Back on the social security subject, there was an interesting article in the Washington Post today:
In GOP, Resistance On Social Security
Bush Plan Raises Fear of Voter Anger
By Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Many Republicans are expressing reservations about the political wisdom of President Bush's vision for restructuring Social Security, as the White House today intensifies its campaign to restructure the entitlement program for the retired and disabled.
Bush, who relishes challenging the conventional wisdoms of Washington, has privately counseled Republicans that partially privatizing Social Security will be a boon for the GOP and has urged skeptics to hold fire until he builds a public case for change. But several influential Republicans are warning that Bush's plan could backfire on the party in next year's elections, especially if the plan includes cuts in benefits.
Most alarming to White House officials, some congressional Republicans are panning the president's plan -- even before it is unveiled. "Why stir up a political hornet's nest . . . when there is no urgency?" said Rep. Rob Simmons (Conn.), who represents a competitive district. "When does the program go belly up? 2042. I will be dead by then."
Simmons said there is no way he will support Bush's idea of allowing younger Americans to divert some of their payroll taxes into private accounts, especially when there are more pressing needs, such as shoring up Medicare and providing armor to U.S. troops in Iraq.
Rep. Jack Kingston (Ga.), a member of the GOP leadership, said 15 to 20 House Republicans agree with Simmons, although others say the number is closer to 40. "Just convincing our guys not to be timid is going to be a big struggle," he said. "It's going to take a lot of convincing," which he said can be done.
"The politics of this are brutal," one senior GOP leadership aide said, adding that the White House has yet to convince most House members that the "third rail" of American politics is somehow safe.
Outside Congress, several party activists are sounding similar alarms after word spread last week that Bush is planning to reduce future benefits as part of the restructuring. Former House speaker Newt Gingrich (Ga.) is warning that Republicans could lose their 10-year House majority if the White House follows through with that proposal.
William Kristol, editor of the conservative Weekly Standard, is challenging the president's assertions that Social Security is in crisis and that Republicans will be rewarded for fixing it. Republicans are privately "bewildered why this is such a White House priority," he said. "I am a skeptic politically and a little bit substantively."
With all but a few congressional Democrats opposed to Bush's plan for private Social Security accounts, the president's ability to win over these GOP skeptics will determine whether he can accomplish his top domestic priority for the second term, White House and congressional officials said.
"This is the toughest political fight the president has ever picked," Michael Tanner of the Cato Institute said. "On the other hand, the president has never lost a fight he has wanted to win." For decades, Republicans have lost congressional votes and elections because Democrats accused them of conspiring to gut Social Security, the nearly 70-year-old program that provides the retired, the disabled and others a monthly check. For many, especially seniors, Social Security is their primary income for housing, food and insurance. Democrats' accusations often proved deadly to Republicans because seniors vote in larger percentages than younger voters.
But Bush and top strategist Karl Rove, the political force behind the Social Security plan, are convinced that the politics of Social Security have changed over the past six years -- and in a direction that could help the GOP cement a durable governing majority. In public and private talks, the president and Rove contend that voters young and old realize Social Security is near financial ruin and are receptive to allowing Americans to voluntarily divert some of their payroll taxes, which are earmarked for Social Security, to private investment accounts.
There is empirical data to support their thesis. Bush touted the issue in both presidential campaigns. Dozens of House and Senate Republicans successfully did the same in the 2002 and 2004 elections.
"I think it can help in '06 and going forward," said the incoming Republican National Committee chairman, Ken Mehlman. Pointing to successful campaigns in North Carolina, New Hampshire and Kentucky, he said, "If you look at the history of it, candidates that have approached it the way George W. Bush and Elizabeth Dole and John Sununu and Anne Northup did -- all four in very different elections, in very different places -- have been successful."
This view is supported by many congressional Republicans, who, like Rove, see an even bigger payoff for Republicans in the long term. They believe Bush can do for Republicans what Franklin D. Roosevelt did for Democrats when he proposed the program more than seven decades ago: create a generation of voters who see them as the guardian of their retirement program.
Still, a number of Republicans note neither Bush nor any congressional Republican has won on a specific plan to change the retirement system, especially one that called for cuts in benefits.
"Why would you go home tomorrow having cut benefits in Social Security for a problem that might happen in 25 years?" said Gingrich, who supports private accounts but opposes benefit cuts to pay for them.
Some Republicans question whether Bush's victories had anything to do with Social Security. A post-election survey by Pew found that Social Security was named by 1 percent of voters as the most important or second most important issue in deciding their vote.
A Washington Post-ABC News poll in late December found that 1 in 4 Americans thinks the Social Security system is in crisis, and the percentage that says the country is facing a Social Security crisis has gone down, not up, since 1998.
"I don't buy the partisan argument that Republicans benefit by somehow carving up this Democratic program," Kristol said. He contended it could undermine other GOP initiatives, such as making Bush's tax cuts permanent, because it would sap money and the president's political capital.
Simmons said that few constituents cite Social Security as a major concern, and that numerous GOP colleagues say the same in private.
Sensitive to such charges, Bush today will host an event featuring Americans of all ages talking about why the program must be restructured immediately. Vice President Cheney, Treasury Secretary John W. Snow, and Joshua B. Bolten, director of the Office of Management and Budget, are planning similar events this week, as the White House seeks to reassure Republicans.
Yesterday, the House Republican Conference invited GOP press secretaries to a Friday "Social Security Briefing" with a New York consultant who helps corporations sell products and has conducted research on Social Security messaging
Staff writer Jonathan Weisman and polling director Richard Morin contributed to this report.
© 2005 The Washington Post Company
Posted by Maria at January 11, 2005 07:33 PM | TrackBackWhat else is new? It was a problem when Clinton was in office but no one wanted to touch it. It was a problem when Bush the elder was in office but no one wanted to touch it.
Why? Because it's a hot issue. Everyone knows it's in trouble, but nobody wants to be the one to screw with it. Everyone wants it to be the next administrations problem.....except George Bush.
PS: Your whining hypocritical comment deleting is amusing. Keep up the good work.
Posted by: Geoffrey at January 11, 2005 07:48 PMI am a non-Christian humanist who believes that there is a social contract among humans, I believe that we have a duty to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and shelter the homeless. I also believe that we have a duty to the future, especially to that of the poor. Social Security is an integral part of that contract.
With the deficits caused by an unwarranted tax cut, Ronald Reagan's shining city on a hill has every possibility of becoming another Tobacco Road. With an infrastructure falling apart, an education system in shambles we, the most undertaxed nation in the civilized world have a
duty to show more to the rest of the world than that we have armed forces.
Little things would help.We could pay our UN assessment on time and most of all, we could swear to never engage in another pre-emptive war against a country that was no threat to us.
The biggest part of our commitment should be to maintain Social Security as it is now and only change it when needed. The neocons are deliberately lying when they call it broke. They are trying to return to 1928 and the glory days of Herbert Hoover.
RGE
It's not broke. I don't recall anyone ever saying it was broke. It certainly is brokEN, though, and at the current rate without making major changes WILL be broke within my children's lifetime, possibly mine.
Posted by: Geoffrey at January 11, 2005 08:37 PMhere's your early valentine from Geoffry and Gordon posted at DogSnot:
"Maria is predictable. She's always crying about people destroying rational debate, but the fact is she can't debate rationally. She doesn't even want it. She wants people to agree with her, and that's it. Her blog is just a place to spew vitriol. And that's fine, just be honest about it. Or don't be. It's her blog. Maria is easily summed up:
She's not that bright. She was raised by moonbats and has come to adopt that way of thinking without understanding why. She gets her information from moonbat sources and regurgitates it. When she gets called on it, she can argue only as far as she's read on other pages because she hasn't thought it through on her own. Take the last two arguments, for example.
The first, Gonzales, she just spewed the party rhetoric that he supports torture. When called on it, she posts links she sees posted elsewhere without actually reading them. They obviously don't support her position. She believes in her heart that she is right, but when faced with the evidence that opposes her belief, and the realization that she can't support her position, she just starts spewing vitriol, calls names, attacks the commenter not the comment, and then locks the thread.
Then move on to her social security post. She reposts and argument she read somewhere else. When that argument is attacked, she tries to defend it but can't, since she doesn't really understand the original argument, she just reposted it. Then it's pointed out to her that her defense is wrong because she doesn't even understand how SS works, so she starts deleting those comments rather than defending her position, and attacking the commenters as party rhetoric spewers.
She has a big mouth, the information available to repost, but lacks the intellect to understand it. I feel sorry for her, in a way. She'll be one of those people that hit 50 and go "what the fuck happened?"
Posted by: Geoffrey at January 11, 2005 12:16 PM
Yeah, I posted a comment on her Social Security post and she had another meltdown and deleted it.
I wrote, in regards to her criticism of our President's SS plan and budget:
Am I the only one that finds it highly amusing to be lectured on fiscal responsibilities by someone that's going on 30 and about to be supported by their parents again?
Gordon the Magnificent 10:30 PM 10JAN05
ordon
Basic Democratic credo; You're in trouble. Can I help?
Basic Republican credo: Screw you, Jack. I'm all right.
RGE
Maybe 60 years ago. Boy have the roles reversed.
Posted by: Geoffrey at January 11, 2005 09:48 PMSocial Security is neither broke nor broken. Those of you who worship Bush will never uderstand this, but we have some forty years to find a solution to the few problems the system has. Privatization may well create a group of paupers who will have to be bailed out by the government. Then we will see the truth of the Republicans belief in "Screw you, Jack.I'm all right."
RGE
Few problems? Running out of money is a "few problems"? Every President in my adult life pointing out the problems with SS and YOU are the expert?
heh. You don't care because you'll be dead then. Speaking of "screw you, Jack", your a perfect example of that.
What a sorry state you moonbats have made the Democratic party.
Posted by: Geoffrey at January 11, 2005 10:25 PMFor what Republicans do with their minds they might as well be dead now. They don't reason, since it's so much easier to just call names. It's easier to become popular by cutting taxes. It's easier to lie and go to war for oil than it is to tell the truth about any aspect of our foreign policy. It's easier to say "Screw you Jack" to the rest of the world than it is to admit that diplomacy has its points. It is easier to kill Social Security by lying about it than it is to tell the truth, which is that there are no problems that are not easily fixed unless you want it killed.
Easiest of all, back to point one. Anyone who calls names does not have an ability for argumentation and should be considered an outlaw by reasoning members of society.
RGE
Pam,
What was your intention posting that sliver of bile in my comment thread?
The only response I have to that garbage is 1) I don't want it in my yard 2) I do not visit Dogsnot but once in a blue moon and I have commented once in many many months, if they want to come here and start up shit with me and make personal attacks, they can definitely expect me to do whatever the hell I deem necessary to deal with them, including deleting and shutting threads whenever I please. 3) I find it amusing that Geoffrey and Gordon think an argument is won once they have bombarded a person with enough horseshit and deprecation to sink a large ship.
As many have seen on this blog, I argue my points pretty diligently and don't appreciate being told that all my opinions are bullshit. That's fine if you think so, but why visit my blog then? Should I choose to tolerate a bombardment of abuse from angry, repressed men who feel the need to visit my blog every day for the sole purpose of telling me in every way possible that I'm an idiot, I was raised by idiots, my views are uneducated and I am incapable of expressing a reasonable opinion or even an intelligable thought? Give me one good reason why I should put up with that shit.
It's hilarious that they even think they've won a debate, when they've done nothing except suffocate a person in an avalanche of disrespect.
A little note to the republican MALES who read my blog: you are welcome to disagree with my opinions. But if you come here and tell me that my opinions are stupid and I am an idiot, I am going to verbally slap the shit out of you. I may close the thread and do it via private email and delete your rude comments, or I may just delete your comments and decide you're not even worthy of a response. But don't expect me to be nice to you if your only purpose is to come here and act like an asshole. Because if you act like one, I'm going to call you one. And you can cry about it as much as you want and call my a hypocrite, but you're on my fuckin blog. And you can bet your ass that I don't find yours half as interesting as you find mine. Maybe that's what's really killing you. Inferiority complex. I know that you guys really enjoy coming here and making a morass out of every discussion, dragging it through every shitpuddle, and then declaring it won, but I'd rather you found another blog to sully.
God why do I feel like I've said this all before?
One more thing with respect to "debates," I present my thoughts and views in perfectly intelligable ways. If a person is incapable of computing and comprehending, perhaps they should not blame me for their general skull density.
Posted by: Maria at January 11, 2005 11:59 PMDear Maria-
I respect your opinions and positions, but very rarely agree with them. I also have respect for the fact that you allow us to come into your site free of charge.
With that being said, I would ask that you check the source prior to firing of a shot.
RGE, All you've done is cry about Republicans. Is that how you debate? Ignore the topic and cry loudly?
You're a true moonbat. Any time you feel like addressing the points I've made in this or the locked SS thread, feel free. Until then, I'll sit back and watch you guys stomp your feet and wail.
Maria- You should go back and read the threads. In reality, you couldn't defend your position so you started in with the ad homs and ignored any factual defense of your argument. In essence, you declared yourself the winner without debunking any of the opposing sides points or offering any of your own. When that was pointed out, you deleted the comments and cried to me in email. Again, that's fine, it's your blog, but if you expect to maintain any credibility you'll be honest about it. Maybe you don't.
Posted by: Geoffrey at January 12, 2005 09:11 AMGeoffrey, in reality I don't have to defend my position. That's what you don't seem to grasp. This is my blog. I can proclaim that there are pink elephants flying passed my window. The other thing you don't seem to grasp is that I don't have to be the winner. I have no desire to WIN anything. I just want to state my opinion without you coming along and telling me that it's stupid and uneducated. Why should I tolerate that? Someone please tell me. Whether I have credibility WITH YOU is of no concern to me. What is a concern to me is that you don't seem to be able to live with the fact that I view politics completely different than you do. Newsflash, that doesn't make me stupid and I have no obligation to endure your insults.
Pam, what sources do you think I should check before I state my opinion? Fox News dot com? I posted a link to the memo that Gonzales wrote. Do you need a better source than that? I post articles that I think are relevant and interesting. Do you need a better "source" than that?
This isn't about providing sources or being right or winning an argument. It's about having respect for people even if they have a differing opinion. That's where Geoffrey and I get out of sorts. He has no respect for those who have differing opinions. He just tells them they're stupid and uneducated and it makes him feel better. That's great, but he shouldn't do it here.
He can call me stupid and uneducated over at his website until the sun don't shine. I won't care, because I don't read any of the useless trash that they post there (until people paste the nonsense into my comments). But don't expect to do it here and have me treat you like a human being.
Geoffrey, if you sat back at all, that would be a blessing. But you don't. You're down everyone's fucking throat all the time and it gets pretty tedious. Respectfully disagreeing and expressing your view of THE SUBJECT, (not your view of those who hold the opposing view) is sufficient. There is no need to turn every discussion into a fight to the death about who is right, who is wrong, what sources are satsifactory and unsatisfactory to YOU, or what you think about who I am as a person, how I was raised, or what my IQ is. Get a clue about how to be a respectful human being.
Posted by: Maria at January 12, 2005 10:10 AMThose of you who don't believe that Social Security, in it's present form, is irreparably broken haven't done enough research. USA Today did a great series on America's hidden debt. The average family owes, right now, about $40,000 per family for their share of the federal debt. But, that doesn't count future commitments to the baby boomers and others through medicare and social security. Our current share of those promises, per family, is over $400,000 per family.
And, with every passing year, it gets worse.
Today's baby boomers have created an unprecedented security net for themselves that is going to ultimately pay them more than 10 times what they've paid into the system. Unless we open our borders wide or start reproducing at a much higher level (and it doesn't sound like Maria, who is 30, childless, and living with mom and dad is currently doing her part), this ponzi-scheme house of cards is going to start falling apart right pronto.
If you're under age 50, don't plan on getting anything out of that system. If you don't save for your own retirement, you're going to wind up working at Walmart when you're 82 to make ends meet.
Catz
Posted by: catzmeow at January 12, 2005 10:19 AMLook Catz, first of all, if you listen to anything Geoffrey and Gordon say, it's natural you're going to be misinformed, so let's get something straight right now. I am 26 years old. I have lived on my own since I was 15. I have supported myself since I was 15. My parents live in Oregon and I live in Brooklyn, New York and work in a law firm. If you want to question my opinions, feel free, but don't start regurgitating lies that you heard elsewhere, please.
Otherwise, thanks for your opinion about social security. It's yours.
Posted by: Maria at January 12, 2005 10:22 AMYou strange people living on a planet in a country I do not recognize know nothing of argumentation. There is nothing complicated about fixing Social Security, if you wawnt to fix it. It's also easy to destroy it if that's what you want to do.
Read Paul Krugman on the subject. There are others, but Krugman sums it up the best.
I have coached debaters and havejudged debates. you jokers wouldn't have made it past the first round against a good eighth grade team. The first time you substituted name-calling for argument you'd be gone.
RGE
Bush wants to borrow $2trillion for the changeover to privatization. This, with interest will have to be paid back since it will be just another addition to the national debt. The great legacy of the Bush administration will be that in a few years taxes will be the highest in the nation's history and the future will be the bleakest.
It would take courage, a characteristic from which Bush is completely free, to propose we raise the wage limit on payroll tax deductions. For Bush to take the one solution that will absolutely save Social Security and call it taboo is almost proof, by itself that he wants to destroy the program.
Privatization has never worked anywhere it has been tried. One of the definitions of insanity is to continue doing the same thing over and over expecting differing results. If the Bush Administration is not crazy then it is either extremely cynical or very stupid. I could believe that they are crazy or stupid if I wished to be charitable. All the evidence, however, indicates a vast cynicism and wish to destroy all vestiges of successful Democratic progams.
RGE
I've lurked for a bit, and would like to join the discussion. I'm a small-L libertarian (fiscal conservative, social liberal - in that order if there's ever a confilict).
I strongly opposed Dubya as our president. It revolved primarily about his "folly in the sand", but also his lack of fiscal conservativism, his idiotic stance on illegal immigration and his administration's bent to force their moral code down my throat.
That being said, I agree strongly with him that SS needs to be overhauled. What started out as a safety net to provide minimal financial support IN RETIREMENT to those that were unable to do so for themselves, has turned into a program that pays out for all sorts of "humanitarian" reasons. As valid or invalid as those reasons may be, the system was not designed to accomodate those funding outflows.
Social Security is the epitome of "Nanny State". Can you not see that? When you create a system whereby individuals are not incented to provide for themselves, but instead to rely on the government for their survival, you create a socialist/communist state. We've seen that not a single one of those economic models, EVER has been a success. Ever.
You and RGE state that SS isn't broken. How in God's name can you honestly believe that? The numbers that Geoffrey uses are not his own - they are widely available on many websites, including government websites. SS is like a car that hasn't had it's oil changed. It will work for a while, but soon enough, it's going to seize up, and you'll be stuck with a useless hulk that will have to be totally scrapped. And replacing it will be much more expensive than if you had done some simple maintenance.
Time to take SS to the mechanic.
Posted by: The Other Mike S at January 12, 2005 01:23 PMTOMS, please reread my posting immediately above. I said the problem of fixing SS is comparatively simple and that there is no hurry.
George Bush, who has threatened vetoing of any sesible plan won't be around forever and then a little tinkering will take care of the problem without adding $2trillion to the national debt.
I am of the strong belief that Bush, Rove, and the entire scurvy crowd want every social welfare program that came from a Democratic administration to fail.
RGE
And I am of the strong belief that the moonbats want every social welfare program to succeed so badly that they will screw the very people they were intending to help rather than let a Republican fix it.
Posted by: Geoffrey at January 12, 2005 02:21 PMGeorge Bush's behavior reminds me of the executioner who, as he chopped off the King's head said, "Well, now that's fixed."
RGE
Your behavior reminds me of Lennie from "Of Mice and Men."
Posted by: Geoffrey at January 12, 2005 02:40 PMRGE, I would disagree that there's no hurry. The longer we keep SS in it's current state, the longer we're tossing money down the rat hole.
SS needs to be what it was orignally designed for: Old-age income suppliments. Not help for cripples. Not an income stream for people that made the choice to live "free and easy" and now have nothing to show for their lives. Why should society have to pay for this? Life doesn't always deal everyone a good hand. But no one will ever attempt to better their situation if they have Nanny there to "make it all better".
Personal example: My mother-in-law has been a blight on society for as long as she's been an adult. She had 8 kids: One was a gang member and killed himself, one literally died in a gutter, one has never held a decent job his entire life and will soon be sucking on Nanny's teat when he is too old to do what little he does now, one is in and out of prison. Only one of the boys has made anything of himself, and the 3 girls all had decent heads on their shoulders and have done well for themselves. Their mother was actually an anti-roll model for them.
Half of her kids were fucked up as a direct result of her lifestyle. She draws over $2500 a month in SS benefits, having NEVER, EVER contributed to the SS fund.
That needs to change.
Her kids needed to be taken from her as soon as she signed up for welfare and showed she was unable to care for them and herself. Instead, she was given food, money and drugs that perpetuated her situation. She never had the incentive to better her life, so she didn't. And she brought 4 of her children down with her. She's now a crippled, drug-adled parasite on society. Always has been.
Society has no obligation to fix someone's life if they choose to screw it up. In fact, by trying to fix the problem, Nanny actually spawned 4 others in this example.
I believe strongly in helping and protecting children under 18. But once you're of majority age, you're on your own. Sink or swim on your own dime.
Posted by: The Other Mike S at January 12, 2005 03:42 PMTOMS,
Do you think your MIL's children would have been better off in a foster home or as wards of the state? Why do you think the daughters were able to overcome their upbringing and grow into fine adults, while the sons couldn't?
I am asking these questions out of pure curiosity, nothing more.
An observation of mine has been that just because some people abuse a system doesn't mean it should be scrapped altogether. Especially in a country where our government and certain historical circumstances are the root cause of much poverty. On the basic issue of humanity, I see it as extremely ugly to take the "sink or swim" approach. I agree with RGE. As human beings, we have a basic responsibility to help eachother. I know republicans don't believe in that, and perhaps neither do small-L libertarians, but I have to say that I find it ironic that the same people who claim the "moral" highground in this country are the same people who say things like "sink or swim sucker!" From what I remember, Jesus communed with the poor, St. Francis of Assissi gave up his riches to feed the poor and tend to the lepers, and Siddartha left a palace behind to dedicate his life to his compassion for others and a quest for selflessness.
Those are noble principles. The principles of compassion and selflessness are worthy of preservation and undeserving of the scorn that the "sink or swim" people throw out there.
I know we live in America, in a capitalist society where all that matters is getting for self. But it wouldn't hurt to occasionally think of life with less greed and more compassion. What do you get in return for greed? Money. Possessions. What do you get in return for compassion? A sense of self worth. A peaceful conscience. A better world.
It all comes down to priorities. Is your priority to horde as much as you can for yourself and flip off the poor & unfortunate, or is it your priority to be a good person?
One of the biggest problems with republican values is the belief that everyone who is poor or unfortunate has done something to deserve it. That if they were just smarter or stronger or applied themselves more, they could be rich like Bill Gates too. Leaves no room for the hand that life happens to have dealt. I think it's a very unfair, and unadmirable way to treat others.
Social programs were created not only to help those less fortunate, but to help everyone, by lifting up society as a whole. Making it a humane society where the principles of community and helping eachother up, are valued. Instead, the republican party seems only to have scorn for those who are not in the perfect condition and circumstances to "be all that they can be" and insist that as long as you help people, they will never help themselves. I believe that to be patently untrue.
But TOMS, I don't know what your MIL's societal delinquency has to do with the current proposition of social security reform. I must be missing something.
Posted by: Maria at January 12, 2005 04:22 PMI am going to try and add a twist to this. Hopefully, to try and make the self proclaimed libertarians to understand a little bit more about how a socio-economic system not only exists, but thrives in the long run.
First of all, the libertarian philosophy is worse than the democrat-republican philosophy combines and increased ten-fold. This whole "let us fend for ourselves and keep government out of our lives" mind set is not only wrong, but could never work in a complex socio-economic structure anywhere in a world where money is the driving force behind our existence.
This "nanny state" The Other Mike S. talks of is a rather harsh way to describe a system that helps keep the fabric of our socio-economic society together. First of all, without a portion of the money we make being mandatorily drawn from our paychecks, especially in this day and age, it would be spent. Most people, even fiscally responsible people, spend their money. Whether on pleasure, emergencies, or whatever, we all structure a lifestyle right up to the means we make. It's human nature. We could try all day to educate our society to "put money aside and not take those nice vacations to the Caribbean, instead walk in the park" all day long but not only is that unfair, but its unreasonable. People should be able to live, enjoy pleasures every now and again, and still not have to worry that when they retire or are UNABLE TO WORK (a thing The Other Mike left out) that there is a pot of money that we paid into available for us to draw from.
But, I don't think it was ever intended to be a "nanny state" initiative. One of the problems back then and still with us today is the fact that "putting money aside" doesn't equate to it being there or even worth what it was when it was "put aside" to begin with. That has to do solely with our economic system. The value of our money is based on how the other economies of the world work. So a dollar today, might not be worth a dollar tomorrow. And there are no "institutions" we could put that "money aside" into that will guarantee that our money will be worth the same today as it was yesterday. Letting the people to their own devices whether they choose to contribute to such a thing or not, would and could be detrimental the socio-economic future of the country.
Why?
Let say a couple who made a combines income of 90,000 a year, had a nice house $1500 mortgage, a couple of nice cars, ate well, took nice vacations, and lived well. Chances are, as with most people, they live right up to their means. They may even be putting some money aside into an ira, or some mutual fund. (In this scenario, SS does not exist - remember, the government is staying out of our lives). There is nothing wrong with this. They live like this for 30 years and when it comes time to retire at 65 years old. Those mutual funds may not have done well enough for these folks to live a decent retirement, or they don't have the money to pay for their child's education (because remember, the government is staying out of our lives so we don't need them to give financial aid for school).
So now what happens?
These folks can no longer afford to contribute to the capitalistic machine and be good consumers. They are barley able to keep a non-leaking roof over their head and food on the table. This leads to the decline of their standard of living. Because their child could not afford to go to college, he has to settle for a low paying job as a stock boy. His situation is bleak because he can barley afford rent. Now, this situation is not isolated - it happens to an entire community. The standard of living goes down, the morale of a community declines, and bad things ensue. because desperation has set in, the young turn to crime. The old, cannot afford to move out of there must make due with what they have. The property values go down. An entire communities value is int he pits and that community, once good consumers now contribute to the socio-economic decay. They no longer can be consumers. Studies have proven in these blightful communities that due exist, that crime is directly proportional to the amount of decay in a community. Now, your government must spend money in order to keep the "fences" around this blightful area, to keep them away from those young, vibrant communities that still have active consumers. But, this is only temporary because this spreads. And it spreads and it spreads.
Sounds pretty bleak right? But it cannot happen to us. Its just a scenario. Or is it? Go take a look in Detroit. DC. Philly. Chicago. Its been happening in the black community for a long time now because #1 they themselves did not do much to help out the situation when they had the chance (after the civil rights movement and after affirmative action was law where they should have taken full advantage of this) #2 more importantly, social security was not available to them for many many years. As far as college for blacks, the united negro college fund is not that old. While much blight exists in these communities, the black population is slowly making progress, but the blight is so bad in those communities, instead of rebuilding, the blacks who do well, move out.
Think it can't happen to white folks? Take away social security and other social programs that the libertarians would be happy without as well as some repubs and even some dems would like to see gone, then you will see the same thing happen.
You can stand back and call this a "moonbat" theory, or some whacked left wing dooms day prediction, but digest the facts that we have today - think about society where we don't help take care of those who cannot take care of themselves (or even don't want to take care of themselves). Right now its bad. But not dire. Take away those programs that provide and I guarantee the people you think are scum and vermin will get so desperate that they will march into your gated communities and take whatever they wish. You could arm yourselves to the hilt, but guess what. My money is on them. There are a lot more of them, then there of you.
That is called the breakdown of a society that no longer cares for the have nots. Its happened before - re: the fall of the Roman Empire.
Now, as far as my take on SS. It does need to be fixed. But the fix is not easy, not could I even elaborate on it. In a way, I kind of agree that allowing us to have a portion of our SS dollars be put back into the stock market, but there has to be some rules involved. One would be to ensure our corporations get honest. As long as the current system in place allows for Enron's, Adelphia's and Halliburton's, then I would never allow for that money to go into such a system. It is too unstable. Two, ONLY cut benefits to those who have made a substantial enough of money was made from the monies put into the market. The cuts would vary depending on the money made. Third, cut all benefits to those who don't need SS. The rich, the highly pensioned, and our politicians have no need for SS. But yes, they should still pay into it. It comes back down into that philosophy that the haves are helping the have-nots. Again, why? Not out of the goodness of their hearts because quite honestly, if it were left up to the rich to give to those who didn't have, we would all be screwed. No, they are forced to give as portion of their grand riches (and not even miss it) because they are the ones feeding off of the majority who are actually doing the work who put their money right back into the riches pocket (movies stars wouldn't be rich if we did not go see their movies. Athletes would not be rich if we did not buy the products they endorse or spend $200 a ticket to see them play a game. Corporate ceo's would not be rich if we didn't gobble up their products). Its not "spreading the wealth" around, but more or less, sustaining the machine that is our existence.
You take that away and the libertarians would have a much different world to deal with.
Beautifully stated. Thank you for the excellent comment.
Posted by: Maria at January 12, 2005 05:13 PMRawdeal,
Your entire argument is based on the philosophy that people are stupid. People are too stupid to save. People are too stupid to invest. It's seconded by the myth that SS is anything more than a stipend. You can't live off SS.
I don't subscribe to either. I know people trying to live off SS. Why? Because the gov't sold it to them as a retirement plan. Much like you attempted. They bought into it and now they're screwed. Neither do I subscribe to the belief that people are too dumb to realize they will retire someday. I, and 90% of the people I associate with, have retirement plans independent of SS, disability plans in case they are injured before retirement, and life insurance for their families should they die prematurely.
I don't NEED SS because I don't NEED a babysitter. Neither do I NEED to support YOU because you do need one.
I don't subscribe to Maria's philosophy, either. She's trying to legislate morals again. Her argument is it's the right thing to do. Yeah? Says you. Not me. As I proved in a previous discussion, you're all for legislating morals as long as they're YOURS.
Posted by: Geoffrey at January 12, 2005 05:25 PMHmmm, where to start?
Maria: I believe the daughters turned out OK because of my wife. She was the oldest girl, and she essentially raised them. The boys didn't have a similar influence.
Yes, I honestly believe they all would have been better off in foster homes. The men (with the exception of the oldest, who turned out OK) all beat their wives/girl friends because that's what they saw as "normal" as they grew up. Their mom was literally a whore who screwed for drugs and alcohol.
In regards to the "noble principles", I personally agree. But give me the chance to make that decision by myself. The government has no right to force it's morals down my throat, any more than when it's coming from the right and they want to force their religious or "decency" morals.
You talk of priorities. Those are my decision, not some bureaucrat's in DC. If I want to be a ruthless bastard with my own money, that's my right, because I am the one that worked to make the money. When given the choice, most American's make what you and I would call the "right choice" and help out others. It doesn't need to be institutionalized.
Leaves no room for the hand that life happens to have dealt. I think it's a very unfair, and unadmirable way to treat others.
Adversity builds character. Think of the millions of Americans currently on Nanny's teat that have no motivation to better themselves because they're being taken care of.
Perfect example in this country: Blacks and Vietnamese.
Blacks have had the hand-out institutionalized. Generation after generation expect to be taken care of. As a result of this "helping hand", blacks have a fraction of the economic power they should have.
Then there's the Vietnamese. The came from a country that gave them nothing. You didn't work, you didn't eat. That's motivation. Within a single generation, they are an economic power-house unto themselves. Here in Northern California, they virtually "own" the Silicon Valley - some of the most expensive real estate in the country. Their kids now go to the best schools, have the best health insurance, etc. They weren't even here 30 years ago. They busted-ass, took advantage of the opportunity, and ran with it.
Tough love works.
BTW, I gave you the story of my MIL to illustrate what is wrong with the current SS system. She's hardly an exception.
Posted by: The Other Mike S at January 12, 2005 05:42 PMIt sounds better when you say it. Since I agree with you, I'll just be the peanut gallery.
Posted by: Geoffrey at January 12, 2005 06:08 PMRawDeal: Wow.
We could try all day to educate our society to "put money aside and not take those nice vacations to the Caribbean, instead walk in the park" all day long but not only is that unfair, but its unreasonable. People should be able to live, enjoy pleasures every now and again, and still not have to worry that when they retire or are UNABLE TO WORK
It's unfair to make people live within their means? Oh. My. God. You really believe that you should place going on vacation ahead of saving for retirement when you are unable to work? Who do you propose pay for this? The people that DO work hard, save their money, show personal responsibility and integrity - and then have their SS benefits cut to pay for those with the tan lines?
Suffice it to say, I strongly disagree with your assessment of what would happen should SS be removed. I don't have the time to answer in-kind. Sorry, maybe later. What is (almost) funny is the example you gave of Detroit, Philly, etc. They went down the tubes WITH all of the social programs you're pining for. What do you mean they haven't had SS? It's been around since the 1930/1940's!
Your post gave me a headache because of it's absurd hypothesis and examples. I'll check back tomorrow, maybe with some more energy. And aspirin.
Posted by: The Other Mike S at January 12, 2005 06:13 PMGeoffrey,
You must be a libertarian or have strong libertarian leanings because that is precisely the typical libertarian response I would have expected. Now, I shall break it down:
"Your entire argument is based on the philosophy that people are stupid. People are too stupid to save. People are too stupid to invest. It's seconded by the myth that SS is anything more than a stipend. You can't live off SS.”
You are "reading into" my argument. I never once stated people were stupid in any case. You are only assuming that based on your own interpretation of what I wrote. I can live with that, entire institutions have materialized out of interpretations of literature - I believe there is a pretty popular piece called the Bible that is subject to such interpretations enough to spawn entire socio-institutional entities. Again, amusement aside, I can deal with that. But the fact is, that was not my intention. There are plenty of very well educated, fiscally responsible people who do very well for themselves, but again as I stated, live right up to their means. Living paycheck to paycheck is a much more common occurrence than you may wish to accept. If 90% of your associates are not doing so, then you associate with a very minor crowd. Most hard working Americans do not have that luxury. Again, there are many people who DO contribute to retirement plans, disability, and life insurance. As far as most Americans who have families, these are things that you would be a fool to do without. Most jobs offer these benefits are very little cost with decent return in case the unimaginable happens. As far as retirement goes, many Americans who do contribute to it, sometimes must take "breaks" from doing so because they run into unforeseen emergencies (like medical expenses, which could spawn a whole other argument), and in the case with rising healthcare costs and employers less willing to provide that benefit, some workers are having to cut retirement contributions altogether. So, when retirement comes, there will be money in there, but will it be enough to continue a decent standard of living? Maybe, maybe not. Again, we cannot always avoid the inevitable, and most don't have that luxury. Without that "stipend" from SS, that $1100 a month gone could mean the difference between whether an elderly lady has to make a decision continue her Parkinson’s treatment or have food to eat for the month. Again, nobody ever said SS was a living for the retired, but it does make retirement more comfortable and in some cases does not put a couple in the position to have to make a financial decision that the otherwise shouldn't have to contemplate.
"I don't subscribe to either. I know people trying to live off SS. Why? Because the gov't sold it to them as a retirement plan. Much like you attempted."
Nor do I. Why? Because I never "attempted" to "sell" anything. My argument was based around the libertarian philosophy of "fend for yourself and keep the government out of my life" is not only selfish but very contributive to the fall of any socio-economic structure. I agree that the government has sold SS as a retirement plan, and it was wrong of them to do so. Just as it is wrong of Bush to try and sell his plan that taking some of that money out of it to invest into the market as a "fix" is wrong. I need not explain why as I have already done so in my previous comment.
"They bought into it and now they're screwed. Neither do I subscribe to the belief that people are too dumb to realize they will retire someday."
Nor do I. I think most working Americans, when it comes to money are smarter than what people give them credit for. They just make ill-informed decisions. By Bush allowing them to invest SS money, does that mean they will stop making ill-informed decisions? Absolutely not. Instead of trying to "fix" a problem by introducing another avenue to create more of a problem, perhaps we should be investing our resources and educating people about their financial futures and their options. And it is ludicrous to think that anyone would "subscribe" to the idea that people are too dumb to realize they will retire. For you to insinuate such a thing onto me is insulting.
"I, and 90% of the people I associate with, have retirement plans independent of SS, disability plans in case they are injured before retirement, and life insurance for their families should they die prematurely."
Then you and 90% of the people you associate with should not miss your SS and allow it to go to people who need it more. ;-) Seriously though, I personally think it should be mandatory for working folks to contribute to a disability and life insurance plan in case something should happen. But I also think that when they do retire, at least SOME of that money comes back to them. Insurance, however, is a whole other topic that burns me up more fit for another debate. Life insurance is a must though. You should always carry enough to pay off all bills, and leave enough left over that will pay for education and leave enough to be invested for rainy days. With what most employers contribute and the cost of additional plans, carrying 500K in life insurance is not a big bite out of a paycheck. Now why that money isn't pre-tax, should be a crime.
"I don't NEED SS because I don't NEED a babysitter. Neither do I NEED to support YOU because you do need one."
So if you don't NEED it, then give it to someone who does. Send it to charities. Send it to the hungry. Send it to police who need bullet proof vests to protect those scum who don't have money to eat, so they won't come rob you.
But yet by you’re investing it for your own personal gain shows that you do NEED that money and shows how you don't care to reinvest it into the social fabric of this society. Again, you insinuate something on me that is untrue. I never said I "needed" anything. I am reasonable enough and have come to accept that at the rate our government is spending, my SS will not be there when I am ready to collect. I have made the adjustments in order to make sure that I will be taken care of when that time comes, through my own hard work and dues paying.
"I don't subscribe to Maria's philosophy, either. She's trying to legislate morals again. Her argument is it's the right thing to do. Yeah? Says you. Not me. As I proved in a previous discussion, you're all for legislating morals as long as they're YOURS."
I do not know what morals Maria has tried to legislate. But I do know there are certain morals that SHOULD be legislated when they are beneficial to all. The moral of taking care of the society who takes care of you, SHOULD be legislated. That is, the "haves" would not be in possession of the things that makes them "haves" if it were not for the majority middle class working their butts off to produce and to buy the goods that make them such. And the last 3rd of our society who for the most part are poor out of things they cannot control should be taken care of by all of us. Not just because it is the "right thing to do" or the "goodness of our human kindness" (which are not bad things at all) but to keep the blight of being poor from spreading and tearing farther into the fabric of our socio-economic structure. Again, I will not repeat myself on this as I have explained already in my previous post. If you didn't understand it out of ignorance or your unwillingness to accept it for what it is, than I am sorry for you.
Whether or not you agree that the poor should be taken care of by the rich and middle class is of no consequence. But they cannot be ignored, if for the only reason, the poorer they become, the more desperate they become. And they do multiply. The poor have very little joy in their life. One of the few joys that cost them nothing is fucking. The poor like to fuck. The poor have more time to fuck. Unlike you or I who spend our time working and commenting on blogs and reading literature and educating ourselves, the poor are desperate and will take what little joy they can find. Again fucking is free. And with fucking, come procreation. They procreate more poor people. And the cycle continues. So they must spread out. And with the philosophy that they should "fend for themselves and the government take no responsibility for them" they start infesting the fringe of these communities. The adjacent property value goes down. They continue to move out. And as I stated in my previous comments, there are only so many gates you can put up around your posh communities before they start robbing you. It’s a vicious cycle that does have an end in sight, just not the end that winds up happy. (I repeated myself anyway). Again, if you cannot see where "ignoring the poor" or "ignoring the potential to become poor" would be a major problem down the line, than I am sorry for you.
THAT is a "moral" that should be legislated. A moral that benefits everybody.
As for me wanting to legislate my "morals" because they are mine. What do you define as "morals" Do they become "morals" to you when it is something you disagree with? But becomes "common sense" when it is something you are for? The Christians seem to think the same way. For them, legislating anti-abortion is not a moral issue but a common sense issue. For a large corporation legislating a relaxation of company book keeping is not a "moral" thing but a "common sense" thing. Do you see? The dynamics in defining whether something being legislated is a "moral" thing or a "common sense" thing is in the eye of the beholder. This is why our government debates these things. Fortunately, they do not listen to the "Geoffreys" of the world.
It really is not complicated. Raise the cap on income subject to the payroll tax and when the administration raids those funds replace them with U.S. Treasury bonds. What is complicated about that?
My only concern is that I wonder which successful program coming from a Democratic administration will the neocons take after next.
RGE
Other Mike:
"It's unfair to make people live within their means? Oh. My. God. You really believe that you should place going on vacation ahead of saving for retirement when you are unable to work? Who do you propose pay for this? The people that DO work hard, save their money, show personal responsibility and integrity - and then have their SS benefits cut to pay for those with the tan lines?"
Yes. Why should the rich get to enjoy these pleasures while the rest of us have to wait until we are 65 or 70 years old (by that time too old and too tired to enjoy it to is maximum potential). We work for a very small fraction of the profit that a company makes and in most cases work harder and longer, yet we are told to save more money than we are already having taken away for us for 30 and 40 years, while the rich get to lavish themselves all during that time?
Not only do I think it isn't unreasonable to save money, it would be plain stupid not to. But it *IS* unreasonable to save money while having money drawn out by law, to be put into whatever it is being put into WITHOUT a grantee that you will get AT LEAST the equal amount you have put in. I will even go farther thinking that the dividends paid out to the stockholders and any return on investment on that money should be paid out to you. But, as it is now, neither is the case. While the working class sacrifice to save this money (i.e. not take those nice vacations) and the rich make money off of the interest and dividends paid out (interests and dividends off of YOUR money) you show me where that is fair and I will rescind my statement. And I "propose" the people that pay for it are the haves who are making the money in short term off of OUR long term money.
"Suffice it to say, I strongly disagree with your assessment of what would happen should SS be removed. I don't have the time to answer in-kind. Sorry, maybe later."
Then unless you can come up with the counter argument, your statement above holds no water with me.
"What is (almost) funny is the example you gave of Detroit, Philly, etc. They went down the tubes WITH all of the social programs you're pining for. What do you mean they haven't had SS? It's been around since the 1930/1940's!"
I said the blacks did not have SS. Prove me wrong. Blacks were not even allowed in soup kitchens to get a meal much less contribute and receive social security. And WITHOUT the social program your libertarian friends would rather do without, the infant mortality rate would be much higher (WIC is a social program). The poor who do wish to work hard and get out of their situation would not be able to find money to go to college (Pell Grants and other GOVERNMENT provided financial aid). Child abuse would be out of this world (Your human services would not exist to provide services to those children). Our poor would be in much worse health (because health clinics, another social program, would not exist) (of course these folks can’t afford health insurance working at Burger King) and of course that would contribute to more diseases spreading, HIV, etc. There would be no drug clinics to held drug addicts (drug clinics are social programs too) nor would there be support groups for those addicts and the family members of addicts nor would there be centers for these people to meet in (they are all social programs or at the very least funded by social programs). So those problems would spread. (Hey, but at least it would give the CEO's more of a choice to go buy their cocaine, and give the little rich white boys from the gated communities more people to buy their weed from!). Without community centers in these poor areas, kids would have no choice but to hang out on the streets. People like Greg Louganis would never have learned to dive. People like Jewel would have never learned to play an instrument. Also, public libraries would be shut down (after all, community centers and public libraries are "social programs" too). So those who do wish to learn and explore knowledge would have nowhere to do so. You say "go to school" and I say "how will they do that?" Public schools are "social programs" too. Does none of this stuff still not affect you? Ok. How about when your house is on fire, and there is no fire department (another one of those social programs) and no volunteer fire departments (because people need to work to save for their retirement, they simply don't have time to volunteer).
No parks for your children to play in? No roads for you to travel on to go to your country club? No police to protect your gated community?
Why, because under your utopia, we all fend for ourselves. The government stays out of our business. Anything WE want, we pay for. No "handouts" from the government allowed because they are staying out of our lives.
Do you see the absurdity in the libertarian argument? As far as I am concerned, why have any government at all if you are a libertarian? If that were the case anarchy would ensue.
Again, I ask, do you see the absurdity of this way of thinking?
How can we sit here and say we want to be a flourishing society, a strong community, and educated peoples, but without strong "pillar institutions" to help us along the way? It simply does not work that way. Especially when you are talking about damn near 300 million people.
Also, why is it that social programs must be cut, but nothing is ever said about corporate welfare?
Noit that I have anything against corporate welfare, but like any other social program, it should be HELP not a handout. If the end result is a better result for ALL parties invovled, than I have no problems with that tax money being spent.
Posted by: theRAWdeal at January 12, 2005 07:58 PMI don't think there is anyway to change your mind The Other Mike S, which Maria and theRAWdeal seemed to try to do, rather I'll just see if your rationale is strong enough to stand up to scruntiny as it currently stands.
Do you have statistics that show Blacks have a higher poverty rate than Vietnamese? Or that on average Blacks work fewer hours than Vietnamese? Otherwise those are just observations, they don't prove social programs cause dependency. On the other hand "A General Accounting Office summary of over 100 studies found that welfare does not significantly reduce the desire to work." And that was before welfare reform.
Do you know for sure that your MIL draws from SS or is it Supplemental security income which poor elderly people can collect if they meet certain conditions?
"When given the choice, most American's make what you and I would call the "right choice" and help out others. It doesn't need to be institutionalized."
Here's an example I'd like you to reason with me. In 2002 $240 billion dollars was donated to charity in total. In 2002 $146 billion dollars was spent on Medicaid, which covers most health needs of 50 million people, you must be elderly, disabled, or poor to be covered and most people covered are elderly or disabled. In 2002 $18.9 billion out of the total charity contributions was donated to health charities. In 2002 only 3.6% of grants given out by foundations (or $656 million) were donated to hospitals/medical care facilities. If Medicaid was eliminated I personally don't think $146 billion would be shifted to charity to cover the health needs of 50 million people. 40+ million people who work don't even have health insurance, and most disabled, elderly, and poor people don't have good jobs with benefits so my guess is those 50 million people would not become self sufficient in terms of health care immeditately either. On the face of it there is no possible way charity could provide health insurance to that number of people.
Living paycheck to paycheck is a much more common occurrence than you may wish to accept. If 90% of your associates are not doing so, then you associate with a very minor crowd.
Based on my personal experience, your statement is false. You've yet to provide anything to convince me otherwise. Assuming, for the sake of the argument, that you are correct. That doesn't change my position at all. People's lack of responsibility isn't my problem. It's also a direct result of the nanny state. They can afford to squander their income because the Gov't has provided a safety net with my money. Take that safety net away, let me keep my money, and let them fend for themselves. You say you aren't basing your argument on the assumption that people are stupid, but there aren't many other choices. People spend all their money because they CHOOSE to. Life is about luxuries, vacations, multiple vehicles, HBO, and jet skis. Again, their choice and not my problem. I shouldn't have to finance irresponsibility.
is not only selfish
selfish? Now we're back to legislating morals. The gov't shouldn't be in the business of legislating my selfishness when it comes to things I earn.
but very contributive to the fall of any socio-economic structure.
On the contrary. This nation was founded on good will and freedom. Our economy grew to the largest in the world under this philosophy. Countries that have adopted your failed system flounder. The evidence of your false statement exists in todays world.
Instead of trying to "fix" a problem by introducing another avenue to create more of a problem, perhaps we should be investing our resources and educating people about their financial futures and their options.
Again, your system is based on the belief that people can't or won't educate themselves to make smart decisions. "I'm" tired of investing "my" resources in people who refuse to help themselves, or as you stated earlier, shouldn't be required to.
Seriously though, I personally think it should be mandatory for working folks to contribute to a disability and life insurance plan in case something should happen.
I don't. Again, you're for taking away freedoms, I'm for giving people choices.
. But I also think that when they do retire, at least SOME of that money comes back to them.
It does, if you invest in the right plans. Part of mine does.
So if you don't NEED it, then give it to someone who does. Send it to charities. Send it to the hungry. Send it to police who need bullet proof vests to protect those scum who don't have money to eat, so they won't come rob you.
I do give time and money to numerous organizations, most of them local such as the Shriners hospital, CHIPS program, and local welfare, to name a few. It's voluntary, though, as it should be. Philanthropy shouldn't be mandated. Unless, of course, you're receiving it too. That's another arguement, though.
But yet by you’re investing it for your own personal gain shows that you do NEED that money and shows how you don't care to reinvest it into the social fabric of this society.
That's a false statement. I believe it's a false statement not only for me, but most Americans. Even if it wasn't, though, it shouldn't be mandated. Now you're mandating morals again.
The moral of taking care of the society who takes care of you, SHOULD be legislated.
Blatantly false. You're imposing your morals onto me. What about the portion of America that believes homosexuals cohabitating harms society? Should they be able to legislate it?
That is, the "haves" would not be in possession of the things that makes them "haves" if it were not for the majority middle class working their butts off to produce and to buy the goods that make them such.
Again, that's a false statement. It's a symbiotic relationship. The reverse is also true. Without the haves to purchase those goods, thus paying the have-less's salaries, they'd have nothing. That's capitalism. You're talking redistribution. The have-lesses get more for nothing, just because they have less. It's irrational.
And the last 3rd of our society who for the most part are poor out of things they cannot control should be taken care of by all of us. Not just because it is the "right thing to do" or the "goodness of our human kindness" (which are not bad things at all) but to keep the blight of being poor from spreading and tearing farther into the fabric of our socio-economic structure
Actually, the support program in place today has done just that. It's spreading exponentially. Without that support system in place to foster laziness, ignorance, and abuse, that last 3rd would either die off, improve their position, or at best stay the same size.
If you didn't understand it out of ignorance or your unwillingness to accept it for what it is, than I am sorry for you.
I understand, you're just wrong.
The poor have very little joy in their life. One of the few joys that cost them nothing is fucking. The poor like to fuck. The poor have more time to fuck. Unlike you or I who spend our time working and commenting on blogs and reading literature and educating ourselves, the poor are desperate and will take what little joy they can find. Again fucking is free. And with fucking, come procreation. They procreate more poor people. And the cycle continues. So they must spread out.
This has to be the most laughable argument I've heard in a long time. You don't give humanity enough credit. I believe the majority of people want to improve their position in life, and are willing to work to do so. I believe the only thing that changes that is if they can live comfortably without working. I think the immigration rates, if nothing else, exemplify that. You think people are just lazy and like to fuck, so you'll never give them the chance. Our entire discussion can be summed up that easily. I believe people will, and want to, improve their position. If they don't, it's not my problem. You believe people need to be babysat.
As for me wanting to legislate my "morals" because they are mine. What do you define as "morals" Do they become "morals" to you when it is something you disagree with? But becomes "common sense" when it is something you are for?
I believe you shouldn't legislate anything that affects me because you believe it is right, except those things which pertain to running and defending the country, or which impede the rights of another. I'm sure you can find exceptions to this if you poke around, but that's the foundation of my beliefs.
The Christians seem to think the same way. For them, legislating anti-abortion is not a moral issue but a common sense issue.
Abortion is a completely different issue. It arises from when you believe life begins. From the point you believe life begins, ending that life would be impeding anothers rights...the right to life. So, if you're Christian, you most likely believe life begins at Conception. Therefore, you believe abortion is murder. That's not legislating morals, that's protecting the rights of another human. If you believe life begins at birth, then it's legislating morals.
For a large corporation legislating a relaxation of company book keeping is not a "moral" thing but a "common sense" thing.
If relaxing company book keeping (a pretty broad term that could mean almost anything), doesn't impede the rights of another person, then why legislate it?
Fortunately, they do not listen to the "Geoffreys" of the world.
Certainly they do. Every time I vote.
It really is not complicated. Raise the cap on income subject to the payroll tax and when the administration raids those funds replace them with U.S. Treasury bonds. What is complicated about that?
My only concern is that I wonder which successful program coming from a Democratic administration will the neocons take after next.
Tax tax tax tax tax tax tax tax. If it's a successful program, why does it need to be fixed? I've determined you just like to cry. I've yet to see you add anything. You fit the definition of moonbat perfectly.
Why should the rich get to enjoy these pleasures while the rest of us have to wait until we are 65 or 70 years old (by that time too old and too tired to enjoy it to is maximum potential).
Holy communism, Batman. Because the rich earn it? Why should you be entitled to something you haven't earned? If you have 3 cars and I have one, should I be able to walk over and take one?
I said the blacks did not have SS.
Prove you wrong? You're asking to prove a negative. The legislation doesn't exclude blacks. Show where it does. The only thing that kept blacks out of the system was that many were tenant farmers or sharecroppers, which were ineligible. You're stating things that are factually false. A simple google will show you that.
Do you see the absurdity in the libertarian argument?
Not at all. I just saw the absurdity of your argument. None of those things are social welfare. They are jobs. Jobs that should be, even by libertarian standards, supported by taxes. Libertarians aren't opposed to being taxed. Their opposed to being taxed so others don't have to work, or can have more toys.
Also, why is it that social programs must be cut, but nothing is ever said about corporate welfare?
Then talk about it. We weren't, though. This was a discussion about social security.
Instead of trying to quote each and every one of your statements (because it is apparent you are not willing to open your mind and try to understand another view point - very obvious by your convitions that my statements are "false" ) I am going to point ou some contradictions in your very arguments. This will unravel a very soft argument and prove that your argument is based purley on a very selfish and egotistical attitude.
(please excuse if this runs all over the plces, but so do your contradictions)
The first glaringly obvious contradiction that is riddled throughout this post is the idea of people's laziness in relation to the topic of this post.
In one statement you made:
"Actually, the support program in place today has done just that. It's spreading exponentially. Without that support system in place to foster laziness, ignorance, and abuse, ..."
This tells me you have a very hard outlook on the poor, espeically the ones who need help. You lump them together and generalize the entire lot as being lazy. That also tells me that you feel because they are poor, they also must be ignorant. But yet, in your very next paragraph you contradict yourself in saying "This has to be the most laughable argument I've heard in a long time. You don't give humanity enough credit."
And you do? You just said that the poor are "lazy and ignorant." So that tells me that the poor do not count in your eyes. And if the poor are so "lazy and ignorant" how do you expect them to "improve their situation" as you stated as well?
That leads me to another question I have. How, pray tel, without any support structure in place, do they "improve their situation." By your libertarian standards, social programs should be cut. How can the poor get a better education, keep their familes healthy, while working at the only jobs they qualify for that pay minimum wage and no benefits? Please tell me how they are to "improve their situation" without any programs to help them along the way? have you ever needed help from anyone? According to your mindset, nobody ever needs help with anything - they can do it all themselves.
Next contradiction "I believe you shouldn't legislate anything that affects me because you believe it is right, except those things which pertain to running and defending the country, or which impede the rights of another. I'm sure you can find exceptions to this if you poke around, but that's the foundation of my beliefs."
You basically sumed it up yourself. You say "you shouldn't legislate anything that affects you" but then at the end you say "you are sure there are contradictions" and then when you addressed the subject of abortion you manage to help that entire argument fall right apart. You claim that "morals" should not be legislated, then proceed to say that beleiving that life beings is a "belief" and not a "moral" but according to this link http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=moral one of the definations states "Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong" which is of course the you have to believe in right or wrong. A synonym for beleife is also faith. And faith cannot exist without having a moral conscience. You also contradict yourself in saying that the issue of aborition is not a "moral" imperative but a "belief." I point that out again because But, I digress. I could split hairs on that all day long - lets talk legislating morals - you state "I believe you shouldn't legislate anything that affects me because you believe it is right..."
Wait a minute. You make it sound like as long as it is not a moral, rather a belief, than it can be legislated. If abortion and life beginning at conception is a belief, than it has every right to be legislated, yet, you said just because I beleive something, doesn't mean it should be legislated. You are not only very confusing, but I think you are confused as well.
But I digress, I can split hairs with the best of them. Let me move on to another obvious contradiction, I thinl this one will speak for itself:
Earlier you stated, the government should only get involved if the rights of another are impeded but then you state "
If relaxing company book keeping (a pretty broad term that could mean almost anything), doesn't impede the rights of another person, then why legislate it?"
The last time I checked, when a company has free reign to cook the books then gets found out, it adversely affects the shareholder value. If a company is big enough (see: Enron) it has a "foundation shaking" affect on an entire economy. That in turn causes a bad economy, which, the last time I checked "impedes" on everybody's rights. Because no real solid rule was in effect, no "watchdog" on comapny book keeping, the rights that were "impeded" on the employees of Enron were their retirement savings. So much for "hard work" and sacrifical savings. Luckily, the libertarian party is too small to have much of a say in law making, so at least those folks will have some money from social security, but not much else since the fat cat executives decided to exploit the system.
Note - I did not make the statement about raisng payroll taxes. If you took the time to read (which I am now pretty sure is the case) you would see I did not write it.
Another thing - th country does not take on the rights of each and every individual. It sort of works like a collective bargining - what is good for everyone as whole, when making laws. They do not sit around and say "Hmm, is this good for Geoffrey? Do you think Maria would agree with this?" No. When dealing with 300 million people, they have to look at things from the perspective as such. (and I am talking just on a federal level - unfortunatle, we have a Texas administration in office that thinks "if it is good enough for crawford, it is good enough for the rest of the USA" but that is a whole other story).
And yes, we were talking about social progams, inlcuding corporate welfare. Because the context of the very topic, social security is being cast into the light as a social program. #1 I must come out and say it - social security is NOT, nor ever was a "social program" - it was the promise or a program that you paid into the help the retired of today, for when you became the retired of tomorrow, you would see that money come back to you. And technically speaking, you do not have to wait to be retired to get that money. Under the right circumstances, you could collect that money anytime. Its just you do not get full untaxed benefit until you are 65. Or if you die, your spouse/dependants will get the benefit. So, in all reality, it is a fund you are paying into that is your money. It's just a matter of when you are going to collect it.
You also state my examples are not "social programs" but yet, according to this web site http://www.tennesseeanytime.org/residents/social.html" many of the examples I used are listed there. What qualifies as a social program in your eyes? Is it anything you do not agree with or use? You cannot say "well, my son odes use the public library, so that isn't a soical program." And you also said the government only roll should be running itself and defneding the country, and should only be taxed as such. Then there is no need for roads, libraries, health clinics, public schools, financial aid for tuition, funding for scientific research, etc. All we need is money for a military and offices and living expenses for our politicians and judges (and lobbysit to make sure that those poor wittle corporations are treated fairly and nobody is making rules in their sandboxes - after all, the rich don't ask for much only need one thing - more money). Anything else, people should fend for themselves.
Why should you care? You have your posh life. Screw everyone else. If they are poor, who cares why and how they are poor. They must be lazy and ignorant. There is no other reason why. You don't beleive me, go watch Fox News, O'Riely will tell you so. Rush Limbaugh says so too! There is no other reason the poor are who they are other than they are lazy and ignorant. Social security. I don;t need it. I make so much that I can afford to do without it. So as long as *I* am ok, then there is no need for it. Too bad for those who will need it.
And, while I am fired up and emtional - you do not know what hard work is buddy. My father worked for the school district for 35 years. Luckily it was in a big city therefore, he had a very good salary from it. Early on though, he had to work a second job because he didn't make enough money to support the lifestyle he wanted for his kids. Even when he did make the good money, he continued to take extra work in order to enable his kids to do things that cost money. He also had a side business. He worked harder in one year than you could ever wish to work in your lifetime. He just retired this year, and because of some screwy messed up beaurcratic bullshit, he has to wait an entire year to collect full pension. He is only getting partial. But, he also invested. He has a very nice chunk of money that continues to be invested, and he just bought a new house - paid cash. But, because of unfortunate circumstances, he has been raising my 3 nephews. So his reitrement is not all bliss. So, naturally, he is providing health insurance for himself, my mother, and those 3 boys. The total cost per month is equal to his SS benefit. But of course, thanks to a Bush law signed a couple years back, he cannot collect the full check for another 2 years. So, what does he have to do? He is going to have to go back to work full time at least until his full pension comes in.
This is from a person who worked his ass off, sacrificed so much (missed out on a lot of his kids growing up because he worked hard), and never complained much about it. So please come off of your high horse and stop telling me what hard work will get you every time. Hard work in itself is a crap shoot. You do it, and have decent odds it will pay off. But, you could also wind up with a snake eyes and die working hard.
You, your arrogance, ignorance and self righteousness has me so pissed off, I am not going to spell and grammar check this post.
I am about done with you, Geoffrey. I will sleep well and not dwell on it any longer because I know your judgement day will come. At the end of the day, I can look at myself and know I didnt just do for "self" but also did for "mankind."
Can you say the same of yourself?
Posted by: the RAWdeal at January 12, 2005 10:53 PMRAWdeal, I tried sending you a message telling you my opinion of Geoffrey, but it apparently didn't go through. If you send me a message to which I can reply that should work. If you aren't interested I'll understand.
RGE
RGE, typically I've been staying out of these debates because they turn into the epistles and sagas such as has been demonstrated by RAWdeal in this thread. But honestly what you just typed was so hysterical I laughed out loud. It sounded like something I'd hear in the cafeteria from the kids at 7th grade lunch. ("pssst...write me a note during English and I'll tell you what I think of that bitch Susie...") How fabulously immature.
very obvious by your convitions that my statements are "false" )
Many of your statements were factually false. It isn't my beliefs. It isn't my wishes. They. were. just. factually. untrue.
(please excuse if this runs all over the plces, but so do your contradictions)
Actually, my "contradictions" directly responded to quoted material. Than ran all over the place because that's what your argument did. It was based in fiction, and the belief that people need a babysitter. It made little sense.
And you do? You just said that the poor are "lazy and ignorant." So that tells me that the poor do not count in your eyes. And if the poor are so "lazy and ignorant" how do you expect them to "improve their situation" as you stated as well?
I can't tell if you are ignorant, or if you are purposely misunderstanding my statement. Actually, what I said was, the system fosters laziness and ignorance. Most people want to survive with a reasonable level of comfort. If the system provides that reasonable level of comfort, there is no incentive to do more. The majority of society will fill this crutch on their own. Others need to be prodded. Take that crutch away, people will fill the gap on their own. Again, you're either intentionally misunderstanding my statements, or this subject matter is just over your head.
That leads me to another question I have. How, pray tel, without any support structure in place, do they "improve their situation.
Again, it comes down to basic philosophy. You think people need a babysitter. I think they can apply themselves. If they aren't smart enough, or motivated enough, then they shouldn't improve their situation. They are where they belong. Otherwise, they improve it like millions of natives and immigrants have throughtout history. You go to college. You work two jobs. You go without extras. Like I did. Like many people do. You doom them to failure by telling them they can't do it without help. You tell them it's hopeless. You tell them they need the gov't as a saviour. I don't. I tell them anyone can do it, I did it, and it won't come unless you work for it. If you don't, then you don't want it or deserve it. You're for the free ride. I'm for earning what you get.
But, I digress
Digress? You just spent a whole paragraph talking about something that you don't understand. Science is a basic concept. How science relates to abortion is what you can debate, not whether it's a morality issue. You are deliberately confusing the two to avoid an discussion you can't defend. Arguing words and semantics doesn't show you are right, it shows you are desperate.
The last time I checked, when a company has free reign to cook the books then gets found out, it adversely affects the shareholder value.
Then it should be legislated. What's this, the third or fourth time you've deliberately misinterpreted my statement. Dishonesty is a sure sign of a failed argument. I specifically stated "as long as it doesn't impeded the rights of another". That's pretty cut and dry. Then, to your example, I said "IF it doesn't impede the rights of another, it shouldn't be legislated". Again, I'm not sure what the difficulty understanding that is. It's a pretty basic reading level. No big words.
Note - I did not make the statement about raisng payroll taxes. If you took the time to read (which I am now pretty sure is the case) you would see I did not write it
That wasn't directed to you. Unfortunately, I'm realizing I just gave you too much credit. I assumed you could follow simple logic. I would have thought, since I quoted it, you could see the quote I was responding too. In continuing this discussion, I'll knock the reading comprehension down for you a notch.
What qualifies as a social program in your eyes?
I defined exactly what I was talking about in context of this discussion. Did you choose not to read it?
You, your arrogance, ignorance and self righteousness has me so pissed off, I am not going to spell and grammar check this post.
I am about done with you, Geoffrey. I will sleep well and not dwell on it any longer because I know your judgement day will come. At the end of the day, I can look at myself and know I didnt just do for "self" but also did for "mankind."
You just wrote God knows how many words without addressing a single point I made. You didn't rebut any one of the times I pointed out, and backed up, that you were factually wrong. You didn't bolster your argument with facts.
You argued verbage, terms, and semantics and ignored the discussion. "Splitting Hairs", as you so aptly put it, doesn't present your case, it draw attention from the fact that you don't have one. The fact remains that you can't justify legislating your "beliefs" on me without either demonstrating hypocrisy or opening the door agreeing that like legislation from me is legitimate. Your straw man argument is founded in an ignorant belief that people can't take care of themselves, which stems from your fear of personal failure.
I tried sending you a message telling you my opinion of Geoffrey,
Waaaaaaaah! What's the matter, RGE, you need a shoulder to cry on? Email me. I use a real address.
Vickie: That's the loonie left!
Vickie:
How can one have a conversations where view points differ when one presenting the view points refuses to respect the others view point? I have not been around here long to really form much of an opinion of anyone else, but based on this exchange with Geoffrey, it is pretty clear to see from the get go, his refusal to disallow emotions and trying to stay non-objective.
And RGE. I am sure your opinion of Geoffrey is much harsher than my own. But it doesn't really matter. He is of a vast minority. I have very close friends who are probably more libertarian in theory and practice than Geoffrey, but will listen, read and digest information and respond with coherent and cohesive information that is well thought out. Never do we insult one another or accuse each others opinions of being "false."
So, no I am not interested in trading words about Geoffrey. At the very least, it should be aired in the open.
It is also obvious he did not read and digest what it is I was saying. (Note: I did not ask for him to agree, just to understand what it is I was trying to say). The proof there is in his accusations that my opinions were "false" and then his various insinuations about me.
Now, for you to accuse me of being a catalyst to a "saga" is not only a flagrant lie, but is laughable is the fact that I have read enough around here and last night at Geoffrey's blog, that the "sagas" and "epistles" you try to distance yourself from are the very episodes you seem to relish in. It seems that many of the mindless rants that happen at Geoffrey's blog, I see your name right up in there.
This is a shame since I have started reading Maria's ideas (while I do not agree with some of them), I thought these blurts of immaturity were far and few between. I can see that is not the case here. I will still read, but I refuse to get caught up in mindless name calling and debating with 8th grade tactics.
Posted by: theRAWdeal at January 13, 2005 09:14 AMAs I have said Geoffrey. I will not converse with someone who assumes and insinuates. Just as you are doing with me.
You do not know me. You never met me. But yet you seem to be able to paint this full pcture with Divinci-like detail of me, my life, my "beliefs" and what type of person I am. Wow, you must be some sort of idiot-savant. You can do all that from just reading a fre paragraphs of an opinion I have on one topic?
*THAT* is why I am done dealing with you. It also does not surprise me to see there is no real cohesive and serious discussions at your blog. It more or less a 9th grade lunch period - lots of irrelevant chit chat, plenty of insults, some early wiggling and raspberries, paper air planes, and all around childish atmosphere.
Good life to you, bbye!
Posted by: theRAWdeal at January 13, 2005 09:21 AMHow can one have a conversations where view points differ when one presenting the view points refuses to respect the others view point? I have not been around here long to really form much of an opinion of anyone else, but based on this exchange with Geoffrey, it is pretty clear to see from the get go, his refusal to disallow emotions and trying to stay non-objective.
HAHAHA! Holy pot, kettle, black, batman.
Never do we insult one another or accuse each others opinions of being "false."
Really? So when you say blacks were excluded from Social Security, which is a factually false statement, they just let it ride?
I can see that is not the case here. I will still read, but I refuse to get caught up in mindless name calling and debating with 8th grade tactics.
Translation: As Geoffrey pointed out, I can't defend my position, I get upset when he points out my facts are wrong, it makes me cry when he tells me I'm wrong, even if I've done the same, so I'm going to stop now and pretend it's because I want to, not because I don't know what I'm talking about.
Posted by: Geoffrey at January 13, 2005 09:25 AMGood life to you, bbye!
Translation: You're right, I'm wrong. I'm going to toss out a few barbs to discredit your person, since I can't discredit your argument, then I'm taking my toys and going home.
Wah.
Posted by: Geoffrey at January 13, 2005 09:27 AMHello TheRAWdeal.
Just wanted to tell you thanks for all your great comments. You not only gave Geoffrey a run for his money, but you really put a clear perspective on the subject itself.
Please do not allow Geoffrey's ignorance to gall you (though I'm one to talk...). His famous strategy is exactly what you've seen here. He has no respect for anyone else's opinions, and as you pointed out, his website is a reflection of his average level of discourse. His friend Gordon is the same story. He never contributes anything even remotely useful. Just insults and cries when his rude, useless comments are deleted. Geoffrey sometimes tries to create the appearance that he's actually debating, despite not knowing the definition of the word debate, but it's not debating that he's doing, it's shooting at an elephant with a spitball.
Anyway, regardless of Geoffrey's empty responses and condescension to your thoughtful argument, your words still stand as a pillar of truth in this thread and I have no doubt that any reasonable person can see that you set an example of how a debate should be conducted. Nothing Geoffrey could say to you could render your argument "false." You have clearly and politely stated a very valid viewpoint and even if I didn't agree with it, which I do, you get huge points for carrying a strong, consistent argument.
Thanks again.
Posted by: Maria at January 13, 2005 10:32 AMRawdeal:
Again, Wow.
Why should the rich get to enjoy these pleasures while the rest of us have to wait until we are 65 or 70 years old (by that time too old and too tired to enjoy it to is maximum potential).
At least you're being clear that you believe in the communist system. That's fine, it's your own personal choice. Communism has never worked, and never will because it is a disincentive to productivity. Productivity is what generates the taxes that pays for the social services and vacations you want from the state.
To answer your question, they should get to enjoy these benefits because, generally speaking, they worked for them. They took the chance of risking their capital on a venture, and it paid off. That's called capitalism.
You commented somewhere in your "essay" that you discounted my opinion because I don't have the time or inclination to respond with an essay of my own. Again, that's your choice.
I'll be happy, in fact I would look forward to discussing these issues, but you've got to get focused. I have a job. And that job is not spending my day shooting holes in all of your preposterous statements.
Focus, Raw, focus....
Posted by: The Other Mike S at January 13, 2005 11:18 AMGeoffrey sometimes tries to create the appearance that he's actually debating, despite not knowing the definition of the word debate, but it's not debating that he's doing, it's shooting at an elephant with a spitball.
Ahhh. Ignore the fact that I pointed out his specifics were factually innaccurate. If you cheerlead loud enough, you'll create the impression that he was right.
your words still stand as a pillar of truth in this thread and I have no doubt that any reasonable person can see that you set an example of how a debate should be conducted
By posting mistruths, innaccuracies, and attacking semantics and verbage instead of the discussion?
Posted by: Geoffrey at January 13, 2005 11:48 AMYesterday I sent an e-mail to RAWdeal putting Geoffrey in the subject line. This was probably a mistake. I actually wanted to talk about strategy and tactics to use against people like Geoffrey,who was to be a talking point rather than a subject. That was a discussion that could not have been conducted here.
When I got a returned mail message, I thought about it for awhile and decided to see how many cages I could rattle with my post. I got just about what I expected.
Vickie, I never write anything while in a state of hysteria, but are you certain that your own spring isn't wound a little too tight?
RGE
Posted by: RGE at January 13, 2005 12:18 PMLove your show!!
I may have come up with the perfect answer which will sove two of our biggest problems!!!!!
First Problem: Over crowed prisons in the U.S.A.
Second Problem: Illegal ainens flooding the U.S.A.
Answer: U.S.A. should relese 5,000 of our most hardend prisoners and let them "Escape" into Mexico with the understanding that if they return, they would be shot on sight.
After a period of time Mexico (after being ravaged by the excaped prisoners) would say "Stop letting your guys cross over our borders, and we will stop ours from crossing into your country!!!!
What do you think?