Which government functions can we do without? (Tim R. Mortiss)

[you_with_the_face]

@Bone

The three legged stool model is predicated on the idea that SS exists and is required. If that were not the case, and folks were not so required, I think it’s pretty clear that for some individuals it would not be a wise choice to enroll.

And for some individuals, it would be an unwise choice to NOT enroll. As with health insurance, no one thinks they need it until—oops!—they do. Letting people opt out means accepting a large percentage will misjudge their future needs. The consequences this has on them and the rest of society is worse than the converse.

[septimus]

The poll question seems too easy.

The impasse, current and former officials said, will eventually show in shutdown-size gaps in data that scientists often collect across generations. Time-sensitive observations, which are impossible to recover or recreate, are going unseen and unrecorded.

“It’s not just the gap,” said Sally Jewell, who was the secretary of the interior during the 16-day shutdown in 2013. “It’s the ability to correlate that with a broader picture of what’s happening environmentally and ecologically. It really does mess things up.”

… The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which includes the National Weather Service, has furloughed many workers. The Fish and Wildlife Service’s offices are mostly empty, and the National Park Service has few employees on the job. Almost all employees at the Environmental Protection Agency and NASA have been furloughed.

… rank-and-file scientists said the shutdown was exacting a gradual toll that might not be fully realized for several years, affecting research, morale and, perhaps, the recruitment of prospective employees.

… “A shutdown has these cascading effects on the scientific work of the organization,” said Daniel M. Ashe, a former director of the Fish and Wildlife Service. “They’re hard to foresee or predict right now, but they’re crippling, really, and they affect the organization not for three or four weeks, but for the rest of the year because of all of this complex orchestration of field work.”

[BobLibDem]

@HurricaneDitka

HuffPost - Social Security: Maybe a Ponzi Scheme, Definitely a Bad Investment (this article is from 2011, but from a source I figured you’d be inclined to trust)

A more up-to-date article, “Social Security Makes Millennials Less Financially Responsible” in the National Review a little over a year ago, said this:

I’ve seen my math. I haven’t seen their math. As the old saying goes, figures don’t lie but liars can figure. Anyone with an agenda can make up numbers.

[DrDeth]

@Bone

The three legged stool model is predicated on the idea that SS exists and is required. If that were not the case, and folks were not so required, I think it’s pretty clear that for some individuals it would not be a wise choice to enroll.

If we are humans and act like humans and thus care for others, SocSec is a necessity. Sure, go ahead and get more and better retirement options, no problem. But since people who care are not gonna let the elderly starve and freeze on the streets, SocSec is the best option.

[Voyager]

@Bruce_Wayne

I’m assuming your closer to retirement age and wouldn’t get much of a return if you opted out of social security now seeing as how you’ve been paying into it most of your working life. Suppose you could opt out when you started your career. That money could go into an IRA instead. If you broke or came close to six figures during your career you could max out your IRA and still have money left over.

My employer only matched 2/3 of my 401K, while he matched 100% of my Social Security. So, that’s a win for Social Security. If I had a big portfolio, some of it would be in something as safe as T-bills.
Also, since not everyone is a smart investor, what happens if they invest in crap securities or sell at the bottom? Lots of people did in the last crash, after all. Not a problem with Social Security.
People stop investing in their IRAs, or they take money out in hard times. You can’t do that with your Social Security. What would you propose to do for those making bad choices?
Those of us who can afford to certainly have lots of our portfolio in riskier and higher yielding investments. But we can handle it if some of them go south. Not true for poorer investors.

[Voyager]

@Little_Nemo

When the United States government cashes in a T-bill, who is giving it the money?

The same as if China had bought and cashed in a T-bill instead of Social Security.

[Quartz]

Allow me to demonstrate my ignorance of America.

Agriculture - could that not be delegated to the individual States? Perhaps some hived off to Commerce.
Homeland security - split between police, Customs (i.e. Treasury), and Defence?
Interior - could not parks and the like be delegated to the individual States in which they reside? Ditto reservations?
HUD - why is the federal government involved? Surely that’s a matter for the States?
Ditto transportation.

You’ll note that I’m not suggesting removal of any; rather a transfer of responsibilities. Subsidiarity, as the EU calls it.

[Ravenman]

@Bruce_Wayne

I’m assuming your closer to retirement age and wouldn’t get much of a return if you opted out of social security now seeing as how you’ve been paying into it most of your working life. Suppose you could opt out when you started your career. That money could go into an IRA instead. If you broke or came close to six figures during your career you could max out your IRA and still have money left over.

Once again, it isn’t an investment. It is insurance. Comparing the return on savings account rather than paying for car insurance is beside the point.

[Voyager]

@Ravenman

Once again, it isn’t an investment. It is insurance. Comparing the return on savings account rather than paying for car insurance is beside the point.

It is kind of an odd insurance, since it covers everyone who makes it to retirement age. Survivor’s benefits are closer to insurance. It is really more of a plan to force people to save for an inevitable retirement, while forcing employers to contribute. To which you can add some degree of redistribution since the lower earners get relatively more.
I suppose it was called insurance to sound less socialistic. Though perhaps it can ve viewed as insurance against dying hungry and homeless.

[Sage_Rat]

@Quartz

Allow me to demonstrate my ignorance of America.

Agriculture - could that not be delegated to the individual States? Perhaps some hived off to Commerce.

The Department of Agriculture is pretty tightly tied to national security - ensuring that the country and military has the food stuffs that it needs in order to survive through a war, global catastrophe, etc.

Interior - could not parks and the like be delegated to the individual States in which they reside? Ditto reservations?

Reservations were established in a deal between the Federal government and the relevant tribes.

Parks could probably be granted to the state (and it would make figuring out permits a lot easier if they did so). Though, I don’t know that there’s any real cost savings to be had by handing off the parks and, I suspect, the parks are safer in the hands of the Federal government because they are further from local interests who would want that land to be used for commercial purposes.

HUD - why is the federal government involved? Surely that’s a matter for the States?
Ditto transportation.

I agree on HUD, but transportation - highways, railroad tracks, etc. - cross state boundaries. In the case of these long distance routes, management and oversight by a central organization makes the most sense. You also have shipping, etc. from foreign lands. (JFYI, most transportation is owned and managed by the state.)

[Maserschmidt]

lol that someone says we could do without the Department of Commerce. More than half their budget is spent on the NOAA - those people who collect and publish weather data, and provide not just weather forecasts, but hurricane and tornado warnings - and on the Public Safety broadband network, which connects first responders everywhere.