from it? I think the latter. And thats how we basically assign the damages to the industry as a whole.

Its a completely different justification than when people run into each other with their cars or when businesses engage in deceptive practices.

‘Stopping frivilous lawsuits is but a step in the right direction.’

If you can tell if a lawsuit is frivolous, then the current system can handle it at summary judgement.

‘It shouldn’t be too long before Newsom and ACLU won’t be able to threaten us with lawsuits in order to remove God from the face of His creation.’

What kind of tort reform do you think will accomplish this?

How many suffered economically when WR Grace was brought down for doing essentially what was legal as opposed to the actual victims of abestos?

Stopping frivilous lawsuits is but a step in the right direction. It shouldn’t be too long before Newsom and ACLU won’t be able to threaten us with lawsuits in order to remove God from the face of His creation.

Torts have been around for a long time. And I would imagine that judicial review is more scientific than congress.

Recall, tort reform was not on the table in a sKerry admin, nor did the breck girlie boy get where he was w/o massive trial lawyer support. Seems to me the losers were coughed up like so much hairball.

Tort reform hasn’t gone through. At least not substantive. Just some class action erasings.

Errrm,

Fact #1) Kinda hard to rebut, when parts of your comments get deleted. Suffice to say, the tone was overly defensive of the status quo and dismissive of PRA. If you had offered a counter-solution, then we could talk to that. Concurrently, no one is really disputing giving unto Ceasar what was his. On the other hand, Ceasar wasn’t collecting money to fund “social” plans for our well-being.

For Uncle Sam to surrogate himself as Papa knows best, is overreaching, even within the scope of our founding documents. Interesting that we refer to our govt as an Uncle, while the German idiom is Papa-Stat (Father State). It’s plain to see you’d rather embrace Father State rather than keep our conniving, and sometimes inebriated Uncle at arm’s length, especially from our wallet, and his propensity to blow it on self-gratification.

Fact #2) I already answered that earlier in another comment. Suffice to say, no matter how you slice it, our Uncle has promised us more than he’s got. Either we have to ante up or lower our expectations.

Fact #3)
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/articles/0217robb18.html

Fact #4) Your source technically states The Social Security Trust Fund has never been “put into the general fund of the government. [snip]Starting in 1969 (due to action by the Johnson Administration in 1968) the transactions to the Trust Fund were included in what is known as the “unified budget.” This means that every function of the federal government is included in a single budget. This is sometimes described by saying that the Social Security Trust Funds are “on-budget.” This budget treatment of the Social Security Trust Fund continued until 1990 when the Trust Funds were again taken “off-budget.” This means only that they are shown as a separate account in the federal budget. But whether the Trust Funds are “on-budget” or “off-budget” is primarily a question of accounting practices–it has no affect on the actual operations of the Trust Fund itself.

Nonetheless, that doesn’t stop congress from “borrowing” up the gross national debt, which includes the entire $1.6 trillion Social Security Trust Fund, all of which has been borrowed and spent. We pay thru FICA to build up a surplus that is targeted to be over $3.5 trillion by 2012. But the General Fund, by issuing IOUs has an open tab to tap into this surplus at will, hence rising national debt.

If as you assert the two funds are completely separate, why on earth would Clinton propose to put out General Fund surpluses into the Trust Fund, instead of gioving our money back? As far as big-spenders are concerned, the two books are merely two accounts from which to write checks against.

IOW, you might claim that the monthly letter from your favorite credit card company is merely a “bill” that need to be paid — much like utilities & what not. I on the other hand say you’re running a deficit. No need to quail; you say po-tay-to, I say po-tah-to. Hmmmm?

Fact #5) The point of other links is to see how tweaking various assumptions lead to differnent outcomes. How is that diversionary?

And yes, every single link has an unique approach to SS. Only one, the SSA doesn’t approach PIAs. IOW, there’s a lot of ways to skin this cat and maybe we-the-people ought to have a voice in deciding how we’re going to handle our retirement, instead of letting Uncle call the shots–I believe that’s called self-determination. So who’s zoomin’ who?

As for your other pointers, I’ve always maintained that rather than spell out a specific proposal, Bush has thrown a bunch of ideas onto the table for discussion and invited others to lay their 2 cents.

If you look at the debate from a game of poker POV, it looks like the donks are about to get called on their bluster. So far, I like the hand Bush is holding, while the donks were preoccupied with getting a full house (Josh Marshall & Kos berating “weak-kneed” democrats like Lieberman), Bush already scored tort reform over sKerry and John Boy Edwards’ dead bodies. I guess pretty hair makes for good trophy scalps.

Again, look at Schummy’s pathetic calculator in which there are only 2 variables, age & current income. I believe Schummy fits your definition of both idiot and partisan hack. Lucky for him, his hair won’t make for much of a scalp.

Finally, I’d love to figure out what “lockbox” means but Gored been rather incoherent ever since the debates. Best I can figure, for lack of initiative and creative thinking — inventing the internet was such a strain that he lost his marbles — he wants to take the money and bury it safe in the ground until his master comes calling.

Thanks for the stimulation and making me do some homework.

The only one around here spreading any myths is you.

Myth #1: That I’ve ever claimed that SS is “fine and dandy as is.” If you took a moment to read my comments here you would have seen that I twice stated my belief that some type of action must be taken with respect to SS.

Myth #2: That Ruffini’s calculator is an “honest estimate.” I contend that assuming a continously descending and ultimately negative rate of return for social security is dishonest – tell me how I’m wrong. Also, Ruffini’s calculator does not account for the massive transition costs Dubya’s plan would require – is this honest?

Myth #3: That I’ve “posit[ed] that SS is better off in any shape or form that is controled entirely by the govt.” Show me where I ever posited any such thing or admit that this is just another pathetic strawman to draw attention away from the rigged Ruffini calculator which you touted so highly and now can’t defend.

Myth #4: That LBJ came up with some bright idea to put our SS withholdings into the General Fund. Take a look at this FAQ by the SSA debunking Internet “myths”, http://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths.html, and in particular, this sentence: “The Social Security Trust Fund has never been “put into the general fund of the government.”" Now don’t you feel silly?

Myth #5: That the three other calculators you provide links to are somehow useful in assessing whether Dubya’s private accounts proposal is a good idea. The Heritage calculator does not purport to be based upon the Bush “plan,” but rather on a fantasy scenario where we could immediately allow workers to put “the full measure of what workers pay into Social Security’s Old Age and Survivors program, 10.6 percent of wages” into private accounts without incurring the trillions and trillions in transition costs such a move would entail. Boy, that’s useful. Further, neither of the other two calculators have anything to do with private accounts. It’s a shame some people actually take the time to click on your diversionary links, instead of just assuming they provide some support for whatever argument your trying to make.

As to the remainder of your commmentary, a few remarks:

Given the few specifics offered by Bush and his complete refusal to address how he intends to address both SS’s looming financial shortfalls and the massive transition costs a move to private accounts would entail, only an idiot or a partisan hack would pretend at this point that they could create a “calculator” purporting to measure the effect of the Bush “proposal”. Being neither, I decline to do so.

Clinton and Gore were both right to observe that SS faced trouble down the line. I don’t dispute that fact, so quit trying to put others’ words in my mouth.

Finally, a friendly tip — before you make ANY attempt to ever again discuss “the lockbox meme”, figure out what the term means.

And I think its an assumption of real growth — so the 4% would be on top of any inflation and COLA. Its all the increases. Experience, economic improvement, etc…

‘For example, running my numbers, Schummy tells me that I am promised X, however, he neglects to tell me that SS can only afford to pay me about X-25% without increasing taxes or a importing more tax-paying workers to top off the SS coffers. Nice try Schummy, let’s see a real calculator!!’

He shows you that. Thats the Bush plan. The one that doesn’t take in more revenues in order to meet future benefits, but instead cuts the benefits

‘Personally, I want to see 100% of my 10% income going into a PIA. Then when it’s time for me to retire, Uncle Schummy and his compadres are welcome to extract 5% to fund the Losers and Unfortunates Safety Net Fund. Run the numbers on that and see if the gubmint don’t wind up with more $$ to disburse monthly to the L&Us.’

If the numbers on this truly are good, then the govt should be investing everything it takes in and doing that. In fact, it should be selling bonds and investing!

‘Yes, Schumer uses CBO (owned and dominated by congressional donks) numbers, more appropriately known as “Commission Model 2″ which is a very conservative/pessimistic rate of 3% above inflation.’

Funny you characterize it as pessimistic: its also the model that shows SS doing so poorly!

My answer would be why not? Let’s fire up MS Excel. If by 20K, you’re assuming $9.62/hr, upon their 46th year, one would be making $56.17/hr or $116,823.51

Let’s take 1980 as a benchmark, IIRC, the minimum wage was $3.35, which Joe Blow started out busing tables. 46 years later, in 2025, JB would be making $19.57/hr. Sounds reasonable income-wise, however, I doubt JB would make a career out of bussing tables.

Now let’s back up to 1960 for which a non-supervisory retail worker on average earned $1.79/hr. Source:
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/publications/ei/1960/

Extrapolate the 4% rule of thumb to 2005 and we come up with $10.46/hr (non-supervisory) at retirement. That to me seems to be below par with current rates, moreso when experience is factored in. But what do I know about what people make in the retail industry?

Remember we’re just talking about the so-called cost-of living wage increases. We haven’t even factored in experience, let alone continuing education and promotional opportunities. I would say that the average person that started out at minimum wages and working up thru the ranks to management would have experienced a composite raise of 8 – 10% at career’s midpoint.

So let’s say JB has pretty much reached the top and had to stop, while his career opportunities have stalled, he, still has the annual raises to count on, so his earnings have reverted to the 4% average. So come retirement in 2025, he would have every expectation of reaching approx $45 – $60/hr instead of the $19.57/hr mentioned earlier.

Now this is assuming that we have a stable and growing economy. That is a valid concern, however when compared to a dying continent, the EU has a debt burden of 78% to the US’ 64% — in 1944, our debt was over 120% of GDP.

Another metric would be the growth rate; we’re currently hovering at around 3.7%, while the EU as a whole is barely making 2%. Then we look at unemployment, we’re at around 5% while the double digits of so-called Euro powerhouses like Germany and France don’t do much to help the overall rate for the EU.

Let me refer you to a quote from LBJ’s Nobelist and economist, Paul Samuelson;
The beauty of social insurance is that it is actuarially unsound. Everyone who reaches retirement age is given benefit privileges that far exceed anything he has paid in — exceed his payments by more than ten times (or five times counting employer payments)!

– Article in Newsweek, 1967

Less than 30 years later, the democratic leadership weren’t so irrationally exuberent, as our Mr. Samuelson. Jump forward another few years, now the dems have done a 180 and are in full chorus, “Pay no attention to the numbers behind the curtain, everything is fine, we repeat, there is no crisis!!” Yet, we also have Greenspan giving his cautious approval today to PIAs.

Yes, Schumer uses CBO (owned and dominated by congressional donks) numbers, more appropriately known as “Commission Model 2″ which is a very conservative/pessimistic rate of 3% above inflation. I don’t feel like fisking Schummy at this point. Let’s just agree that Schummy is being disingenious in allowing only 2 variables, in order to depress and emphasize the doom & gloom.

For example, running my numbers, Schummy tells me that I am promised X, however, he neglects to tell me that SS can only afford to pay me about X-25% without increasing taxes or a importing more tax-paying workers to top off the SS coffers. Nice try Schummy, let’s see a real calculator!!

Furthermore, why is he acting like this model, based on a Bush “proposal”, is set in stone? There are so many ways to finese the final outcome of SS reform, why isn’t that idiot coming up with a win-win solution instead of being the problem?

Personally, I want to see 100% of my 10% income going into a PIA. Then when it’s time for me to retire, Uncle Schummy and his compadres are welcome to extract 5% to fund the Losers and Unfortunates Safety Net Fund. Run the numbers on that and see if the gubmint don’t wind up with more $$ to disburse monthly to the L&Us.

I’ve been in the labor force for several years before coming to school. Sometimes as an unemployed programmer, sometimes as a contractor and sometimes employed — in both for and non-profit settings. But I think you make a good point about assumptions because thats what my point is.

The problem is that the assumptions that he makes for returns require a certain long-term economic performance. I happen to think they’re long term unrealistic.

4% growth? Not everyone who starts at wal-mart making 20K a year is going to retire 45 years later with an annual salary of 116K.

6.5% risk adjusted returns? assuming a 3.0% population growth, this means either 3.5% productivity growth or some constantly decreasing labor share of national income. If 3.5% that means that total productivity doubles roughly every 20 years, meaning that the number of retirees that each worker can support doubles every 20 years. There go our ponzi worries.

But lets assume these are realistic assumptions. Lets not argue over them. The point is still that these assumptions are different than the ones feeding the SS planner’s forecast of future SS payments. So that the calculator mistakenly is comparing apples to oranges.

Check out my sig for a link to chuck schumer’s calculator. Its based on the price-indexing idea of Bush’s, and CBO assumptions for future economic performance.

Now you may disagree with the CBO assumptions, but at least he uses the same ones for both.

Ruffini’s tool is just an estimate based on parameters as laid out on his website, like any honest estmate, mileage will vary. As for your “fisking” of his tool, I’m content to wait until Patrick gets around to responding to your critique.

But in the meantime, to posit that SS is better off in any shape or form that is controled entirely by the govt is pure hogwash and illustrates one’s misplaced faith that our legislative leaders present & future will keep the promise.

Correct me if I’m wrong but didn’t LBJ come up with the bright idea to put our SS withholdings into the General Fund? No wonder he wrote the law to ban non-profit organizations from opining on ne’er do well politicians.

Ok, so you don’t like Ruffini’s model. Well try this calculator;
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/socialsecurity/welcome.asp

Don’t like that either? Ok then try this one;
http://www.principal.com/calculators/retire.htm

Still don’t like any so far, well how about this from the keepers of the SS flame;
http://www.ssa.gov/planners/calculators.htm

Hmmm, 4 strikes and I’m out. How about you showing me one that is more to your liking? Perhaps Kos has one or perhaps the great Kruggerman?

Wait a minute,[smacks head] what was I thinking? Why don’t you produce one, you seem to know what you were commenting about ruffini’s calculator. Please do break it down for us, including assumptions that go into your formulas. I for one would like to check it out under the hood.

On the otherhand, I see you chose to only attack the perceived flaws in the calculator, but not the points of my comments, hmmmm. Well, I got another another 2 X 4 or 2 to point out in the donkey’s eye.

Your boy Clinton and every other swinging Democrat didn’t hesitate to anounce that SS was in trouble back when they were running the show. They so believed the “meme” that Gored campaigned on his lockbox message during 2000! Meanwhile, Bush was campaigning on privatizing a portion of it.

But now that the oppo is in control, the donks now claim there’s no problem with SS that can’t wait until they get back in power.

Finally, let’s talk about the lockbox meme. Anyone who believes that money is best protected by putting it in a lockbox or under a mattress is an idiot!! Especially when that money could be put to work. Heck, even sticking it in a simple savings account @ 3% is better than burying it. I’m here to tell you that even Jesus supports the idea of putting money to work and that those who just bury it are wicked stewards.

Whenever citizens are prevented from doing something (like keeping the money they earn), the government is exerting its control. In the case of prohibiting murder or injury to another, it 

If you really think Ruffini’s calculator has any utility whatsoever, I think it’s you who needs to get the clue. The “tool” (I mean the calculator, not Ruffini) is rigged in that it assumes that a continuously descending rate of return for social security which actually dips into the negative in 2023. This results in such absurdities as getting a better result under a personal account regime even when you project a negative rate of return for the personal account. I left a more detailed comment at Ruffini’s site that you might want to read. Or, if you want to keep believing in the magical powers of Dubya’s private accounts, you just do that.