Which US coin most poorly illustrates America and why?
For the last time:
Sacagewea because the I hate the design and "Indian" cents and gold because it's some guy's white daughter that was supposed to represent an indian. You obviously wanted this thread to go further than talking about everyone's least favorite coin design....
Sacagewea because the I hate the design and "Indian" cents and gold because it's some guy's white daughter that was supposed to represent an indian. You obviously wanted this thread to go further than talking about everyone's least favorite coin design.... >>
It could be easy to overemphasize race since no one knows what the real Sacagewea looked like. It's of no real importance what race the model was. I believe however, you'll find the model considers herself indian, and from a related tribe no less.
Thank you all for participating in this thread. In the last few days this thread has become the number one visited thread in the last 600 or so threads on the entire US Coin Forum! Certainly there are misunderstandings. And agreements. Some new alliances have started ( speaking for myself). Some new friends made already and some judgements cast. But the fact is that this thread has in fact been seen by many and that's a good thing. Some people are thinking about issues that they haven't thought about or spoken about lately and that's a good thing too.
America is in trouble. It's not just my opinion but many of our fellow Americans think so too, not to mention millions of people from around the world who think so. This great land, the first and only land in the history of the world was born from rebellion and the desire for all men to be free. The great men and women who fought the good fight against opression and tyranny, a fight which was against all odds, succeeded in creating the first free nation in over 6,000 years of human civilization and in fact became the shining beacon of hope to the world. What was the hope? That "it can be done". Those revolutionaries did that. America, once a wild wilderness, suddenly had the eyes of the world on her and the great men and women who pledged their lives in order to do so, became the first people on earth to achieve such a noble goal.
Millions came. Millions fled their homelands to seek the freedom and opportunity that exists in America. Millions more tried to emulate and copy the founders vision, some succeeding in part, most failing but surely the world became a freer place because of the template that was created here.
In 6,000 years of civilization which preceeded the birth of America, people in all parts of the world worked fields much like animals. Lived in windowless shacks, had poor health, lived under constant tyranny, civil unrest and wars. Extreme poverty in most of the world. But in America, those things changed radically in the first 100 years and America became the richest, most powerful, and freest place on earth. Think about that. In 100 years how much was accomplished. Freedom is what allowed the human spirit to rise above the shackles of slavery which existed in every sector of the world and here, this freedom allowed average people to rise above the constraints put upon them in their homelands and create a place where although not perfect, as close to perfection as the world had ever seen and has not seen since.
But as a great man said that a government which has the power to give you everything has the power to take everything away, this has been the evolution of America in the past 100 years. Very slowly at first, but as time goes on this evil grows and consumes more and more of our lives and the futures of our children and grand children. And sadly, there are those who quite ignorantly are willing to argue for these changes to the soul of America to not only continue, but to grow even larger, while few speak out, or are labeled as extremists for doing so. Sad.
The history of America can all be traced thru our coinage. As someone once coined the phrase, "footprints of history" coinage, or numismatics, is not just a way to pay a bill, buy something or collect because of a design or to make money. Coins represent real history. The study of coins encompasses business and commerce, art, history, people, and the times, and so much more. Study your coins and what was taking place in this great land when these coins were made and when they circulated. Share that knowledge with your children. Numismatists have such a wealth of knowledge about our land so close to us that we can have an impact on others, We can share with others points of knowledge that few are aware and is so important to the future of our land. If we don't, we will surely be reduced to a mere memory of bygone days.
Thanks all for your thoughts and ideas on this thread and I hope that in some small way I've added a new dimension to someones thoughts about collecting these little spheres of metal.
Excellent words, EarlyGold. I couldn't have put it better myself. Thanks for pointing out a few basic points of history. I know you're a true patriot--someone who wants to make things better for all of us.
.....GOD
"Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you." -Luke 11:9
"Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might." -Deut. 6:4-5
"For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; He will save us." -Isaiah 33:22
I've arrived late to this discussion, but I'm one of those Republicans who does not view FDR to be quite the boogie man that others think that he was. When Franklin Roosevelt came to office this country was not too far away from a Communist revolution, or perhaps and American Hitler. We had one in the making in Huey Long. The Communist party was stronger than it ever had been and ever would be, and that was scary. No one had any answers, not even FDR, but he give people hope, and that's really all a president can do.
FDR did not end the Great Depression. World War II ended it. Still he was a strong leader who sometimes suffered from the same kind of arrogance that strong leaders sometimes fall prey to. Some of his programs, like an old age pension fund, were good. Others were garbage, but overall I'd say that he was third best president in American history, behind Lincoln and Washington.
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
As a once-and-future law student, I feel the need to defend lawyers here.
There are countries less litigious than ours. In New Zealand, if you're in a car accident, you cannot sue anyone. Instead, you're compensated out of a public fund. Cars are part of modern life; car accidents are inevitable, and New Zealand decided that it's more efficient and more fair to deal with accidents through a public system.
Here, we have winners and losers. Instead of a system administrated by the government, we allow individual victims to pursue their own causes of action. We are our own regulators.
Most people who are wronged - injured by a defective product or by medical malpractice, fired without cause, ripped off by a financial advisor, maimed on the job - get nothing. For every seemingly excessive $1 million verdict, there are thousands who don't get a dime. Most people don't sue when they could or should. Very often, victims accept settlements for a pittance of what they're entitled to and sign away their rights without even understanding them.
That's the important thing to keep in mind whenever a politician bring up the subject of "tort reform." The fight over the "Patients' Bill of Rights" was over the right to sue HMOs. The current movement is to limit or prohibit punitive damages. First of all, punitive damages are rare (3.3% of the tort cases won by plaintiffs result in any punitive damages), and there's generally a good reason they're imposed. But if we're going to give up the right to sue, or limit damages, what's the alternative system?
Is the idea that we'll simply give up these rights without setting up some kind of alternative, meaningful regulation that allows individuals to recover damages? Because that would leave us all truly defenseless.
When Franklin Roosevelt came to office this country was not too far away from a Communist revolution, or perhaps and American Hitler.
Bill Jones, you're a smart man.
I prefer a democratic republic with a social safety net, where citizens are encouraged to succeed, but are not forced to starve or go homeless if their employer decides to move offshore. It's painfully obvious the founding fathers had no idea tyranny could manifest itself in a purely capitalist society. We were a people fleeing tyranny. They had no historical reference to prepare them for the likes of Rockafellar, and no idea that certain individuals could accumulate so much wealth and influence as to be able to corrupt and purchase the political process. I like Mr.Roosevelt.
MrEarlygold, although you and I see things from very different perspectives, I do appreciate the thread, and your point of view, and will never look at the Roosevelt dime in the same way.
Developing theory is what we are meant to do as academic researchers and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
I don't know why people keep repeating the socialist mantra that capitalism is an inherently unfair, or tyrannical system. It's not at all. Capitalism is neutral in fact. Capitalism doesn't force people to steal, or purchase the political system. Far from it. It's the only system I know that in fact allows the opposite. It allows people to be free, to make choices. People aren't forced to make immoral choices, such as purchasing the political system. In fact, under capitalism this happens to a lesser extant than under any other system. In fact, when there is collusion between the industrial complex and government, it is no longer capitalism, but rather socialism, communism, or fascism. People who use the political system to make money, or get favors, etc, are guilty of harming their fellow citizens, but please don't call this capitalism.
.....GOD
"Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you." -Luke 11:9
"Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might." -Deut. 6:4-5
"For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; He will save us." -Isaiah 33:22
For every seemingly excessive $1 million verdict, there are thousands who don't get a dime. Most people don't sue when they could or should
I agree with this whole-heartedly. Another of my complaints against the legal system is that it's only accessible to wealthy or connected. The ones who use the system are the ones who need it least - the wealthy. I shouldn't say I "hate" lawyers since it's the juries that allow such ridiculous payments to the "injured". It's ridiculous that the manufacturer of a plastic model should have to print "Do not eat this product" on the box. Some fool ate a plastic model and hit the jackpot. A miscarriage is a terrible event, but it's life. Today if you have a miscarriage, it's an instant jackpot. We can discuss later, I'm going bowling (I'm hoping for a slip-and-fall and a major payday).
btw my sister is a lawyer (graduated summa cum laude IUPUI last year).
Baccaruda, I think those who get large awards generally go through hell before they do. Faked injuries don't bring in the big bucks. To maximize your potential award, try to get a pair of defective shoes, a defective ball and a defective lane, preferably one with a large nail sticking up from the floor. Also, be sure to get drunk and fall so you can sue the alley for not cutting you off, in addition to creating that hazard with the nail in the floor. Make sure you lose, then act despondent and seek psychiatric help so you can sue your friend who beats you for intentional infliction of emotional distress. I'm not a lawyer, so you can't sue me for malpractice yet.
<< <i>I don't know why people keep repeating the socialist mantra that capitalism is an inherently unfair, or tyrannical system. It's not at all. Capitalism is neutral in fact. Capitalism doesn't force people to steal, or purchase the political system. Far from it. It's the only system I know that in fact allows the opposite. It allows people to be free, to make choices. People aren't forced to make immoral choices, such as purchasing the political system. In fact, under capitalism this happens to a lesser extant than under any other system. In fact, when there is collusion between the industrial complex and government, it is no longer capitalism, but rather socialism, communism, or fascism. People who use the political system to make money, or get favors, etc, are guilty of harming their fellow citizens, but please don't call this capitalism.
I'm gonna start going to the doctor more often. The way I see it, the more times I go to the doctor, the more chance there is that he'll forget to dot an "I" or cross a "T" on the prescription pad - and I'm in the money.
It’s immaterial whether capitalism and market forces are fair or unfair. They are a fact of life. You either adjustment to them and prosper, or you try to set up artificial barriers to defeat them and end worse off than you were before.
The only action that government can take is to aid the losers in a socially responsible way. By that I mean that things like unemployment compensation for those who have worked for a long time and then lose their jobs, and pensions and benefits for those who can’t work because of disability or old age. In a pure capitalist world one would let such people depend upon their families or starve, but in an orderly society that’s not acceptable.
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
The Real Truth About Social Security by W. A. "George" Hale
The impending "crisis" in the Social Security system is surprisingly simple to explain and to understand, as are the solutions, once the distortion, mythologies, and outright lies about the system are punctured.
The True FICA Tax Rate
The best place to start is with the lie about the actual Social Security tax rate on the individual. This lie sets the tone for the total misrepresentation throughout the system.
In American commerce, by far the biggest expense for most on-going competitive businesses is direct labor costs. No employer can afford not to intelligently and with discipline painstakingly manage the cost of labor. All positions must be filled with employees who contribute, on average, sufficiently to the enterprise's bottom line a value in excess of the cost to the employer of its labor. All other things being equal, the mismanagement of labor costs will doom a business in the competitive marketplace. Across all industry, the percent of revenues managed to the bottom line of the average business is less than 5%, after taxes. Mismanagement of labor costs by fractions of a percent can affect the net bottom line by double-digit percentages.
Under current tax laws, if the direct labor cost budget for a particular salaried position is $50,000, the salary offered can not exceed $46,446.82, because of the ridicuous, politically-influenced tax code designed to make it appear as if the employer "pays" the "employer share" of the employee's Social Security tax, which is 7.65% of his reported "salary." Once this amount ($3553.18) is added to the reported "salary" of $46,446.82, the employer will thus meet its budgetary limit of $50,000 for the position. Thus for an employee for which a company is willing to pay $50,000 per year, the employer is forced to offer a salary of no more than $46,446.82; the employee will receive $ 42,893.64 before income tax withholding, and $7106.36 in FICA taxes (14.21% of the $50,000) will be sent to the U.S. Treasury.
Does the employer pay 1/2 of the employee's FICA tax? Yes, as a matter of fact the employer pays ALL of the employee's FICA tax. Every dime of the employee's take-home pay, his federal income tax withholding, and his FICA tax is paid directly by the employer. It makes not a twit of difference to the employer's bottom line how that $50,000 is distributed. It is all booked as labor expense. The percentage of the $50,000 that winds up in the employee's pocket, versus the percentage that is submitted to the U.S. Treasury as payroll taxes and federal income tax withholding, is a matter between only the employee and his federal government.
For all employees for whose "salary" is $87,900 or less (from the published "Maximum Earnings Taxable" for 2004), the true FICA tax rate suffered by the employee is 14.21%.
On that foreboding note, having established one of the most insidious lies at the core of the Social Security system, let us note some additional incontrovertible facts:
There is no Social Security Trust Fund.
Every year a simple arithmetic notation is made somewhere in the federal government. It is the difference between two numbers:
The sum of all Social Security payroll taxes withheld from all employees and submitted to the U.S. Treasury. The sum of all Social Security benefits paid. Throughout the history of Social Security, the first number has been larger than the second. Throughout the history of Social Security, the population has been led to believe that the first number has been securely stuffed into a cookie jar somewhere, to be repaid, with interest, to the employee when he retires. Only the first statement is true. In actuality, to date, the first number has been the source of funds for the second number. The difference between the two sums has been summarily spent on other forms of federal spending, and it has been spent the month it was collected.
So why even keep track of the difference? Why, so the federal government can report to the American public that it has carefully accounted for the FICA taxes collected that were spent on other government programs by recording these expenditures as an interest-bearing loan to the Treasury from the Social Security Administration and calling it the Social Security Trust Fund!
If you draw a circle around the entire federal government behemoth, the Social Security System is INSIDE THAT CIRCLE! Politicians have told us for decades that all excesses in FICA taxes collected above benefits paid have been painstakingly "invested" in U.S. Treasury notes in the Social Security Trust Fund's behalf. How stupid do they think we are? Hauling wheelbarrows full of U.S. Treasury Notes from the U.S. Treasury to another element of the federal government, the Social Security Administration in Baltimore, is an "investment"? For years, on the Cato Institute's web site dedicated to the Social Security fiasco (www.socialsecurity.org), there have been articles trying to explain this nonsense. The best one I have read offered, in so many words, this explanation:
If the Social Security Trust Fund were worth a bazillion dollars, when the SSA needed to cash in some of its trust fund to raise, say, $50 billion to pay beneficiaries, what would then ensue? We must suppose the SSA would cart $50 billion worth of its carefully saved U.S. Treasury notes back over to the U.S. Treasury and demand the cash. What would the U.S. Treasury then do? It has run at a deficit for decades. It borrows money every month, renewing previous loans to the public, and making new ones. It does not have $50 billion in loose cash lying around; it cannot raise taxes; it cannot talk the SSA into lowering benefits, (thus obviating the need for the $50 billion), so what does it do? It has no choice but to sell the SSA's $50 billion worth of Treasury Notes to the public to raise the cash. In other words, it has to borrow the money. It has to increase the national debt.
Now assume there is no Social Security Trust Fund, but the SSA is facing a $50 billion shortfall in beneficiary payments. How will the government raise that cash, if it cannot raise taxes or lower benefits? It will borrow $50 billion, by selling U.S. Treasury Notes to the public. It will raise the national debt.
A $bazillion trust fund is exactly equal to no trust fund.
There IS not a Social Security Trust Fund. It is a figment.
One comical addition to the Trust Fund myth: Not only does the federal government loan itself the difference between FICA taxes collected and benefits paid, it also pays itself a handsome interest rate on the loan it has made to itself. And guess how it pays that interest? Why, it simply ups its loan to itself by the amount of the interest due to itself. Cute.
The "Obligations" of the Social Security System.
Much is said about the poor taxpayers who have been paying FICA taxes all their working lives, and the horror of the prospect that the SSA will somehow renege on its "obligation" to pay those taxpayers the benefits they're due when they retire.
If, as an individual, I purchase a U.S. Treasury Bond, then I have in my hands a legally negotiable instrument of debt obligation by the federal government to me. When I choose to redeem it, the federal government is legally bound to pay me.
If I am a government contractor, in possession of a signed government contract for goods or services, which defines the conditions under which I and the federal government have formed a business relationship, then, when I meet the conditions of the contract, it is a legally negotiable instrument obligating the federal government to pay me my due.
I challenge any citizen who has paid Social Security taxes to search his desk for some negotiable contract with the federal government obligating it to pay him Social Security benefits when he retires. There is no such thing. Current benefits are dictated by current law, which can be changed tomorrow by a majority of both houses of congress and a presidential signature.
The Social Security Administration has absolutely NO legally negotiable obligations to the citizens of the United States.
Bankruptcy and the Social Security System
For those who may be worried about the Social Security System going bankrupt, I can offer good news and bad news. The good news is that there is absolutely no way the Social Security System can ever go bankrupt. The bad news is WHY there is absolutely no way the Social Security System can ever go bankrupt.
Webster defines "bankrupt" as "a person or enterprise that has become insolvent." Webster defines "insolvent" as "having liabilities in excess of a reasonable market value of assets held." Thus those terms have absolutely no relevance to any enterprise which has neither assets NOR liabilities. Journalists who intersperse such words in articles about the Social Security System are editorially irresponsible.
What IS the "Social Security System"?
The Social Security System is now, forever has been, and forever will be a system where money is taken from people who work and given to people who do not work. It is also one of the most incredible cons ever perpetrated on a citizenry. It is fraught with mistruths, as well as built-in psychological aspects that have so cleverly perpetuated its misconceptions.
If you want to hear desperation in a person's voice, confront him with the notion that his employer is not really picking up half his FICA tax burden; rather he is suffering the entire expense out of the sum his employer is willing to pay for his labor. Nobody wants to believe that. One can hardly blame them.
There is no retired millionaire anywhere, upon receiving his $2800 Social Security benefit check and as he is spending it on green fees each month, who is psychologically prepared to accept that it requires a combined 14.21% taxation on ten $2000/month fry cooks at Denny's to fund his benefit check. He will cling to the myth that his benefit check is simply a return on the investment of all those Social Security taxes he paid while he was working. One can hardly blame him.
Try explaining to a fry cook at Denny's what his true FICA tax rate is, and where his FICA taxes are really going. No, on second thought, don't do that to him.
As Aunt Josie struggles each month, after cashing her $750 Social Security benefit check to pay for her housing, her heat, her medicine, and, with whatever may be left, her food, it would be cruel to point out that her successful nephew Jamie, the $435,000 per year tax lawyer, is only helping support Social Security with a measly 3% FICA tax rate
It might also be a good idea to explain the situation to Jamie. He, too, would resist the truth, but perhaps he would understand enough of it to be willing to go help poor old Aunt Josie once in a while.
What's to be done about Social Security?
Simple question, simple answer. There are only three things to choose from.
Many uninformed citizens mistakenly believe that all our government needs to do to pay for government programs is to print more money. Actually, the government is pretty limited not to spend money it cannot raise from the private sector, through fees and taxes or through borrowing. So the only solutions to the so-called Social Security crisis are these:
Raise Taxes Raise the Federal Debt Reduce Benefits Some combination of these three things will happen. There absolutely is no avoiding it. As it is very unfortunate for a person with a brain tumor to be told he has a headache, and to treat it with aspirin, so, to, would the Social Security situation benefit from an honest appraisal of what it is and what it is not. It is not a retirement program
So long as the notion persists that this is a retirement program, the cancer will continue to grow unchecked. One example is the currently proposed folly of "privatizing" Social Security. As conservative as I am, and as much of a believer in personal investments as I am, it gives me nightmares to contemplate new ways of talking of "investment" in relation to Social Security.
Taxes must be raised, or the federal debt must be raised, or the benefits must be reduced to solve the problem. THERE ARE NO OTHER CHOICES!!! How to do that fairly will become clear as soon as responsible journalism surfaces to inform the public about the nature of the problem itself. This is a huge news story. In the absence of that, we are now talking about going in the opposite direction – by lowering taxes. By lowering taxes, I mean reducing what we pay to the U.S. Treasury in FICA taxes, so we can (bureaucratically, I'm sure) "invest" in private retirement accounts. Cannot everyone see the perils of that, when coupled to a program like Social Security? Not only are we going to suffer the loss of tax revenue while the crisis is still growing, the whole scheme is nothing but a political gamble that the process of having our own private investments will somehow soften the blow from the inevitable reduction in benefits that must surely come in the future. When market conditions deteriorate in the future, and the government must begin to subsidize those self-financed benefits that are no longer sufficient, it will be as if nothing had changed, only worse.
This situation needs an explosion of understanding among the population about the true nature of Social Security to happen first, and then the citizenry needs to demand of our politicians an admission of the realities of the current system. Then sane, sensible remedies will arise through simple logic:
Cut the BS and expose the current system for what it is. Face up to the fact that its cost is all on the backs of employees, not shared by employers, and be honest about the tax rate. Means test benefits. At least tax everyone at the same rate, instead of the horrifically regressive rates we have now. Once the system has been corrected so that it properly and correctly reveals itself as nothing but an old-age welfare system, merge it into the Department of Health and Human Services, where it belongs. Encourage private investing (as a start, by eliminating the capital gains tax), but otherwise, for God’s sake, leave the federal government out of it.
1. I can't believe you think raising taxes and invoking means testing results in leaving "the federal government out of it." Perhaps you can justify the thought, but I doubt it.
2. I am surprised that option #4 was utterly, COMPLETELY missed. I thought it was a worthwhile read, up until they missed such a simple insight. More thought should be put into the finale!
Comments
For the last time:
Sacagewea because the I hate the design and "Indian" cents and gold because it's some guy's white daughter that was supposed to represent an indian. You obviously wanted this thread to go further than talking about everyone's least favorite coin design....
2 Cam-Slams!
1 Russ POTD!
Lucy-
Elvis and Chuck Berry both would be a great pair for a rock and roll coin.
Macqui
<< <i>
Sacagewea because the I hate the design and "Indian" cents and gold because it's some guy's white daughter that was supposed to represent an indian. You obviously wanted this thread to go further than talking about everyone's least favorite coin design.... >>
It could be easy to overemphasize race since no one knows what the real Sacagewea looked
like. It's of no real importance what race the model was. I believe however, you'll find the model
considers herself indian, and from a related tribe no less.
The model for the Indian cents and Indian gold is what I was referring to. The "Indian" depicted on these coins has all white European features.
2 Cam-Slams!
1 Russ POTD!
America is in trouble. It's not just my opinion but many of our fellow Americans think so too, not to mention millions of people from around the world who think so. This great land, the first and only land in the history of the world was born from rebellion and the desire for all men to be free. The great men and women who fought the good fight against opression and tyranny, a fight which was against all odds, succeeded in creating the first free nation in over 6,000 years of human civilization and in fact became the shining beacon of hope to the world. What was the hope? That "it can be done". Those revolutionaries did that. America, once a wild wilderness, suddenly had the eyes of the world on her and the great men and women who pledged their lives in order to do so, became the first people on earth to achieve such a noble goal.
Millions came. Millions fled their homelands to seek the freedom and opportunity that exists in America. Millions more tried to emulate and copy the founders vision, some succeeding in part, most failing but surely the world became a freer place because of the template that was created here.
In 6,000 years of civilization which preceeded the birth of America, people in all parts of the world worked fields much like animals. Lived in windowless shacks, had poor health, lived under constant tyranny, civil unrest and wars. Extreme poverty in most of the world. But in America, those things changed radically in the first 100 years and America became the richest, most powerful, and freest place on earth. Think about that. In 100 years how much was accomplished. Freedom is what allowed the human spirit to rise above the shackles of slavery which existed in every sector of the world and here, this freedom allowed average people to rise above the constraints put upon them in their homelands and create a place where although not perfect, as close to perfection as the world had ever seen and has not seen since.
But as a great man said that a government which has the power to give you everything has the power to take everything away, this has been the evolution of America in the past 100 years. Very slowly at first, but as time goes on this evil grows and consumes more and more of our lives and the futures of our children and grand children. And sadly, there are those who quite ignorantly are willing to argue for these changes to the soul of America to not only continue, but to grow even larger, while few speak out, or are labeled as extremists for doing so. Sad.
The history of America can all be traced thru our coinage. As someone once coined the phrase, "footprints of history" coinage, or numismatics, is not just a way to pay a bill, buy something or collect because of a design or to make money. Coins represent real history. The study of coins encompasses business and commerce, art, history, people, and the times, and so much more. Study your coins and what was taking place in this great land when these coins were made and when they circulated. Share that knowledge with your children. Numismatists have such a wealth of knowledge about our land so close to us that we can have an impact on others, We can share with others points of knowledge that few are aware and is so important to the future of our land. If we don't, we will surely be reduced to a mere memory of bygone days.
Thanks all for your thoughts and ideas on this thread and I hope that in some small way I've added a new dimension to someones thoughts about collecting these little spheres of metal.
Rgrds
TP
Coin's for sale/trade.
Tom Pilitowski
US Rare Coin Investments
800-624-1870
"Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you." -Luke 11:9
"Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might." -Deut. 6:4-5
"For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; He will save us." -Isaiah 33:22
FDR did not end the Great Depression. World War II ended it. Still he was a strong leader who sometimes suffered from the same kind of arrogance that strong leaders sometimes fall prey to. Some of his programs, like an old age pension fund, were good. Others were garbage, but overall I'd say that he was third best president in American history, behind Lincoln and Washington.
Thank you for setting me straight. I now understand the evils of electricity, indoor plumbing, and garbage pickup.
Now if you'll excuse me, I've gotta go get a bumper sticker that says "Just say NO to flush toilets".
2 Cam-Slams!
1 Russ POTD!
As a once-and-future law student, I feel the need to defend lawyers here.
There are countries less litigious than ours. In New Zealand, if you're in a car accident, you cannot sue anyone. Instead, you're compensated out of a public fund. Cars are part of modern life; car accidents are inevitable, and New Zealand decided that it's more efficient and more fair to deal with accidents through a public system.
Here, we have winners and losers. Instead of a system administrated by the government, we allow individual victims to pursue their own causes of action. We are our own regulators.
Most people who are wronged - injured by a defective product or by medical malpractice, fired without cause, ripped off by a financial advisor, maimed on the job - get nothing. For every seemingly excessive $1 million verdict, there are thousands who don't get a dime. Most people don't sue when they could or should. Very often, victims accept settlements for a pittance of what they're entitled to and sign away their rights without even understanding them.
That's the important thing to keep in mind whenever a politician bring up the subject of "tort reform." The fight over the "Patients' Bill of Rights" was over the right to sue HMOs. The current movement is to limit or prohibit punitive damages. First of all, punitive damages are rare (3.3% of the tort cases won by plaintiffs result in any punitive damages), and there's generally a good reason they're imposed. But if we're going to give up the right to sue, or limit damages, what's the alternative system?
Is the idea that we'll simply give up these rights without setting up some kind of alternative, meaningful regulation that allows individuals to recover damages? Because that would leave us all truly defenseless.
-Jay
e-mail me here
WINNER:
POTD 8-30-05 (awarded by dthigpen)
POTD 9-8-05 (awarded by gsaguy)
GSAGUY Slam 12-10-04
Bill Jones, you're a smart man.
I prefer a democratic republic with a social safety net, where citizens are encouraged to succeed, but are not forced to starve or go homeless if their employer decides to move offshore. It's painfully obvious the founding fathers had no idea tyranny could manifest itself in a purely capitalist society. We were a people fleeing tyranny. They had no historical reference to prepare them for the likes of Rockafellar, and no idea that certain individuals could accumulate so much wealth and influence as to be able to corrupt and purchase the political process. I like Mr.Roosevelt.
MrEarlygold, although you and I see things from very different perspectives, I do appreciate the thread, and your point of view, and will never look at the Roosevelt dime in the same way.
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
"Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you." -Luke 11:9
"Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might." -Deut. 6:4-5
"For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; He will save us." -Isaiah 33:22
I agree with this whole-heartedly. Another of my complaints against the legal system is that it's only accessible to wealthy or connected. The ones who use the system are the ones who need it least - the wealthy. I shouldn't say I "hate" lawyers since it's the juries that allow such ridiculous payments to the "injured". It's ridiculous that the manufacturer of a plastic model should have to print "Do not eat this product" on the box. Some fool ate a plastic model and hit the jackpot. A miscarriage is a terrible event, but it's life. Today if you have a miscarriage, it's an instant jackpot. We can discuss later, I'm going bowling (I'm hoping for a slip-and-fall and a major payday).
btw my sister is a lawyer (graduated summa cum laude IUPUI last year).
2 Cam-Slams!
1 Russ POTD!
2 Cam-Slams!
1 Russ POTD!
-Jay
e-mail me here
WINNER:
POTD 8-30-05 (awarded by dthigpen)
POTD 9-8-05 (awarded by gsaguy)
GSAGUY Slam 12-10-04
<< <i>I don't know why people keep repeating the socialist mantra that capitalism is an inherently unfair, or tyrannical system. It's not at all. Capitalism is neutral in fact. Capitalism doesn't force people to steal, or purchase the political system. Far from it. It's the only system I know that in fact allows the opposite. It allows people to be free, to make choices. People aren't forced to make immoral choices, such as purchasing the political system. In fact, under capitalism this happens to a lesser extant than under any other system. In fact, when there is collusion between the industrial complex and government, it is no longer capitalism, but rather socialism, communism, or fascism. People who use the political system to make money, or get favors, etc, are guilty of harming their fellow citizens, but please don't call this capitalism.
Well said.
I'm gonna start going to the doctor more often. The way I see it, the more times I go to the doctor, the more chance there is that he'll forget to dot an "I" or cross a "T" on the prescription pad - and I'm in the money.
2 Cam-Slams!
1 Russ POTD!
The only action that government can take is to aid the losers in a socially responsible way. By that I mean that things like unemployment compensation for those who have worked for a long time and then lose their jobs, and pensions and benefits for those who can’t work because of disability or old age. In a pure capitalist world one would let such people depend upon their families or starve, but in an orderly society that’s not acceptable.
The Real Truth About Social Security
by W. A. "George" Hale
The impending "crisis" in the Social Security system is surprisingly simple to explain and to understand, as are the solutions, once the distortion, mythologies, and outright lies about the system are punctured.
The True FICA Tax Rate
The best place to start is with the lie about the actual Social Security tax rate on the individual. This lie sets the tone for the total misrepresentation throughout the system.
In American commerce, by far the biggest expense for most on-going competitive businesses is direct labor costs. No employer can afford not to intelligently and with discipline painstakingly manage the cost of labor. All positions must be filled with employees who contribute, on average, sufficiently to the enterprise's bottom line a value in excess of the cost to the employer of its labor. All other things being equal, the mismanagement of labor costs will doom a business in the competitive marketplace. Across all industry, the percent of revenues managed to the bottom line of the average business is less than 5%, after taxes. Mismanagement of labor costs by fractions of a percent can affect the net bottom line by double-digit percentages.
Under current tax laws, if the direct labor cost budget for a particular salaried position is $50,000, the salary offered can not exceed $46,446.82, because of the ridicuous, politically-influenced tax code designed to make it appear as if the employer "pays" the "employer share" of the employee's Social Security tax, which is 7.65% of his reported "salary." Once this amount ($3553.18) is added to the reported "salary" of $46,446.82, the employer will thus meet its budgetary limit of $50,000 for the position. Thus for an employee for which a company is willing to pay $50,000 per year, the employer is forced to offer a salary of no more than $46,446.82; the employee will receive $ 42,893.64 before income tax withholding, and $7106.36 in FICA taxes (14.21% of the $50,000) will be sent to the U.S. Treasury.
Does the employer pay 1/2 of the employee's FICA tax? Yes, as a matter of fact the employer pays ALL of the employee's FICA tax. Every dime of the employee's take-home pay, his federal income tax withholding, and his FICA tax is paid directly by the employer. It makes not a twit of difference to the employer's bottom line how that $50,000 is distributed. It is all booked as labor expense. The percentage of the $50,000 that winds up in the employee's pocket, versus the percentage that is submitted to the U.S. Treasury as payroll taxes and federal income tax withholding, is a matter between only the employee and his federal government.
For all employees for whose "salary" is $87,900 or less (from the published "Maximum Earnings Taxable" for 2004), the true FICA tax rate suffered by the employee is 14.21%.
On that foreboding note, having established one of the most insidious lies at the core of the Social Security system, let us note some additional incontrovertible facts:
There is no Social Security Trust Fund.
Every year a simple arithmetic notation is made somewhere in the federal government. It is the difference between two numbers:
The sum of all Social Security payroll taxes withheld from all employees and submitted to the U.S. Treasury.
The sum of all Social Security benefits paid.
Throughout the history of Social Security, the first number has been larger than the second. Throughout the history of Social Security, the population has been led to believe that the first number has been securely stuffed into a cookie jar somewhere, to be repaid, with interest, to the employee when he retires. Only the first statement is true. In actuality, to date, the first number has been the source of funds for the second number. The difference between the two sums has been summarily spent on other forms of federal spending, and it has been spent the month it was collected.
So why even keep track of the difference? Why, so the federal government can report to the American public that it has carefully accounted for the FICA taxes collected that were spent on other government programs by recording these expenditures as an interest-bearing loan to the Treasury from the Social Security Administration and calling it the Social Security Trust Fund!
If you draw a circle around the entire federal government behemoth, the Social Security System is INSIDE THAT CIRCLE! Politicians have told us for decades that all excesses in FICA taxes collected above benefits paid have been painstakingly "invested" in U.S. Treasury notes in the Social Security Trust Fund's behalf. How stupid do they think we are? Hauling wheelbarrows full of U.S. Treasury Notes from the U.S. Treasury to another element of the federal government, the Social Security Administration in Baltimore, is an "investment"? For years, on the Cato Institute's web site dedicated to the Social Security fiasco (www.socialsecurity.org), there have been articles trying to explain this nonsense. The best one I have read offered, in so many words, this explanation:
If the Social Security Trust Fund were worth a bazillion dollars, when the SSA needed to cash in some of its trust fund to raise, say, $50 billion to pay beneficiaries, what would then ensue? We must suppose the SSA would cart $50 billion worth of its carefully saved U.S. Treasury notes back over to the U.S. Treasury and demand the cash. What would the U.S. Treasury then do? It has run at a deficit for decades. It borrows money every month, renewing previous loans to the public, and making new ones. It does not have $50 billion in loose cash lying around; it cannot raise taxes; it cannot talk the SSA into lowering benefits, (thus obviating the need for the $50 billion), so what does it do? It has no choice but to sell the SSA's $50 billion worth of Treasury Notes to the public to raise the cash. In other words, it has to borrow the money. It has to increase the national debt.
Now assume there is no Social Security Trust Fund, but the SSA is facing a $50 billion shortfall in beneficiary payments. How will the government raise that cash, if it cannot raise taxes or lower benefits? It will borrow $50 billion, by selling U.S. Treasury Notes to the public. It will raise the national debt.
A $bazillion trust fund is exactly equal to no trust fund.
There IS not a Social Security Trust Fund. It is a figment.
One comical addition to the Trust Fund myth: Not only does the federal government loan itself the difference between FICA taxes collected and benefits paid, it also pays itself a handsome interest rate on the loan it has made to itself. And guess how it pays that interest? Why, it simply ups its loan to itself by the amount of the interest due to itself. Cute.
The "Obligations" of the Social Security System.
Much is said about the poor taxpayers who have been paying FICA taxes all their working lives, and the horror of the prospect that the SSA will somehow renege on its "obligation" to pay those taxpayers the benefits they're due when they retire.
If, as an individual, I purchase a U.S. Treasury Bond, then I have in my hands a legally negotiable instrument of debt obligation by the federal government to me. When I choose to redeem it, the federal government is legally bound to pay me.
If I am a government contractor, in possession of a signed government contract for goods or services, which defines the conditions under which I and the federal government have formed a business relationship, then, when I meet the conditions of the contract, it is a legally negotiable instrument obligating the federal government to pay me my due.
I challenge any citizen who has paid Social Security taxes to search his desk for some negotiable contract with the federal government obligating it to pay him Social Security benefits when he retires. There is no such thing. Current benefits are dictated by current law, which can be changed tomorrow by a majority of both houses of congress and a presidential signature.
The Social Security Administration has absolutely NO legally negotiable obligations to the citizens of the United States.
Bankruptcy and the Social Security System
For those who may be worried about the Social Security System going bankrupt, I can offer good news and bad news. The good news is that there is absolutely no way the Social Security System can ever go bankrupt. The bad news is WHY there is absolutely no way the Social Security System can ever go bankrupt.
Webster defines "bankrupt" as "a person or enterprise that has become insolvent." Webster defines "insolvent" as "having liabilities in excess of a reasonable market value of assets held." Thus those terms have absolutely no relevance to any enterprise which has neither assets NOR liabilities. Journalists who intersperse such words in articles about the Social Security System are editorially irresponsible.
What IS the "Social Security System"?
The Social Security System is now, forever has been, and forever will be a system where money is taken from people who work and given to people who do not work. It is also one of the most incredible cons ever perpetrated on a citizenry. It is fraught with mistruths, as well as built-in psychological aspects that have so cleverly perpetuated its misconceptions.
If you want to hear desperation in a person's voice, confront him with the notion that his employer is not really picking up half his FICA tax burden; rather he is suffering the entire expense out of the sum his employer is willing to pay for his labor. Nobody wants to believe that. One can hardly blame them.
There is no retired millionaire anywhere, upon receiving his $2800 Social Security benefit check and as he is spending it on green fees each month, who is psychologically prepared to accept that it requires a combined 14.21% taxation on ten $2000/month fry cooks at Denny's to fund his benefit check. He will cling to the myth that his benefit check is simply a return on the investment of all those Social Security taxes he paid while he was working. One can hardly blame him.
Try explaining to a fry cook at Denny's what his true FICA tax rate is, and where his FICA taxes are really going. No, on second thought, don't do that to him.
As Aunt Josie struggles each month, after cashing her $750 Social Security benefit check to pay for her housing, her heat, her medicine, and, with whatever may be left, her food, it would be cruel to point out that her successful nephew Jamie, the $435,000 per year tax lawyer, is only helping support Social Security with a measly 3% FICA tax rate
It might also be a good idea to explain the situation to Jamie. He, too, would resist the truth, but perhaps he would understand enough of it to be willing to go help poor old Aunt Josie once in a while.
What's to be done about Social Security?
Simple question, simple answer. There are only three things to choose from.
Many uninformed citizens mistakenly believe that all our government needs to do to pay for government programs is to print more money. Actually, the government is pretty limited not to spend money it cannot raise from the private sector, through fees and taxes or through borrowing. So the only solutions to the so-called Social Security crisis are these:
Raise Taxes
Raise the Federal Debt
Reduce Benefits
Some combination of these three things will happen. There absolutely is no avoiding it. As it is very unfortunate for a person with a brain tumor to be told he has a headache, and to treat it with aspirin, so, to, would the Social Security situation benefit from an honest appraisal of what it is and what it is not. It is not a retirement program
So long as the notion persists that this is a retirement program, the cancer will continue to grow unchecked. One example is the currently proposed folly of "privatizing" Social Security. As conservative as I am, and as much of a believer in personal investments as I am, it gives me nightmares to contemplate new ways of talking of "investment" in relation to Social Security.
Taxes must be raised, or the federal debt must be raised, or the benefits must be reduced to solve the problem. THERE ARE NO OTHER CHOICES!!! How to do that fairly will become clear as soon as responsible journalism surfaces to inform the public about the nature of the problem itself. This is a huge news story. In the absence of that, we are now talking about going in the opposite direction – by lowering taxes. By lowering taxes, I mean reducing what we pay to the U.S. Treasury in FICA taxes, so we can (bureaucratically, I'm sure) "invest" in private retirement accounts. Cannot everyone see the perils of that, when coupled to a program like Social Security? Not only are we going to suffer the loss of tax revenue while the crisis is still growing, the whole scheme is nothing but a political gamble that the process of having our own private investments will somehow soften the blow from the inevitable reduction in benefits that must surely come in the future. When market conditions deteriorate in the future, and the government must begin to subsidize those self-financed benefits that are no longer sufficient, it will be as if nothing had changed, only worse.
This situation needs an explosion of understanding among the population about the true nature of Social Security to happen first, and then the citizenry needs to demand of our politicians an admission of the realities of the current system. Then sane, sensible remedies will arise through simple logic:
Cut the BS and expose the current system for what it is. Face up to the fact that its cost is all on the backs of employees, not shared by employers, and be honest about the tax rate.
Means test benefits.
At least tax everyone at the same rate, instead of the horrifically regressive rates we have now.
Once the system has been corrected so that it properly and correctly reveals itself as nothing but an old-age welfare system, merge it into the Department of Health and Human Services, where it belongs.
Encourage private investing (as a start, by eliminating the capital gains tax), but otherwise, for God’s sake, leave the federal government out of it.
Coin's for sale/trade.
Tom Pilitowski
US Rare Coin Investments
800-624-1870
Two points....
1. I can't believe you think raising taxes and invoking means testing results in leaving "the federal government out of it." Perhaps you can justify the thought, but I doubt it.
2. I am surprised that option #4 was utterly, COMPLETELY missed. I thought it was a worthwhile read, up until they missed such a simple insight. More thought should be put into the finale!