It is being reported that Gov. Dayton has agreed to Republican June 30th offer but not without conditions. Some of the conditions that Gov. Dayton has put on the agreement are: a construction projects bill totaling $500 million, the removal from the budget bill of all policy changes on social issues, and the elimination of a 15 percent cut for state workers.
Gov. Dayton said, "Despite my serious reservations about your plan, I have concluded that continuing the state government shutdown would be even more destructive for too many Minnesotans,” the governor wrote. “Therefore, I am willing to agree to something I do not agree with – your proposal – in order to spare our citizens and our state from further damage." (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2011/0714/Minnesota-governor-proposes-end-to-shutdown-but-will-Republicans-bite)
How is Gov. Dayton going to "spare our citizens and our state from further damage"? Granted we are losing revenue from the closing of state parks and the lottery but what Minnesotans are learning is how far the government is needlessly intruding into our lives. One example is all the pubs, resturants, and sellers of adult beverages that were in danger of having their buyer cards expiring. Why do we need to charge $20 for this card? Why is this card needed? If this card is needed then can't local municipalities provide this service?
The other question is that since Gov. Dayton has put stipulations on the June 30th proposal, does that open the door for the Republicans to counter? If that does and the Republicans do, where does that leave Minnesota?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No criticism of the fact that Republicans harp about no more taxes because government spending is bloated but have no problem funding that spending by borrowing against a fund that wasn't suppose to support general operations and deferring payments? It's not spending they oppose but taxes apparently.
ReplyDeleteAnon...I am not applauding the Republicans here. To be honest I think the Republicans should have stuck to their guns. Then again, it is Gov. Dayton who has agreed and put conditions on that agreement. Just as I have said on the national stage, we are not facing a revenue issue. The trouble is that, like the national budget, we have spent like drunk sailors for far to long. To quote a battered religious man, "The chickens have come home to roast".
ReplyDeleteIn this the chickens are a bloated government both at the State and National level. The trouble is that we have become addicted to government handouts that now we see as entitlements. The idea behind our form of government is not to enslave the populous through entitlements but that is exactly what we have allowed our society to become. Addicts and slaves to government.
And it's the Republicans that agreed to those conditions and in fact put their social agenda conditions in in the first place. So what's the point? It was a compromise and both sides had to agree to it.
ReplyDeleteMy point was that you claim to have no alligence but yet you only called out one side.
What you call enslavement, others call assistance. Which is also what a government is suppose to do. To help and care for the sickest and poorest. Maybe you don't see it that way, but many others do.
My biggest problem is that the Republicans taunted fiscal responsiblity but yet showed that's not what they cared about.
I agree with you that the Republicans did not show fiscal restraint by agreeing with the added conditions gov. Dayton put on their June 30th offer. Yes, we have safety nets for those that become unable to earn a living. The trouble is that instead of saving money for rainy days, able-bodied Americans feel entitled to SSN, Medicare, Medicaid and other welfare programs. Many know the games to extend and extract more as well.
ReplyDeleteThe agreed to conditions to end the shutdown just kicks the can down the road and this is why I said that I'd wish the republicans had stuck to their guns. The simple truth is the new breed of republicans are the only ones displaying and demanding fiscal responsibility.
Well first, most Americans don't have extra money to save these days.
ReplyDeleteSecond, I guess is the entitlment based on the fact that people feel the government should provide SS or the fact that people have paid into the program and have been promised the benefits? To me, it's the latter.
Did you feel entitled to unemployment or did you accept because it was offered and your prior employers helped fund it?
And for the record, it might be some Americans but not all and certainly most abled bodied Americans don't expect welfare programs or Medicaid.
SSN was not originally intended to be our savings plan for retirement. It was to be a safety net in the event one was not able to earn income to save. Those of us who are able to earn income pay in so we can help those who cannot. Not so we can get a retirement from the government. And people do have the ability to save.
ReplyDeleteDo you need a cell phone? Do you need a flat screen TV? Do you need the latest fad? People spend their money on a lot of things they could do without. Why, because we all feel entitled and if we are broke the government will give us a handout.
When I took EU after being laid off I did it because it was an option the government offered me. I did not feel entitled to it. And as may EU neared its end I did not protest or ask the government to extend it; rather I took a job that paid me the same as I was receiving on EU.
I don't feel entitled to those things nor can you claim we all do. You are speaking in absolutes without evidence to support your claims.
ReplyDelete"It was to be a safety net in the event one was not able to earn income to save. Those of us who are able to earn income pay in so we can help those who cannot."
If you don't earn any income you don't get benefits, right? Your benefits are based on what YOU earn, right?
Nope. One does not have to pay in to get the benifit if they become unable to work. Plus if you if never worked a day in your life and your spouse did then dies you have options as well. Even in cases of divorce.
ReplyDeleteYou were talking about retirement benefits, not disability benefits. Two different things under the same umbrella. And we are talking about a major physical disability, typically, that causes one to not be able to work.
ReplyDeleteIn the second case, you receive benefits because your spouse worked and it's based on their historical income levels, correct? And please show me evidence of people who feel entitled to the government providing that versus the government living up to its end of the original promise to pay.
SSN was originally intended to be a safety net in the evident one was not able to earn income or tradegy struck-i.e. Market collapse. It was not intended to be a retirement plan for all. I have posted previously a chart that has shown the decline in savings for retirement by Americans. If people do not feel entitled to SSN then why is it a political hot potato. Why do people feel threatened by reform? Because they feel entitled.
ReplyDeleteThey feel entitled to the government living up to its promise, not the promise in the first place.
ReplyDeleteYour kid promises to wash your car. Your expectation after the promise is that it will be washed, but you had no prior expectation of it happening until the promise was made.
You asked for evidence of the entitlement attitude and then you spin it to a promise. The government did not promise you or I SSN. They did say IF you don't have enough savings we will assist you in retirement. That is a big difference. It has been through political games that the safety net has become a nest egg. Again we pay in so those less fortunate can maintain a minimal level of living not to be our main paycheck in retirement.
ReplyDeleteThat's not evidence of entitlement attitude. It's evidence of less savings which could be for a number of factors, mainly less disposable income, lower wages, higher cost of goods. I've never, ever heard someone say that they believe SS is their only source of retirement income.
ReplyDeleteYou are living with past intent instead of current promise, which is payments. We pay, today, as the law is written, not by you or me but officials, to have something returned to us one day. That is the last thing the government said.
Do you have any evidence that says people believe their only source of retirement income should be SS?
During the course of my work I have run across more people than not that are in or near retirement that are waiting or uaing SSN only. Plus, as I stated above - the savings rate is near zero since the time SSn was born.
ReplyDeleteAnd what? We can't draw any conclusions from such a broad statement. There could be many reasons including low wages, unemployability, other obligations, or unexpected costs in life that they had to use savings on. Now, if they told you that they only use social security because they feel entitled to the government paying for their retirement, then you might have a point. Otherwise there are several other reasons up to and including plain stupidity.
ReplyDeleteAnd the savings rate being zero doesn't equate to entitlement. What was the savings rate before social security? What would have it been without it? It could mean that we like to buy things, not that we expect the government to let us retire rich. It could also mean that people simple can't save due to, again, low wages, other expenses both expected and unexpected, or that we just like things now.
You draw absolute conclusions and attribute them to broad groups where they can't be drawn simply due to the number of possible contributing factors.
Unless of course, you personal interviewed everyone who has, now is, or will retire only on social security.
The chart I had posted prior showed that the savings rate was north of 70 percent prior to SSN and stayed near 60 percent for most of the 60's. You are the one that are making up excuses that are not part of the conversation.
ReplyDeleteAnon - read this article...http://seekingalpha.com/article/112604-what-will-happen-if-america-returns-to-an-historical-savings-rate
ReplyDeleteI'm not making up excuses, I'm offering other very viable reasons as to why people aren't saving and not connecting a lack of saving to entitlement. That's not an excuse, it's refusing to not connect dots that can't be connected. Your argument is that people aren't saving, therefore they feel entitled to a government retirement. You simple aren't looking at other factors that are a part of the conversation.
ReplyDeleteUnless I'm reading your own supplied chart and article wrong, you are full of crap on your savings rates. If I am, I apologize up front.
However, from your own link" In the 1960s, Americans typically saved in the 7.5% to 10% range. A bit below where Germany has been the past 15 years.
In the 1970s, Americans typically saved in the 8.0% to 12% range. A bit below where France has been the past 15 years"
A bit short of 60 or 70 percent, right?
And then this part: "Median wages have not increased (adjusted for inflation) this decade, and the stratification of wealth has become more concentrated in the top percentage than any time since the 1920s"
Less disposable income, one of the possible causes I suggested, right?
And again: "Then something changed in the mid 1980s - call it culture, call it entitlement, call it lack of financial literacy - call it what you may. The reasons are immaterial for our purposes, we just care about the raw numbers. After being over 8% for just about all of the 1960s and 1970s, the savings rate has never hit that level since 1987."
Maybe people just like to spend money more now? Again, one of the other possible reasons I suggested. Your own support won't/can't only blame an entitlement mindset.
One more, some updated numbers on savings rates since your 08 link: http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/PSAVERT.txt
Up to around 5% for the last few years. Sure, off historical from earlier decades but an improvement.
And we can now agree based on historical numbers provided that this is BS as well: "Plus, as I stated above - the savings rate is near zero since the time SSn was born"
You can't draw absolute conclusions and place all the blame on entitlement, even your sources won't do that. There's lots of blame to go around and you still haven't offered any facts that support such an absolute stance.
You honestly do not see a correlation from the "promise" of SSN as the nest egg for all to a decline in the savings rates since the inception of the safety net program?
ReplyDeleteThe reason people are starting to save more, and during the worst recession - thus eliminating a number of your variables, is because people are realizing that the program that was established as a safety net is not something many of use under 55 will see a dime from - at least in its current state. Then again, we shouldn't be looking toward SSN as income in retirement. If we are lucky enough to get it, it should compliment what we have accumulated during our working years. Then again we have a number of people hell bent on spreading the wealth so if one does amass a savings it may all be redistributed anyway.
Check the numbers. Savings rates were pretty much the same from the 60s through the 80s. Not saving is relatively new and decades after the implementation of social security.
ReplyDeleteHow can you tie what happened the last 10 years to the implementation of a program 70 years ago when the same thing didn't happen immediately after the program was put in place and the decades that followed? The numbers don't support what you argue. How is that claim logically supported?
People are saving despite inflation and salary stagnation and because they have slowed spending. It could be because of retirement it could be because of fear of losing their job like many of their neighbors. Again, show proof that SSN is the only reason people started saving now? There are a ton of factors.
And BS we won't see a dime. The system will continue to bring in money and make payments. It's not about not having money, it's about only having enough to make roughly 75% of the committed payments.
The CBO has reported that by 2030 the number of people paying into SSN vs those receiving benefits will be 2 to 1. When SSN was set up the ratio was 6.6. to 1. today the ratio is 3 to 1. How is that sustainable? That does not take into consideration inflation measures either.
ReplyDeleteAs for the savings rate, you have proven my point that the entitlement attitude that gained its roots in the late 70's through the 80's is firm. Plus, by noting that the savings rate is ramping back up again shows that too because Gen X and Gen Y people see the realities of SSN and understand that it is not the entitlement program their parents have viewed it as.
It's not sustainable, that's why the reduction in benefits received. Even at 2-1, everyone will get something. No?
ReplyDeleteSo the blame isn't on SSN, it's on attitude changes that focused on consumerism. All of this happened well after the implementation of social security. If it was entitlement to government retirement, wouldn't that have happened decades earlier? Your claimed cause and the actual happening are pretty freaking far a part, aren't they? People might feel entitled to the newest and fastest gadget, but that doesn't mean they feel entitled to the government supporting their retirement. Those are two separate things, right?
The increase savings rate does not show the realities of SSN. It shows that people are worried about losing their job and having cash on hand. You can't make that connection simple because you want it to be so. Unless a poll said 100% of people are saving more because they worry about retirement, not things like losing their job, you can't make conclusions otherwise.
Does that not make sense?
FInally, while SSN is the largest single source of retirement income at roughly the upper 30s, it's not the current sole source or the majority of income by itself. So people obviously aren't relying on, and haven't been, the government. If there was so much entitlement, people wouldn't use those other sources.
Regardless, keep thinking your point is the only conclusion when you start from the conclusion and work backwards on your argument. The approach likes balance and logic but it allows you to make your argument.
Everyone may get something. Even at 2 to 1 we are just talking about the number of people paying in versus taking out. If the benefit outweighs the pay in then no it doesn't mean everyone will get something. All the more reason why people need to save and not look to SSN as their source of retirement funds.
ReplyDeleteI am not blaming SSN per se; rather the blame is on the mindset of Americans that feel their entitled to SSN and not realizing that it is meant - still meant - to be a safety net. No one feels entitled to the new gadget or latest fad as if the new gadget is no longer available people will move on. These two analogies are not similar nor parallel.
I am not denying that other factors may have influenced savings but one can see a correlation between a the decline in savings rates with the increase in entitlement view of SSN.
"the savings rate is near zero since the time SSn was born.?"
ReplyDeleteViper, you've really got to quit making up facts what with the internet available now for them to be checked.
Your statement implies that BECAUSE SSN was created, savings dropped to zero. But that's simply not true.
Below are two different reports showing that it hasn't been zero at all in the last 60 years.
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/PSAVERT.txt
http://www.frbsf.org/publications/economics/letter/2002/el2002-09.html
So why do you say it's zero since SSN was created? That's beyond disingenuous, it's dishonest. Either A) you didn't know the facts and made them up or B) you knew it was false and said it anyway.
I'm hoping it's A) but I'll let you clarify.
And as an American who's paid in tens of thousands into SSN, I can tell you I damn well DO feel entitled to getting that money back someday. Not because I want government to pay for my retirement. I already put 15% of my income away for that myself. But when you take my money with the promise of it being returned later on, with interest, I expect you to do so.
So I'll leave with this question. If you loan your neighbor $100 and they promise to pay you $105 in the future, are you feeling an undue sense of entitlement based upon the fact that you expect to be repaid? I'd say no, because it was your money (SSN payment) to begin with and the borrower (fed gov) knew the terms of repayment.
So exactly who is feeling entitled?
Truman
ReplyDeleteFor the vast majority of people that are in retirement or nearing retirement their savings rate has been near zero. Yes, that doesn't not mean zero but in comparison to the savings rate prior to the SSN being folded into the general budget and used as a political hot potato the savings rate is near zero.
We, as Americans, have gotten away from the reason SSN was established. By doing so far to many of us are relying on that as our retirement plan.Now, those between 30 and 40 years old are realizing that SSN is not something to be counted on. That thought is not because a shift in thinking rather it has more to do with the realization of its insolvency.
The comparison of your loan to SSN is not the same. SSN is to be a safety net for those you cannot work in order to put together a savings for retirement where the loan is an agreement on a transaction between two people. SSN was not to be a promisary note to all Americans.
Why would someone in retirement have a savings rate? They're not saving FOR retirement, they're IN retirement. That means spending what they've saved. At that point, they should be taking their interest on principal and possibly a portion of principal for living expenses. They should not be "saving" unless their interest exceeds their expenses. And people nearing retirement see almost no advantage to saving at that point because of the law of compounding interest.
ReplyDeleteAmerican's haven't gotten away from why SSA was created - we were sold a new reason for SSA by politicians on both sides of the aisle.
And my giving money to the government for SSA IS NOT A SAFETY NET. I was promised that it would be repaid with interest. In fact, I get a statement every year to that effect as per the law that manages SSA.
You want us to undo 70 years of legislation around the SSA to regress us to some make believe place instead of dealing with where we are today. Great, I'm all for it but that's not where we are today it is what was originally intended. But that's changed. So if you are going to regress us, I want the ~100k or so that I've paid in during my lifetime so far because it was an investment based upon a promise from the government that is now being broken.
You ready to pay me back the money I loaned your government? Because that's what it was. It was taken with the promise that it would be returned with interest. It WAS NOT taken with the promise that it would be a safety net.
If you doubt this, perhaps you should go read the law itself. Here's a link. Have fun.
http://www.ssa.gov/regulations/
Funny thing here, I don't like SSA. I think it's an abysmal program. But it exists today, and I can't opt out of it so I'm forced to deal with it. But don't for a second think that you can undo legislation because it's what you WANT when I've paid in based upon what I was promised - just like every other american.
Truman
ReplyDeleteThe reason why someone has savings rate in retirement is to help with tax diversification of funds used during retirement. If you are generating income during retirement does not mean you are spending it all does it? The money they have banked away can work to generate income as well.
Please clarify this - American's haven't gotten away from why SSA was created - we were sold a new reason for SSA by politicians on both sides of the aisle. - It seems a bit contradictory. With yours, and others, feeling of entitlement we have gotten away for SSN; have we not?
I am not looking to undue 70 years of legislation; rather I am looking at true reform in the legislation. First we need to put it back in the special fund that it originated from and not keep it part of the general fund. Second, we need to allow those 55 and younger to opt out. I think you and I agree that the SSN was suppose to be a safety net for those unable to save for retirement. That being said, then shouldn't we leave our $100K in the kitty for those less fortunate?
Remember it was not set to be a loan to government. It was suppose to be in a special fund that would be used for those that couldn't earn a living due to various reasons beyond their control.
On a side note - I noticed that Anonymous has dropped off from the conversation once you came on and said you felt entitled. Interesting.
I just stopped caring and had better things to do
ReplyDeleteAnonymous - Why on Earth would you stop caring? If more people engaged each other as Viper and Truman do routinely we may be able to get elected officials that care more about those they represent and not so much about getting re-elected.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the last Anonymous on not bowing out of the conversation. We need to engage more and more people. The more that stop caring we will continue to get government that is bloated and more worried about re-election then, as the previous Anon stated, about those they are elected to represent. Stay in the conversation. We may not always agree on the fix but that is okay.
ReplyDeleteI made my points and had more important things in life to do. It's not that I stop caring about an issue but I said my part, responded to Viper, and heard him say things that are flat out not true or not supportable by fact. Why should I continue to engage in such a conversation?
ReplyDeleteSure, we need to engage people but those people need to, to put it bluntly, not lie or at least check their "facts." Don't you agree? This isn't about agreeing on the fix, it's about having a good faith discussion.
And Anon, where has your engagement been? Please don't pass judgement on me when you haven't participated.
And for the record, it was two days after I stopped posting anything and Truman did so for you to draw some conclusion out of that is really something. There was nothing "interesting" about it, I had simply moved on
ReplyDeleteAnd not to speak for Truman, I believe his point is he's not entitled to a retirement but he's entitled to have the government live up to their end of the promise they said they would when they took his money with the promise to repay it later. It's that action, the promise and taking that creates the entitlement, not an initial belief that it's the governments role. They took it on without asking me to, so the least they can do is live up to their end of it when they take my money without me being able to do anything about it.
Anonymous - you realize that people that make more money then me, perhaps us, pay into the system but do not see a dime? It is designed that way because it's a safety net.
ReplyDeleteAnd who are those people?
ReplyDelete