Saturday, February 05, 2005

Rusty Nails, 2/5/05...

The local grocery store had baby back ribs on sale for $2.97 / lb. this weekend. I seasoned them last night, wrapped them up, and placed them in the fridge. This morning I put them in the oven at 200 F for about 5 hours and then on the wood pit bbq for about 1 1/2 hours (using peach wood for flavor). Awesome dinner today! ########## A Rough Woodsman switches to impulse power! Okay, Star Trek: Enterprise has been cancelled, but why does Sciolist have to gloat? At least Jeremy Pierce has some kind words for ST: Enterprise at Enterprise Canceled; although why he thinks DS9 was any good is beyond me. ########## Greg, at What Attitude Problem, links us to a great editorial cartoon illustrating how liberals tend to view the current state of Social Security. ########## The GodBlogCon has grown so big that it might not happen due to logistic problems! Hopefully Biola University will come to the rescue and host the conference (that would suit me just fine since Biola is only about 25 miles away).


Reed Porter said...

I hope Sci-Fi, which seemingly has been working hard to point out how poor Enterprise's rating are, picks it up without missing a beat. Battlestar can be good, but they need to make it more family friendly.

greg said...

Thanks for the link to the Varvel cartoon, Rusty. Gary's a great friend, the author of a collection of cartoons, and a Christian who's faith frequently shows through his art. My sense is that now that Gannett has purchased the Star, Gary's days are probably numbered. He's way too conservative for the steadily leftward lurch of the editorial page.

Paul said...

I'm curious, Rusty, as to what you see the crisis as being. It seems that there are two potential problems:

1. In 2020 we'll have to start cashing in the bonds owed to the SS trust fund. Those would be the bonds backed by the full faith and credit of the US government, as guaranteed by the 14th amendment,
2. In 2052 benefits will have to be cut, from much higher than they are now in real terms, to only somewhat higher than they are now in real terms.

A genuine question - which do you think is the crisis?

Rusty said...

I'd say one of the biggest concerns, with regards to SS, is the fact that the ratio of workers to SS recipients is so much lower than that of a generation ago. Combine that with the fact that the percentage of our income that goes to taxes is so much higher as well. Add to it the idea that we're somehow entitled to grants from the government and maybe you'll start seeing the picture.

Paul said...

On your three points:

1. Yes, that is a concern. Not exactly a crisis, as we could support all pensioners on the earnings of a dozen people, if that dozen earned enough. But certainly a concern.

2. According to what figures? The CPBB ( tells us that tax burdens have remained relatively constant for some time, though the income arising from taxes has gone up mainly due to the capital gains bonanza of recent years. it's hard to see that as a bad thing though.

3. Well in this case we *are* entitled to grants from the government - that's what Social Security is, a guaranteed income that privatization plans cannot provide. But there is certainly room for reductions in government welfare across the board. Again, it doesn't seem to be a crisis.

Actually I've been away for a few days, and haven't caught up enough to know whether we're still calling it a crisis or not. Time to check a few more blogs.

Rusty said...


I realize that a few earners could support more ss recipients if those few earners earned enough. No one seems to be presenting data that indicates that to be the case, though.

The data you provided only goes back to the mid-'70s. I'm interested in comparing tax burdens from back in the '40s.

I don't believe that we are entitled to such grants from the government. It's great if we can work it out, but to view them as a right? Nah.