"Personally, I don't like to see the issue of global warming used as the primary justification for cutting back use of fossel fuels."
I think if cutting back makes us more energy independent from the middle east, and somehow global warming was affected on the side, I'd take it.
The lack of a realistic national energy policy for the last 35 years, is a disgrace IMO.

Other good reasons --

fossil fuels are non renewable and will eventually run out, some in the not too distant future;

emissions from the burning of fossil fuels creates pollution in cities that singificantly contirbutes to such severe health problems as asthma and lung and other cancers;

burning fossil fuels create emissions that cause environmental problems, such as acid rain;

the US imports most of its oil and keeping these sources flowing creates huge military expenses;

many of the countries we import oil and gas from have repulsive governments that we have to bend over backwards to be nice to;

and so on.

Like Brickeye - in addition to all the other benefits, there is the personal economic benefit. I generally am pleased when I can lower my energy bills despite the utility and gas companies best efforts at thwarting my personal energy savings program. With that comes the added benefit of reducing the human input to the problem. And we humans do contribute to the problem. We aren't the entire problem, but we do have our part. Fatalism aside, there's a lot to be said for being responsible and taking some responsibility - in both recognizing the human contribution to global warming (er climate change) and considering what good stewards of this earth can do.

Accusing some politician of overreaching in spreading thier message - i.e. using facts or ideas that may or may not be based entirely on accepted truth or actual truth - using a fear or a threat of some nature to sell your message - well, that's probably not a discussion in this forum that would result in anything germaine to the subject of this forum. Dare I mention that nothing is black and white? Really.

"...fossil fuels are non renewable and will eventually run out, some in the not too distant future;.."

We have enough coal to last over 200 years right here in the USA. Oil has been discovered in the Gulf of Mexico and all the exploration companies say the field is second only the the Arabian fields. As a matter of fact, Red China is going to drill for it just over 50 miles off the Florida coast. And if you really believe they will care if they spill any....
*****************

"...emissions from the burning of fossil fuels creates pollution in cities that singificantly contirbutes to such severe health problems as asthma and lung and other cancers;..."

Every power company would be happy to retrofit the plants to reduce the emissions. But The rocket scientists in Washington say that if you modify any part of the plant, you MUST modify the ENTIRE plant. That's like saying you can't change the muffler on your car because the law says if you do, you must rebuild the engine too. And that's just nuts. One power company wanted to install new turbines that were so efficient they could produce the same amount of electricity while using 50% LESS fuel which of course meant lower emissions. They were told NO! You must rebuild ALL the plant, not just the turbines!
****************

"...burning fossil fuels create emissions that cause environmental problems, such as acid rain;..."

See above.
****************

"...the US imports most of its oil and keeping these sources flowing creates huge military expenses;..."

And we CAN get it right in our own backyard, just as China is getting it in our backyard. It's OK for them to drill, but not OK for Exxon to do so. Oh, that's right, EXXON is evil, Red China is not.
*****************

"...many of the countries we import oil and gas from have repulsive governments that we have to bend over backwards to be nice to;..."
Yeah, like Chavez in Venezuela. But why do the people that say we must become independent of these nutcases not want us to actually become indepenedent?
*****************

I agree that we should find new resources. I don't believe the electric car isn't gonna be the answer simply because electricity doesn't come from the wall of your house. And if there's more demand for electricity, we'll need more powerplants. And just where are we gonna build them and what is the fuel gonna be?

I believe hybrid cars and trucks are just a passing fancy. If you remove the batteries and the eltctric motor and all the other items that make a Toyota Prius electrical, you'll get a car that gets better mileage than it does now. But it won't sell.

Diesels in Europe make up almost half of car sales. And they routinely get 50+ MPG. Now that we're switching to biodiesel, maybe the 5 states (NY, CA, ME, MA, and VT) that don't allow diesels will change their laws. If we purchased more diesel autos we could cut our demand for oil by over 20 percent according to an article in USA TODAY. If more are produced, they will come down in price. And the new diesels are CLEAN burning. Jeep's is cleaner than a gas engine. Combine that with biodiesel....

Hydrogen seems to be in our future but we need to find a way to produce it at a far lower cost. It currently takes more energy to produce hydrogen than it creates. Mercedes Benz is working on a fuel cell and there's hope there.

"But the effect of the lower sunspot activity that occured in the Northern Hemisphere during the Maunder Minimum on the course of the Little Ice Age is somewhat controversial. So I don't know exactly why you brought it up."

I brought it up since we have many years of data showing that the sunspot cycle DOES have an effect on earth's weather and none of the models being used to predict man-made global warming take it into account. The mechanism remains unknown at this point but appears to be related to solar weather (as in variations in the sun itself).

There is research that shows the decrease in sunspots during the Maunder Minimum marked a change in solar weather and may have been directly connected to the drop in earth's temperature.

By presenting data as a spread ('change from 2-6 degrees') instead of as a value with associated error bars (4 degrees +/-2 degrees) the uncertainty in the measurement is made less apparent.
It is on old trick to make a measurement look more precise than it actually is. With the errors in the measurement clearly stated the uncertainty in the values becomes readily apparent. 4 degrees +/-2 degrees has an error of +/-50%. This indicates the measurement has a very large uncertainty. If you wanted to find out more about the uncertainty the next step would be to examine the shape of the distribution of the error. If it is smooth the results may be as good as the model can produce. If it is non-smooth the model is likely being driven to a great degree by initial assumptions.
A smooth distribution does not always indicate a Âgood model, but a non-smooth distribution almost always indicates a poor model.

The United Sates has prohibited drilling for oil in vast areas offshore known to contain reserves. The prohibition has also led to very little surveying in otherwise prohibited areas to see if anything IS present.
We have made a choice to use foreign oil, and even though the Middle East is not a huge supplier to the US (last time I looked South America was out biggest single foreign source), it does supply our allies and does have a large effect on the overall world oil market.

Here are all our good friends who supply us with Crude.

Face it, we as a nation have elected governments over the last 30 years whose effect has been to make the energy situation worse. And the public likes it.

Sure, they complain when the oil companies make a profit. And the solution? Sock it to them with higher taxes on the oil they pump in the US. Get those evil oil companies.

Of course those eveil oil companies get the message loud and clear: "Import oil, don't drill here." And they provide what you want.

Pass some nice feel good laws on requiring 15% renewable energy in a region that get's 80% of its energy from Hydropower? Oh wait, we'll just declare hydro non-renewable. (yes it happened in WA state, rain is a non-renewable resource.) No problem, the power companies are regulated and get a certain % of profit. You want to choose more expensive power options, its just more money for them.

Same goes for nuclear. 90%+ of the waste can be re-used to power new power plants. But we don't want to re-process it. So we're stuck with a storage problem that then gets used to kill new plants.

America can be energy independent. It doesn't want to.

And heaven forbid you invite energy executives to help plan energy policy, don't you know the Serria Club has much more knowledge on how to generate power?

To clarify and answer objections to my post of last week--

Obviously, there are people w/ money all over the world. However, the single-family home is much more prevalent in the US than elsewhere in the world. Even more so the large home. People living in small homes--or no homes--far outnumber those in large houses everywhere--except on TV. So, people all over the world have a skewed idea of how Americans live because of TV. No one in Turkey knows that 40 million Americans have no health insurance.

Outside the Middle East, wealthy people don't generally resent Americans. It's the poor and middle class who resent us, and that's because 1. they think we're all rich and 2. we throw our weight around to subsidize our consumerist lifestyle, paying lip service to 'spreading democracy' while in fact stifling it in some cases.

furthermore--
I don't call 35% taxes 'subsidizing everyone else.' Back when taxes were 50%, maybe. But since SS taxes are only paid on the first 90k or so of income, the wealthiest people aren't paying nearly their fair share. Bob Nardelli and his $210 million severance package isn't paying nearly the percentage of his income in taxes--I'm talking all taxes, income and sales and SS--that someone in a subsistence level job is. And guess what--he can still collect SS payments when he turns 65.

And no, Patricia Dunn and Ken Lay and Jeffrey Skilling are *not* more productive than everyone else. They've just managed to game the system so they can collect the hundreds of millions while laying off the workers that actually produce stuff.

If all the super-wealthy were like Warren Buffett, the world would be a much better place. He *has* out-given most everyone else. Most of his peers give less as a percentage of their net worth than the rookie cop making $30k.

I can't discuss Argentina because it's triggering something preventing it from posting. I'll just say, ask your Argentinan friends if they remember Pinochet fondly (he was installed by the US). It's remarkable that they have *not* chosen the same path as the Mideast, given the excuses usually used by terroir ists in the Mideast.

Back when taxes were 50%, maybe.

That would be, what 1999? Sit down and add up the federal, state, and local taxes you pay. I'd say most homeowners are north of 40% in direct taxes. (I'm at 47%) Renters pay some of the taxes in a more indirect manner.

Bob Nardelli and his $210 million severance package isn't paying nearly the percentage of his income in taxes--I'm talking all taxes, income and sales and SS--that someone in a subsistence level job is.

Well, that's just false. He has a contract worth ~190M. The board had two choices, have him stay as CEO and pay him the 190 for the remainder of his time, or buy him out. Only about 20M is severance, the rest is honoring the contract they signed. (Which was a bit of a mistake, but that's another story.)

His income taxes on that will be north of 30%. You gonna tell me someone who qualfies for the EITC will pay north of 30% in taxes?

It's a nice class warfare argument you try, it just doesn't hold up.

"I don't call 35% taxes 'subsidizing everyone else.' "

The top 5% of wage earners earn 29% of total income in the US, and pay 54% of the taxes.

The bottom 50% of wage earners earn about 20% of total income in the US, and pay 5% of the taxes.

When one group makes up for a payment shortfall by another group, I call that a subsidy. We may differ on the actual word, but that doesn't change the facts.

Now I'm not saying the system is right or wrong. In fact I think the growing income skew to the top 1% is one of the great crimes of the 21st century and I would happily vote for a greater "subsidy" by the top 1%. But these are the facts, whatever you choose to believe.

Is that federal income taxes you're talking about, chiefneil, or all taxes? I ask because there are so many other forms of taxation at all levels in the US, some of which (like driver's license fee) cost the rich and everyone else exactly the same. In that case, the top 5% of the wage earners pay 5% of the driver's license fees and the bottom 50% pay 50%. The same is true of many user fees. Comsumption taxes actually skew toward lower incomes since the lower your income, the greater percentage of it you have to spend just to keep yourself and your family going.

So I'm curious what taxes your figures actually cover.

The bottom line on energy is we have NO Policy. Politicians talk big but they have done nothing since their screaming of energy independence with the Arab oil embargo of the 70's.

There is no intention of having an energy policy except for saying you can't drill for oil or gas, socking big oil with more taxes on percieved profits and telling everbody to conserve.

Some of our "ecology minded" groups have assisted with this lack of policy. Their agenda needs to be questioned.
In Connecticut we use to have the lowest electric rates in the nation. Then 10 yeats ago, our politicians decided to de-regulate the power companies. Then they told them they could not generate their own energy. This was a ploy to shut down the nuclear plants that were supplying the electicity. The "ecology minded" groups were recycling the "China Syndrome" agruement. So now we pay throught the nose and are seeing 50% rate increaes because our power companies have to buy power!!

By the time we figure it out, if ever, global warming won't be an issue.

eal51 in western CT

That's straight federal taxes. Housenewbie was all exercised about the wealthy getting social security they hadn't paid for, or something like that. Taxes are a complex issue but I just wanted to interject some facts on this particular point.

I remember my wife paying 50% fed. tax in 1985, but than she was making above $100k a year.

"...the wealthiest people aren't paying nearly their fair share. "

And just who decides what is "their fair share"?
Social security is capped. It already has a negative return for anyone over the cap. ANd you wnat them to pay MORE?
Exactly who is subsidizing who?

Social securuty was never intended as a pension plan, but is has become one for people who do not want to save for their eventual retirement.
To many want it now, and spend almost every penny they have.
Plan for the future?
Good ole' Uncle Sam and social security will take care of me.

There is a handy word for income redistribution schemes: socialism.

"...the wealthiest people aren't paying nearly their fair share. "

And just who decides what is "their fair share"?

The People's Soviet of course. Its worked so well everywhere its been tried.

Discussion of personal consumption and savings decisions is bound to be a futile exercise. But as someone looking forward to retirement or at least a sabattical, I've spent some time thinking about what it will take to do so. Today's consumption is the enemy of tomorrow's nestegg. Everyone has a different comfort level for how they want to live now. Thats fine, just don't ask me to subsidize yours, now or in the future. If you are more than halfway through your working years, you might start by taking a look what the Social Security folks say you'll get. Would you like that much again from your retirement savings? (You probably want a lot more, right?) You'll need 20-25 times what you want to take annually as a nestegg so you can do so without a likelihood of busting before you pass on, allowing for some inflation adjustments. So $20K annually in SS bennies - that's like pulling income from a $400 to $500k nestegg. Think about that a little before buying the next toy or upsizing in an illiquid asset like a house. You can't pull bucks out of a house indefinitely and you will have to pay the piper sooner or later. And a house is worth only what someone will pay when you are willing to sell. Remember, my comfortable retirement depends on your ability to take care of yourself. ;) Please keep your tax mitts off my already taxed nestegg. That is all.

But chuckr, I want my plasma HDTV, new Razor phone, and sure as heck can't be bothered to cook at home instead of hitting McD's for breakfast and lunch.

the problem is simply most people don't even think about retirement because the thought is so painful financially..So instead of contributing to a retirement plan, they buy the latest and greatest..What people don't realize is that time is on their side, particularly if they are 30 or less..Almost ANY family budget can find 100-200 bucks a month to set aside..Yes, you may have to do without Starz or The Movie Channel, but only get to keep HBO and Encore, and perhaps drop the highspeed fiber optic connection for a simple cable connection, and maybe change your cell phone from 1500 minutes a month(which you likley don't use) for 750..Hey, maybe turn the thermostat down to 70 from 73(i keep mine at 67)...Stop using high octane gas in your car that can use 87 octane..Have a Starbucks REGULAR coffee instead of tripe moccawhatever...Dry clean your clothes every 2 wearings instead of 1...Don't give up the luxuries you enjoy, just be more diligent about them..

"Social securuty was never intended as a pension plan,"

Really? Then what, exactly. was it intended to be? Please enlighten us.

It was designed to provide benefits to those who lived longer than the norm.
Social Security at its inception kicked in at age 65... in a era when most people did not live that long.
You were supposed to live off your pension and savings until it kicked in.

It is NOT to be the sole source of retirement money. Everyone should be socking away as much as they can.... we do.

Not that I want to join the ranks of the super-conservatives or the capitalism-is-king crowd, but social security is meant only to keep the old from dying from hunger and exposure to the elements. All are expected to save (or in the past have a long-time employer who paid pensions) for anything above this.

I would like to play devil's advocate and ask what our economy would look like if most families in the US did not spend freely? All those VCRs, DVDs, big TVs, big trucks and SUVs, new furniture, new fashions, fast food meals, recreational vehicles, $150 sneakers, iPods, computers, video games, ski equipment, boats, kayaks, and skateboards make the economy go 'round - even when lots of them are manufactured overseas. Our consumerism is almost a national religion at this point!

The fact it's tried to morph into a full benefit pension is the reason tax rates are 1300%+ what they were when the program was started.

Keep in mind that most of the cutbacks I make are necessary, some are voluntary and prove to be very helpful.
My car is 18 years old. Very good running condition. Less than 100k miles. I drive an average of 8k annually. So, if nothing happens, I can drive it into retirement, literally. A renewal tag for this auto is less than $30. This includes the postage fees or convenience fees.
I keep my thermostat on 65 in the winter. I supplement with a couple of electric heaters, placed in rooms I spend the most time in. This is a 2000 square foot home with about 600 square feet finished below. I have a pool, and the pump is run year round to maintain the plumbing and keep everything moving and fresh. My electric bill is on a budget plan. It runs about $200.00 a month. Which is why I prefer to pay a higher rate on electricity than gas. It will equal out during the summer months. I always turn off lights when I leave a room. I try to buy 40 watt and under bulbs when I can. This also seems to help on energy consumption. By doing these things, I can easier justify other things in my life that I may want or actually need. For the first time in my life, I just paid someone else to do my yardwork. This was a major undertaking and well worth the money it cost. Time is money as well. When you figure out what's most important to you, just make cutbacks in areas that aren't so important to you. A little forethought goes a long way.

Westranch, rather than downsizing to 40 watt bulbs and "putting up" with less light why don't you buy compact fluoresent bulbs instead and get the same light output as a 60 watt bulb for 13 watts of power. You could have 3 of them on for the same amount of electricity as it takes to light a regular 40 watt bulb. They're very cheap now when you buy them in 6 packs etc at places like Wmart, less than 2 bucks a bulb. I love the fact that I can now light up my whole house, just about every room in it for the same amount of money that just two 60 watt bulbs used to cost to operate.

"I would like to play devil's advocate and ask what our economy would look like if most families in the US did not spend freely?"

The trade deficit would decrease, China would get less of our money, the money supply would loosen so banks would have more money to lend and invest, personal savings would increase so people would have more money in retirement, leading to less stress on social security, the federal government would derive more taxes from interest on savings, some of that savings would go into the stock market to give companies more capital, personal debt and bankruptcies would decrease, etc, etc. Spending less and saving more is a good thing not just for the saver but for the whole country too.

"I would like to play devil's advocate and ask what our economy would look like if most families in the US did not spend freely?"

Retail stocks would tank. Many part time retail workers would get laid off. Not to sure if we could support the huge number of mini-malls everywhere.

Cries for government to step in a provide aid for those people would increase. Faced with shrinking SS revenue, a tax increase or a benefit cut would be needed. You'd likely see a recession.

Of course, a more gradual transition would produce better results.

Pkguy, that's what I will do. Thanks for the suggestion. I let a friend read my post, even he suggested the same thing. Of oourse, it was after I had already hit the submit button! I had completely forgotten about that option.

westranch - another benefit is avoiding the frequent replacements, especially in inconvenient-to-reach fixtures. I went largely CF for that reason - I'm the one in my household who shuts off lights or changes burned out bulbs. Kids leaving 3 x 75 watt floods on all night in a bathroom was starting to cost serious bucks and changing them required a step ladder.

luann

Gee, I wonder why FDR referred to the Social Security Act as his "old-age pension plan"? Check out the record if you don't believe me.

No one claims thatt it's a "full benefit pension plan." Most private pension plans aren't, either, and folks who have them shouldn't expect to rely on them to live comfortably, any more than one would expect to live comfortably on SS. That still doen't alter the fact that they're "pension plans," just as SS is. Specifically, it's a public, defined-benefit, pension plan, with its distributions disproportionately skewed to lower income earners, their widows and children, and the disabled. In other words, it's partly a pension plan and partly an income redistribution scheme.

And BTW, your statement that "most peolple didn't live that long" (to age 65) isn't meaningful. If by that you mean that the life expentancy of a baby born in 1934 was less than 65 years, then that's true, at least for males. But that data would be irrelevant for calculating the future costs of pension benefits. The fact is that a disproportionate percentage of people born each year die very early in life, and this was especially true back then. That skews the crude life expentancy statistic and makes it useless for actuarial purposes.

The longer you live, the greater your chances are of living even longer. What really matters to a pension scheme is the life expentancies of the workers who are paying into the scheme. The statistic usually used for this purpose is called "cohort life expentancy. If you were to consult it for, say 1940, you would see that even back then, all age coherts were expected to live longer than 65 years.

People do live longer today, of couse, and that's one factor the SS system must take into account if it's to remain solvent.

feedingfrenzy

Lincoln once asked 'If you call a dogs tail a leg, how many legs does the dog have?' Answer is still four, no matter what you call it.
No matter what FDR called SS, it is not a pension plan - at least not one that wouldn't send the operators to jail if they weren't the government and lawmakers themselves.
A pension should have a sound actuarial basis and as long as the politicos can buy votes with sweetened plans paid for by future workers, SS will never have such a basis. People living longer we can deal with - insurance companies do with annuities. Making provisions for set asides for insuring against destitute elders who have had misfortune in their lives is also an actuarial problem. But to date, there is no solution to politicians quest for votes.

"Not that I want to join the ranks of the super-conservatives or the capitalism-is-king crowd, but social security is meant only to keep the old from dying from hunger and exposure to the elements."

If this is true then why has it always, since it's inception, also paid benefits to all retirees who paid in, regardless of their financial status?

I've paid in for 32 years so far and will for quite a few more before I can (suppossedly) collect any benefits. Hubby has paid in just as long. It would be nice to think that we'll get the money SSI says we can get (per the yearly statements), but because we also have other retirement money that we've socked away, I expect we'll end up getting little or none of the money. That $2900 a month (for us both, as of this year) that we (suppossedly) can collect beginning at age 62 would go a long way to supplementing our other retirement and make old age more bearable. But like I said I don't expect to get any. Congress will change the laws before I reach 62.

I think we should change the name of this thread! LOL! Seriously, we probably need a Global Warming Forum, ya think?

Thought this might be interesting to some who might listen:

Two New Books Confirm Global Warming is Natural; Not Caused By Human Activity
Tue Jan 30 2007 10:02:32 ET

Two powerful new books say todays global warming is due not to human activity but primarily to a long, moderate solar-linked cycle. Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years, by physicist Fred Singer and economist Dennis Avery was released just before Christmas. The Chilling Stars: A New Theory of Climate Change, by Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark and former BBC science writer Nigel Calder (Icon Books), is due out in March.

Singer and Avery note that most of the earths recent warming occurred before 1940, and thus before much human-emitted CO2. Moreover, physical evidence shows 600 moderate warmings in the earths last million years. The evidence ranges from ancient Nile flood records, Chinese court documents and Roman wine grapes to modern spectral analysis of polar ice cores, deep seabed sediments, and layered cave stalagmites.

Unstoppable Global Warming shows the earths temperatures following variations in solar intensity through centuries of sunspot records, and finds cycles of sun-linked isotopes in ice and tree rings. The book cites the work of Svensmark, who says cosmic rays vary the earths temperatures by creating more or fewer of the low, wet clouds that cool the earth. It notes that global climate models cant accurately register cloud effects.

The Chilling Stars relates how Svensmarks team mimicked the chemistry of earths atmosphere, by putting realistic mixtures of atmospheric gases into a large reaction chamber, with ultraviolet light as a stand-in for the sun. When they turned on the UV, microscopic dropletscloud seedsstarted floating through the chamber.

"We were amazed by the speed and efficiency with which the electrons [generated by cosmic rays] do their work of creating the building blocks for the cloud condensation nuclei," says Svensmark.

The Chilling Stars documents how cosmic rays amplify small changes in the suns irradiance fourfold, creating 1-2 degree C cycles in earths temperatures: Cosmic rays continually slam into the earths atmosphere from outer space, creating ion clusters that become seeds for small droplets of water and sulfuric acid. The droplets then form the low, wet clouds that reflect solar energy back into space. When the sun is more active, it shields the earth from some of the rays, clouds wane, and the planet warms.

Unstoppable Global Warming documents the reality of a moderate, natural, 1500-year climate cycle on the earth. The Chilling Stars explains the why and how.

Boy, has this one gone off in tangents. To TheTews: SS, despite all of it's shortcomings, is not going to be the thing that bankrupts this country. Most doomsday scenarios have concluded that even if SS is left alone, the worst that would happen is a benefit of around 70-75% of what is currently promised. That's a total ripoff, but better than nothing. No, the big drain will be in Medicare. Many don't know that the recent Medicare Part D benefit, by itself, creates the potential for more long term budget shortfall than the current SS system by itself. Add in traditional Medicare and Medicaid, and you can see where our illustrious leaders have led us down the path of insolvency all for the sake of a few measley votes. IMHO, of course :)

chuckr

"No matter what FDR called SS, it is not a pension plan - at least not one that wouldn't send the operators to jail if they weren't the government and lawmakers themselves."

Yikes! Aren't you aware of how many private pension plans have either gone insolvent in the last decade or have defualted on their obligations via the corporate bankruptcy route? A glaring and recent example is United Airlines, now in bankruptcy and absolved by court decision of its pension obligations. The pensioners, curtesy of the US taxpayers, will receive maybe half of their promised benefits if they're lucky.

By the standards of these private pension plans, SS has an excellant record. Whether it will continue to have one is up to the people we send to Washington.

By the standards of these private pension plans, SS has an excellant record. Whether it will continue to have one is up to the people we send to Washington.

It's kinda easy when you can raise your prices and have a monopoly on the use of force to ensure payment.

"By the standards of these private pension plans, SS has an excellant record. Whether it will continue to have one is up to the people we send to Washington."

Of course it has a great record, it's the world's biggest ponzi scheme. The bill will eventually come due, with those getting in last left holding the bag.

SS will be saved by all the special T notes in the 'lockbox'.

Of course to pay the notes general revenue will be required, and the taxes to support the general revenue payments will become horrible.

de Toqueville opined that the downfall of democracy will be when the populace realizes it can vote itself the treasury.

We are rapidly approaching this point with SS.

>the single-family home is much more prevalent in the US than elsewhere in the world.

Um. "Elsewhere" is a very large place. Making your statement wrong. Population decrease is an economic crisis that many densely-populated countries are now facing. Negative population growth pretty much guarantees small households.

>I don't call 35% taxes 'subsidizing everyone else.' Back when taxes were 50%, maybe. But since SS taxes are only paid on the first 90k or so of income, the wealthiest people aren't paying nearly their fair share.

Oh, good grief. SS maxes out so incredibly low in terms of actual BENEFITS that a couple with a combine income of $180k put in MULTIPLE TIMES what they get out. How many improvident people should my income support in their old age? I am going to get FAR less out of SS than I put in, even assuming they don't raise the age limit again and lower the benefits.

My taxes are now above 40% of my income.

"I don't call 35% taxes 'subsidizing everyone else.' Back when taxes were 50%, maybe. But since SS taxes are only paid on the first 90k or so of income, the wealthiest people aren't paying nearly their fair share."

I hear this statement and I read that by, an overwhelming majority, Americans think taxing all wage income (heck even all income) provides the best fix to Social Securitys troubles. Honestly, I feel threatened and a bit ticked off. I live in an area in which the median income is $90K. Now, that may sound like a lot of money to a lot of people but our cost of living is equally high. We can move to a cheaper area but our incomes and job possibilities will also take a hit. So, moving doesnt change our lives very much.

When we talk about this fix, were not talking about Nardelli, Paris, Buffet, or Bill. Not really. Were talking about some level of the middle class. Thats where the real money comes from when we talk about solutions like these. And the politicians and government budgeters know it. So, basically, the bulk of the redistribution will come from upper middle income folk to lower middle income folk. The very poor and the very rich tend to feel the least impact of such political changes.

So, I feel threatened and I feel like a chump. Im solidly upper middle income. No more, no less. I paid my way through school, Ive worked hard, I save 25% of my income annually to pay for my self-funded old age and if you think thats easy, youre wrong. I pay 46% of my income in federal, state, local, and property taxes. And when, I hear that everybody wants to boost that level to 50% or higher by taxing all of my income, I feel like a chump. I wont see any compensatory level of benefit back. This year, means-testing comes to Medicare. When Im eligible and living off my hard-won savings so that I COULD stay in this high-priced area and be with my family, my premiums will be much, much higher than the premiums of those who didnt wake up and smell the coffee in time. I see my equally middle class friends and neighbors living beyond their means for the joy of owning three flat screen TVs. And I feel like a chump.

I love Social Security. My grandparents didnt die in poverty because of it. Their post-Depression meager savings, a lot of family help, and Social Security gave my grandma a decent old age. Im a fan. All wage earners pay in and everybody gets something out of it. Its a win/win. So be careful when you tell us middle class saver types that we need to pony up more/ be means tested out. Americans hate welfare programs and if you turn Social Security into one, a very good anti-poverty program may very well lose the political support of people like me.

well stated Nova.

I like your post, novahomesick, except I disagree with this statement: "Americans hate welfare programs" - I think much of America relies on welfare programs disguised in many other terms.

All kinds of industries/workers are subsidized by the govt, i.e., you and me.

California, where I lived for 9 years and just left, is a huge welfare state. Maybe not in terms of actual programs that can be identified as "welfare" but in other areas of "social justice spending."

Other states specialize in farming and manufacturing subsidies.

------------
Back to the supersize house topic, have any of you seen "Living With Ed," a 6-part series on HGTV? I think it may be in repeats now. It's about the lifestyle of Ed Begley Jr, who has been an anomaly in Hollywood for 30 years because of his downsized living. He's the son of an Oscar-winning father and is also famous in his own right as an actor.

Ed's house is 1700 sq ft, 2 bed 2 bath, in Studio City, which is definitely not a swanky part of Los Angeles. He says he feels like a king because he lives better in that average American house and average American city than 99% of the rest of the people in the world.

I've liked him for a long time because he's one of the few "real" people in Hollywood. So many of the celebs talk talk talk about global warming and being green just before they jump into their huge SUV or private jet.

The show is funny - his wife is more mainstream so there are some humororous clashes - but also informative. One episode was with Jay Leno (classic car collector) - here's a blurb on it: "Ed marvels over the Owen Magnetic which, as Jay explains, is a 1916 version of a hybrid car that has a gas engine and an electric motor. The two then go for a ride in a Baker Electric car that was built in 1909."

Funny that my "small" house at 1800 sq ft is bigger than his ...

"Of course it has a great record, it's the world's biggest ponzi scheme."

Which is exactly what private pension schemes (defined benefit type) are. There're set up when company is young, the workforce is growing and the number of retirees is small. When the workforce stops growing or starts shrinking and the numbers of retirees balloon, these companies are faced with enormous pension expenses that they must pay out of their revenues. Many mature companies declare bankruptcy and dump their pensioneers on the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation. If they're lucky, the retirees get half of what they were supposed to.

It always puzzles me that people are so worried about the future solvency of SS, but seem to be unaware of the collapse of so many private pension schemes and gutting of pension benefits. With SS, the voters have at least some influence over its future solvency.

"With SS, the voters have at least some influence over its future solvency."

And they will vote themselves benefits from the Treasury that they are not entitled to and the bill for which will be passed to the future. Sorta like a Ponzi scheme, but with many, many more people complicit and guilty.

I like my 401K and IRAs. I don't have to trust you, the gubmint and politicians, or any specific corporate management team. A moderate amount of diversification means that corporate self-interest will keep a lot of value even if one or more companies in the basket fail to prosper.