If I can't have you...
Today's Washington Post breaks some big news: key leaders in Congress, and possibly the White House, after all this misleading talk about bankruptcy, would rather make no changes to Social Security than give up on their unpopular privatization plan. Here's a key quote:
Its too bad. Let's hope they can set aside their own particular agenda---private accounts---for the greater good, boosting Social Security.
Even if they did nothing but raise the "salary cap" on Social Security taxes, so that wealthy workers pay more into the system, that would be a step forward, and the public would get behind it.
Today's Washington Post breaks some big news: key leaders in Congress, and possibly the White House, after all this misleading talk about bankruptcy, would rather make no changes to Social Security than give up on their unpopular privatization plan. Here's a key quote:
White House aides have been locked in a debate over whether it would be a victory if Bush settled for a Social Security deal without private accounts. Some White House domestic policy officials have suggested that the savings that would flow from reducing future Social Security costs would go a long way toward fixing the government's long-term financial problems.
But Rove, among others, has told Republicans that it would be unwise, both from a political and policy standpoint, to reduce benefits without offering people the potential of better returns through personal accounts, aides said. "It gets no easier without private accounts," a senior White House official said.
Its too bad. Let's hope they can set aside their own particular agenda---private accounts---for the greater good, boosting Social Security.
Even if they did nothing but raise the "salary cap" on Social Security taxes, so that wealthy workers pay more into the system, that would be a step forward, and the public would get behind it.
posted by Hans Riemer at 11:04 AM
77 Comments:
It's amazing that liberals, champions of rights that they are, choose to depribe me of my chance to keep my own money. If your happy with the "Guaranteed" 2%return the govt offers which is not guaranteed at all thats find. But don't take away my ability/opportunity to manage my own money. The current social security plan generates the lowest possible return, without raising the age or taxes, it is bound to have insolvency issues. Please do not give me the garbage about all the Govt bonds we hold and say it is funded, you have no idea what that would do to the bond market or the global credit market if the U.S. started selling those bonds in mass on the open market.
Yes, let's just raise the "salary cap" and make the regressive tax even more regressive. Let's just increase it to $200,000 a year, so we can not just hurt the lower and middle classes with this ponzi scheme, but also upper middle class and small business owners. BRILLIANT!
Of course, as brilliant a strategy Reimer thinks that is, he knows as much as I do that it would just add 7 years to the system's stability. That's it. A tax hike for 7 years is not worth it, because we'll be right back where we are now when those 7 years end.
I would like to reiterate that about two weeks ago, I asked Hans Reimer to present his own plan- and the POSITIVES of his plan- on Social Security. He still has not yet answered that challenge. Why not? Because Hans Reimer knows as much as I do that his plan has no positives. It's full of tax hikes, while paying out the same level of benefits, with no chance for people to invest. He knows it's not much of a sell, so what does he do? What any typical liberal does: change the subject by attacking the President's plan instead.
Its too bad. Let's hope Hans Reimer can set aside his own particular agenda---tax hikes--- for the greater good, boosting Social Security.
By the way, the White House is right on. If you're going to do reform, you need to do it right. And if you're going to do it right, you're going to offer as much opportunity as possible. Opportunity comes in personal accounts, not tax hikes that further separate the gap between the average Joe and the super rich.
"it would be unwise, both from a political and policy standpoint, to reduce benefits without offering people the potential of better returns through personal accounts"
It seems to me that this statement is right on the money. I'm glad that there are some smart people in DC that actually still use logic.
Instead of just saying "NO!" why don't the democrats say what thier plan is? Why won't they go on the record for where they stand?
The Democrats don't want to tell us what their plan is for the very same reason Hans Reimer never answered my challenge:
Because one can never make an ugly thing look good. Hans and the Democrats either support the status quo- which will mandate tax increases in the future- or they want to increase taxes now. They know that if they told the truth about that, their plan would never fly with the public. They might get the support of senior citizens who really don't care about anyone but themselves and their SS benefits at this point- but they sure won't get the support of everyone else.
Thus, they keep the focus on the President, throwing as much negativity around as possible so that no one can focus on their true intentions. Just look at this blog for a classic example- Hans Reimer has made plenty of posts on Social Security. But when's the last time he said anything POSITIVE about his "plan" and how it would be better than the President's reform package? When's the last time he told us details? When's the last time he didn't demagogue the President, and instead presented his ideas? Hans never has. Once again, he knows he's backing an ugly plan up, and he can't show its face to the world, or else people will see his true intentions.
Same goes for Democrats.
Social Security reform must allow younger workers to save and invest some of their Social Security taxes through personal accounts. I believe that such accounts can significantly contribute to restoring Social Security to permanent sustainable solvency. More importantly, I believe that personal accounts are essential to modernizing Social Security in keeping with such fundamental American values as ownership, inheritability, and choice.
In particular, economic theory holds that private capital investment should provide a higher rate of return than a mature PAYGO Social Security system. If one accepts the Social Security Administration's assumptions about future bond and stock returns, a balanced portfolio (50 percent stocks, 30 percent corporate bonds, and 20 percent government bonds) could be expected to yield a return of 4.9 percent. Subtracting 25 basis points of administrative costs provides a net yield of 4.65 percent. Shifting the mix slightly in favor of equities should raise the expected return to roughly 5 percent. This clearly exceeds the return available from Social Security, and also significantly exceeds the offset interest rate suggested under the president's reform proposal.
This is not to say that personal accounts can perform miracles. They cannot, by themselves, solve Social Security's entire $12.8 trillion funding shortfall. However, workers who choose the personal account option - and keep in mind that personal accounts are voluntary under all the major reform proposals - can expect to receive more in retirement benefits than Social Security can actually pay them.
That said, how personal accounts are structured and the investment options available to workers can make a significant difference in the success of any personal account proposal. In short, details matter.
Any retirement system has four important administrative functions: collection, transmission, record keeping, and money management. First, there must be a system to collect the retirement funds from the worker. Next, the funds must be transmitted to an administrator. The administrator is responsible for keeping records of each worker's contribution to the retirement program and the benefits that each worker will eventually receive. Finally, the money has to be invested and managed between the time it is received and the time it is disbursed.
In designing an investment and administrative structure of personal accounts, a few basic concerns should offer guidance:
Simplicity and Transparency.
Workers should clearly understand where there money is going and what their options are. Where personal account plans have encountered difficulties, such as in Britain, it has been primarily do to overly opaque or complex schemes.
Balancing Return and Risk. While market returns can be expected to exceed Social Security returns, markets are not risk free. In particular, they offer increased volatility. In addition, many of the new investors brought into the market through personal accounts will be inexperienced. A personal account investment plan must offer these individuals some degree of protection without stifling consumer choice, over regulating markets, or unduly restricting the potential for positive returns.
Keep Administrative Costs Low. While regulation of account fees would be unwise, accounts should be designed in ways that minimize administrative costs. SSA estimates that accounts would cost 25-30 basis points to administer. This seems like an entirely reasonable target.
Limit government involvement in investment decisions. Decisions about the investment of the accumulating retirement funds should be left to private markets and insulated from government interference as much as possible.
Avoid increased employer burden. Every effort should be made to avoid any new burden on employers, particularly small employers. Possible sources of additional employer burdens would include higher tax payments, greater complexity in tax calculations, more extensive record-keeping requirements, or a requirement to report information more frequently.
The following structure provides the framework for meeting these concerns.
First, at least initially, the collection, record-keeping, and transmission functions should be handled centrally. The U.S. Treasury Department through its existing tax collection capabilities is well suited for this roll. Therefore, the collection of payroll taxes, including individual account contributions, should continue to be handled by the employer in much the same way as today and sent to the Treasury as they are today. The only difference would be that the employer would tell Treasury how much of the total payment is from employees who have chosen the personal retirement account option.
One little known facet of the current Social Security system is that although payroll taxes are collected and paid by employers throughout the year, the federal government will not actually know how much money was paid on behalf of any particular worker in 2005 until about September 2006! This makes little difference under the current Social Security system, but can matter a great deal with an investment-based system. There will have to be some mechanism to hold the funds until the contribution is reconciled to the individual's name using the worker's W-2 form. Moreover, this holding pool should not be dependent on market timing. The best solution would be for Treasury, which is already operating as a centralized collection to transfer all funds designated for account investment to a private-sector custodian bank, which then invests the total amount in a money market fund that is always priced at one dollar, a standard industry convention. The following year, when the contribution is reconciled to the individual worker the fund's shares are distributed to each worker representing his contributions and interest credit, and electronically transferred to the worker's personal account as specified.
Second, because a system of personal accounts would extend investment opportunities to millions of Americans who do not now participate in private investment, and are therefore likely to lack education and experience in choosing investments, a consensus has developed among account proponents that initial investment options should be limited both in number and in the amount of risk a worker may assume. Therefore, most personal account plans call for investment options to be initially limited to a small number of broadly diversified funds. This can be done in a number of ways, such as:
A small number of index funds each composed of a different type of investments. For example, the Federal Thrift Savings Plan, which President Bush has cited as an example, offers a fixed income fund, a common stock fund, a "small cap" stock fund, a government bond fund, and an international stock fund. The Chairman's proposal, S 540, is also built around this model.
A small number of balanced funds, each composed of a different mix of stocks, government bonds, corporate bonds, and cash. This option is included in HR 530 among others.
A lifecycle fund that automatically adjusts the mixture of investments as a person ages. Younger workers would be more heavily invested in stocks, with the mix changing more heavily to fixed income assets as the worker nears retirement. The president has raised the possibility of this option, as has the Chairman. And I believe it is included in S 857, sponsored by Sen. Sununu.
To make things even simpler for the unsophisticated or apathetic worker, there should be a default option that would require the worker to make no decisions whatsoever.
Management of funds should be handled by the private sector on a contract/bid basis, similar to the way the TSP is currently handled. Given the amount of investments involved, it may be worth considering breaking up the management into several pieces each of which would be put up for bid.
Finally. while it makes sense to limit investment options initially, at some point a wider range of choices should be made available. In part, this is a simple matter of increasing consumer choice. One of the most important reason for having personal accounts at all is to give workers more choice and control over how they save for their retirement. Clearly, this should be extended as much as possible to the array of available investments.
There is also a larger economic reason for eventually expanding the range of investments. The flow of investments to different sectors of the economy provides important signals to the economy as a whole. Creating a large flow of investments that are essentially "homogenized" would deprive the market of these vital signals.
Therefore, once a worker has accumulated some "trigger" level of funds, the worker should be free to participate in a much larger range of investment options, closely approximating the options currently available under traditional 401(k) plans. Management of funds at this level would again be through the private sector, with entry open to any company offering qualified funds. ERISSA offers a reasonable framework for determining participation and regulation.
This three tier structure - a central collection point and holding pool, a limited set of initial investment options, and a eventual expansion to a wider array of investments-can provide workers with the greatest amount of security while maximizing consumer choice and control. It would keep administrative costs and the burden on employers as low as possible. And it would minimize government interference with investment decisions.
Works should be able to switch investments, between and within investment tiers on an annual basis. While an "open season," similar to that of the FEHBP health plan, is perhaps the most simple approach, that could lead to an excess of market "churning" over a limited period. An alternative approach would be to allow a worker to switch investments within a designated period centered on his or her birthday.
There is one other additional point to keep in mind, at all three tiers, the accounts would be the property of the worker. This ownership is one of the perhaps the most important reasons for reforming Social Security, and it is vital that it be maintained as part of any administrative structure.
Let me conclude by saying that I believe that Social security reform is not an option, but a necessity. The program will begin running a deficit in just 12 years and faces unfunded obligations of roughly $12.8 trillion. The need for reform presents us with an opportunity to create a new and better retirement program for all Americans, a program that gives workers ownership of their retirement funds, more choice and control over their money, and the opportunity to build a nest egg of real inheritable wealth. Therefore, any successful Social Security reform should include personal accounts.
The Washington Post article is deliberately slanted. Please see here.
Raising taxes cuts benefits across the board. Taxes are raised on small business, which hires less workers, causing unemployment. Also, productivity lacks because of the burdensome tax.
Not to mention that if we eliminate the cap, it will be the single biggest tax increase in the history of the United States -- 1.3 trillion over 10 years.
That will cripple our economy and cost people jobs, and yes, real security.
Hans should take a basic economics course and realize the opportunity cost and tradeoffs that he is facing.
Oh yeah, and no one can dispute that we face an unfunded liabilty of 11 trillion if we do nothing. Thats the size the U.S. GDP.
"Raising taxes cuts benefits across the board. Taxes are raised on small business, which hires less workers, causing unemployment. Also, productivity lacks because of the burdensome tax.
Not to mention that if we eliminate the cap, it will be the single biggest tax increase in the history of the United States -- 1.3 trillion over 10 years."
All right wing talking points with no source to back up these claims. These are the same assertions made when Clinton raised taxes on the top 2% and balanced the budget and created the longest period of expansion in american history. Show me the sources that prove your claims. More jobs are created and the stock market fares better under Democrats. This can be proven with sources. I think you need the basic economic course.
Also your assertion that a elimination of the cap would be a tax increase on small businesses goes against the logic of your fellow ss privitization buddies. According to your privitization buddies the costs of payroll taxes would already be figured into the salaries of the cap elimination. So the costs wouldn't be incurred by the small business but rather by the employee. So in essence there would be no cost whatsoever to the employer should the cap be eliminated according to your privitization buddies.
Considering that the tax would become progressive and no longer regressive(to the idiot that suggests otherwise is wrong) it would also have no effect on the productivity of workers.
Another right wing talking point that tax cuts fuel business investment is bullshit. Go check out the commerce departments reports on national income accounting. There you will find that during times of tax cuts gross private domestic investment was lower than duirng times of tax increases. Kind of defeats Bush's whole "tax cuts will lead to more business' reinvesting in their business". But don't let facts get in the way of your parrot routine. It must suck for you to be part of the faith based community and not the reality based community.
So your rnc talking points scare tactics of "That will cripple our economy and cost people jobs, and yes, real security." were defeated when Clinton balanced the budget, created surpluses, and reduced the deficit. That's called fiscal responsibility.
No one has refuted that social security private accounts would put a huge burden on small businesses. We can't even begin to discuss this without Bush putting forth a privitization plan(something he has yet to do).
But ponder this privitization crowd, should you get your private accounts, what happens when your employer doesn't pay their share of your payroll taxes on time? How will this effect your private account? Is your company liable for your loss due to late payments? Are you liable to market losses when your employer pays late? If not, why not? If businesses are a bit late in paying taxes they'll pay a penalty but it isn't a big deal. But that's because benefits under the current system are formula based and not return based.
Instead of crying about privitization, you should be asking questions like these. Those are the questions I would ask if I were for privitization. But Bush and the Republicans haven't proposed a plan yet.
House and Senate GOP Look For Exit Strategy On Social Security
The Bush strategy on Social Security has seemingly finally hit the wall. Neither the House nor the Senate GOP leadership wants to move ahead with a bill unless the other moves ahead first. Denny Hastert doesn’t want his members to go on record with a roll call vote in advance of next year’s midterms on a bill that isn’t going anywhere. And Senator Charles Grassley can’t get a bill out of his committee with GOP support unless it has private accounts because the far right conservatives are demanding that.
Yet Grassley and Frist know that there aren’t the GOP votes on the Senate floor to pass a bill with private accounts. The White House has decided they can’t abandon private accounts because it will undermine the GOP senators up for reelection next year who have already stepped out on that ledge, like Little Ricky Santorum. So Rove and Bush have decided to attack Democrats for obstructing Bush’s unpopular proposals, even as Lindsey Graham admits for the first time that there may not be a bipartisan fix to Social Security while Bush is president, and that Democrats will not pay a price for saying “no”.
All while Democrats like Rahm Emmanuel get to crow that after seeing Bush for five years ignore bipartisanship and backstab those few who did work with him, Bush now pleads for Democratic support and then returns to form and bashes them for obstructionism.
Great job Turdblossom. Your new plan is for your boss to downplay Social Security and instead talk about Iraq and the economy, two areas where your ideology gives you few options. Plus, a focus on these issues provides no real way to fire up your base for next year, without resorting to more American Taliban issues that the public is already blasting Congress for spending too much time on.
In other words Karl, you have already issued the death warrant to the GOP incumbents next year.
http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/004647.php
Is anyone else here getting sick of the fact that Erik can't make a single post without bomb-throwing or insulting his opponents?
Erik, grow up. Seriously.
haha, is Erik actually arguing that higher taxes are good for the economy? And that we should take an economics course?? Economic ignorance and intellectual snobbery are an interesting combination...
"Is anyone else here getting sick of the fact that Erik can't make a single post without bomb-throwing or insulting his opponents?
Erik, grow up. Seriously."
When you are stupid yes. You deserve to be treated like the idiot you are. This site isn't for you so go away if you don't want to listen to facts, truth, or logic. Do some research before you repeat what someone else says. Think for yourself. Don't get mad because I made you look like tyhe fool you are.
"haha, is Erik actually arguing that higher taxes are good for the economy? And that we should take an economics course?? Economic ignorance and intellectual snobbery are an interesting combination..."
Raising taxes on the wealthy elites and making our tax system more progressive works. Believing in faith based economics without any proof to back up your theories is just pure ignorance. I have the proof to back up my claims. I am part of the reality based community.
Do you even know anything about the supply side economics that you beleive in? I know more about the unproven theory than you do. Continue laughing because the only one that looks stupid is on the other side of your mirror, ignorant.
All fiscal conservatives should thank God that Bush's "privatization" plan seems to have stalled. The worst thing that could happen for fiscal conservatives is to allow the government to control private accounts for individuals. If it had passed it would have allowed for governmental control of our equity markets. The best outcomes from a fiscally conservative perspective are either the status quo or benefit cuts be they outright cuts or raising of the benefits age which would be a step towards the program's end. After 2017 under that status quo, the program will start sucking money out of the government's general fund, thereby making it harder for it to spend so much damn money on it's normal bullshit budget outlays. Or if we elect to cuts benefits in any way, that would be a step towards making people less dependent on it, yet another positive fiscally conservative result. Fiscal conservatives should fight hard to oppose any tax increases but more importantly any attempt to seriously 'save the system' by government controlled 'private accounts' which might actually allow the system to continue indefinitely by creating government controlled personal accounts where the U.S. government gets to be part or every corporate boardroom in america and gets to control which stocks we can invest in.
www.socialslavery.com
Don't agree with you Noid but at least you are an honest conservative. Nice to see that they still exist. Kevin Phillips talks in great detail about how the Bush clan have preverted the conservative cause.
I've called on the privitization crowd to demand these things or ask the questions posed above as opposed to blindly following if they want to be true conservatives. They don't know what being conservative is though. They chose to be Republican lackeys who listen and repeat what they heard in the echo chamber.
Last 4 bombs thrown by Erik:
Don't agree with you Noid but at least you are an honest conservative. Nice to see that they still exist.
They chose to be Republican lackeys who listen and repeat what they heard in the echo chamber.
When you are stupid yes. You deserve to be treated like the idiot you are. This site isn't for you so go away if you don't want to listen to facts, truth, or logic. Do some research before you repeat what someone else says. Think for yourself. Don't get mad because I made you look like tyhe fool you are.
Believing in faith based economics without any proof to back up your theories is just pure ignorance. I have the proof to back up my claims. I am part of the reality based community.
Do you even know anything about the supply side economics that you beleive in? I know more about the unproven theory than you do. Continue laughing because the only one that looks stupid is on the other side of your mirror, ignorant.
I'm thinking someone should form a blog, and just track Erik's immature condescending behavior, and pin it up for the entire Internet to see, as a classic example of how a left wing liberal cannot make a point without resorting to attacks and incendiary rhetoric. It also stands to be a classic example of rhetoric, given that Erik constantly brings up how his opponents are part of the "right wing echo chamber", while he himself also constantly repeats his own anti-reform talking points.
I'm really curious as to how old Erik is. From the looks of it, he's got to be an arrogant college sophomore, or something to that extent. There's no way this guy can be a grown adult. It's impossible.
As for Noid's point, if he knew anything about the Thrift Savings Plan, he'd know that they are not government controlled investments- they are investments chosen by the workers themselves. Now, I fully agree with his point that SS should just be phased out, but it's never going to happen. The best any "fiscal conservative" can hope for is to reform the system and get solvency, without having to resort to tax increases. PRAs and progressive indexing are the most plausible solution at this point.
Social Security itself is fiscally irresponsible, but we're not going to be able to get rid of it as long as bomb-throwers like Erik come into the debate, swinging their arms around like crazy and screaming their heads off. Folks like Erik dupe the general public into continued support of this scheme, which is why, Noid, your plan would never work.
A benefit cut would only be worth it if the tax rate went down as well, which is not possible. If benefits are cut and the tax rate remains the same, it is no different from a tax hike.
And of course, Erik would love that.
By the way, Erik, don't sit here and judge where we get out information from. You're no expert on this subject, as we've seen from your diatribes, which are guaranteed to lead to bomb-throwing on your part. In order to fill in your lack of knowledge on the topic, you fill your post in with insults and aggressiveness, hoping to overpower your enemy with nothing more than brute force.
It's not going to work. You'd lose any 1 on 1 debate with just about every pro-reformist person here, simply because most of us AREN'T members of your "right wing echo chamber." The only one echoing anything here is you, who seem to love the MoveOn.org/Howard Dean rhetoric as of late.
Grow up.
You call me the college sophomore yet you utter things that would come from the young, uninformed and ignorant. I don't need to explain who or what I am to you. From this fantasyland of the internet anyone can be anything. I've seen people claim to be millionaires business owners on this blog. It's childish. I know who I am and am content with that. I have a self-esteem unlike much of the ignorant here who can't take being proven wrong with facts. Classic republican attack blame the others for the faults you possess. It's funny how telling the truth has become childish in today's political climate.
My thoughts are my own done through research and reading. These are things I learned in college. You repeat what you heard rush and fox say. Like most studies prove, college kids today do more plagirizing than thinking.
But back to your ignorant utterances.
#1 "if he knew anything about the Thrift Savings Plan"
The TSP is on top of SS. I've made this point before. http://tsp.gov/features/chapter01.html
"Participating in the TSP does not affect the amount of your Social Security benefit or your FERS Basic Annuity."
#2 "he'd know that they are not government controlled investments- they are investments chosen by the workers themselves."
http://tsp.gov/features/chapter01.html
"A choice of five investment funds:
– Government Securities Investment (G) Fund
– Fixed Income Index Investment (F) Fund
– Common Stock Index Investment (C) Fund
– Small Capitalization Stock Index Investment (S) Fund
– International Stock Index Investment (I) Fund"
Seems you don't know much about tsp or RushFoxBillSean lied to you about tsp and you repeated the lie.
#3"The best any "fiscal conservative" can hope for is to reform the system and get solvency
How about being fiscally repsonsible instead of fiscally conservative? Privitization doesn't give the system solvency, it just creates more problems. I could link to the studies but you don't beleive in reputable sources. Only the Foxright wingwashingtontimes propaganda kind.
Did you know that in order to enact the privitization plan Bush will take on trillions in new debt? No one knows for sure because he has yet to even offer a plan that can be brought to the floor of congress to be debated. If you beleive in this plan you should ask this and the questions in my posts above. But you follow like a good little puppet.
I've had one on six debates here with the immature crowd. And I kicked that ass beatch.
Funny hahhahaha. There's a left wing conspiracy of moveon/dean. Can't have a conspricay if you don't have power. Just like you can't be a pro-reformist if you currently control all branches of the government. Sorry but I won't allow you to steal my labels. Reform is for those that want change/progressive/liberal. Reform is change from the status quo. Republicans seek more power. Not reform. Progressives are the pro-reform crowd.
I was attacked first just as the writer of this blog has been from day one. I have proven my case with facts, truth, and logic. You like others here are afraid to even answer my questions because answering them proves your ignorance. Besides I don't treat the 30% crowd with any diginity. They don't deserve it. The 30% crowd are those that blindly follow an idealogy without listening to facts. Just like those that blindly followed Bush into Iraq and still beleive him to this day on wmd's. The 30% crowd. They are the unpersuable. The ones who don't listen to reason, truth, facts. They can't rationalize.
My buddy used to clean carpets door-to-door. He once told me how he got customers to pay him to clean their carpets. He walked into their house and told them they lived like fucking animals and that their house was a mess. They either told him to go fuck himself or embarassed by his honesty paid him to clean their mess.
I can show you the way if you are willing to find the truth. But it is ultimately up to you to read from many sources and vet through all the information. Or you can continue listening and repeating what someone else told you. But you will be swimming knee deep in your own shit.
"he'd know that they are not government controlled investments- they are investments chosen by the workers themselves."
Wow, what a huge mistake that guy made. Sure, the workers chose from a menu of funds.... but who chooses what stocks go in the funds themselves?
The government!
Ahhhhhhhh, the sweet sounds of Eric and his self gratification. Your mommie and daddy must not have complimented you very much growing up and you are making up for it by doing it yourself in a blog internet forum. How twistedly entertaining.
I don't know what the hell you were trying to get at when you took a walk down your psychological winding path on reform, but i think the ones who are suggesting privatization would fall under the title of reform. Your stance of do nothing but raise taxes seems to fall under Status Quo. By the way, the only way something gets changed in our system of gov't is when a majority of people vote for it. By your definition of reform, a majority can't provide reform. So to your logic, reform doesn't exist. Very strange, Eric.
Man, you are representing the new Howard Dean/Dick Durbin Liberals well. What's next from you hot heads on the left? I sure do enjoy being a Libertarian. I support Republicans at times, but I will never ever trust a hothead liberal. Its a shame, because the libertarians really don't provide balance to the repiblicans yet and the democrats are fading quick as major party. Hopefully the libertarians can get their act together and replace dems in the future as the 2nd major party.
Libertarians are kooks who beleive in anarchy and laissez faire economics talk about hothead far right wing extremists. Just because you brand yourself a label doesn't make you it. I know more about libertarianism than you do. You must feel so cool and chic using that term on yourself.
Privitization isn't reform, it's changing the system. SS reduced poverty among seniors from over 50% in the 60's to under 10% presently.
"Your stance of do nothing but raise taxes seems to fall under Status Quo."
Stauts quo is the last thirty years of republican majority that beleived in supply side economics and tax cuts for the rich. Your taxes have not been reduced over this same period and wage growth has been stagnant but the gap between rich and poor has widened while squeezing the middle class. When raising taxes on the top 1-2%(only tried under Clinton)we balanced the budget, reduced deficits and debt, and created surplusses. So you can continue the "raise taxes" talking point of the right wing echo chamber but it's only on the wealthy elites. When done it creates the progressivity that made this country the top economic power it became after wwii.
So go sniff your sister's underwear and jerkoff to mommies friends but leave the adult discussions to us in the reality based community.
Nice to see that I am being attacked as opposed to discussing what i wrote. Could it be because I made someone look like a fool? Hell yeah!!!
When are you people going to realize that repeating what someone else said doesn't give you evidence or facts and just makes you look stupid when you debate someone who is armed with knowledge. It's like showing up to a gun fight with a peashooter.
My take on taxes for special people like rian(you can continue your rnc talking point that I want to raise taxes on everybody but we aren't politicians and everybody can see through your echo):
Freedom, privacy, opportunity, prosperity, open two-way communication, cooperation and community-building, trust, and honesty are values that we should get and deserve from our government. These aren't the values preached by conservatives who want you to fear and hate your government. Hate the governmnet that our founding fathers built for us.
Taxation is paying your dues or membership for having the opportunities to work and do business in our Free society that is America. If you join a conutry club or a community center you pay fees. Why? You did not build the swimming pool. You have to maintain it. You did not build the basketball court. Someone has to clean it. You may not use the free-weights but you still have to pay your dues. Otherwise it won't be maintained and will fall apart. People who avoid taxes, like corporations that move to Bermuda, are not paying their dues to their country. It is patriotic to be a taxpayer. It is traiterous to desert our country and not pay your dues, especially in a time of war.
Perhaps Bill Gates, Sr. said it best. In arguing to keep the inheritance tax, he pointed out that he and Bill Jr. did not invent the internet. they just used it-to make billions. there is no such thing as a self-made man. Every businessman has used the vast American infrastructure, which the taxpayers paid for, to make his money. He did not make his money alone. He used taxpayer infrastructure. He got rich on what other taxpayers had paid for: the banking system, the Federal Reserve, the Treasury and Commerce Departments, and the Judicial system, where 9/10ths of cases involve corporate law. These taxpayers investments support companies and wealthy investors. There are no self-made men. The wealthy have gotten rich using what previous taxpayers have paid for. They owe the taxpayers of this country a great deal and should be paying it back. Do you believe that those that came before us and after us should foot the bill for the me generation?
If you want to pay less taxes then you must demand that the wealthy pay more. Our tax system was fair once when it was progressive. But the burden has been shifted away from wealth. And work is being taxed in it's place.
And this article is made especially for people like rian and others who post hear bashing progressive/liberals but who all claim that they are not little r republicans. After reading this think about how many people come hear to bash the authors of the site and anyone that disagree with them while claiming not to be little r republcians
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/6/2/15109/96659
Where have all the Republicans gone?
by advisorjim
Thu Jun 2nd, 2005 at 12:10:09 PDT
Crossposted at liberalstreetfighter.com
If there's one thing I know about Republicans these days, it's that they like to hide. When we didn't find WMDs they hid behind the flag. "If you criticize the President you're un-American!" When Iraq started going to Hell in a handbasket they hid behind the troops. "You can't criticize Bush! He's the commander-in-chief! That's a slap in the face of the military!" I was listening to a Republican caller on the Majority Report the other night, and I realized the new strategy is to hide from the party. How many times have you heard a `dittohead' friend say "I'm not a Republican! I'm a `X'"
I've been hearing this so much that I'm starting to wonder if there are any Republicans left in the world. Politically I'm proud to say I'm a Democrat. I'm proud to say I'm a liberal as well. To quote Longfellow, there "ain't no shame in my game." So I thought it was strange that so many Republicans are ashamed to say they're Republicans.
Then I realized it's a great way for Republicans to avoid taking personal responsibility for the people they voted for. In one simple statement you symbolically absolve yourself from the nightmare you helped create. "Hey, this isn't my fault! I'm objective! I don't just vote party-line." Like tax cuts increasing federal revenue and WMDs in Iraq, this statement is another Republican fantasy that doesn't withstand the crucible of reality.
Most commonly `X' equals `conservative.' This group doesn't like John McCain, Lincoln Chafee, Olympia Snow, and other like-minded, otherwise sane Republicans. It's the political equivalent of saying "Don't call me gay!" The face for this group used to be Rush Limbaugh, but once he started working with the Republican Party in an official capacity the validity of that claim kind of died. Today I would say that the face of the non-Republican conservative is Glenn Beck.
As a group the conservative non-Republicans like all the killin' but are getting plenty pissed at all the `liberal kowtowing.' Those of us on the left (or as I like say `those of us in the know') are left to wonder, "what `liberal kowtowing'? What the Hell are you talking about!?" My business partner explained this one to me few days ago.
"I'm just sick of these spineless Republicans who won't stand up to Ted Kennedy and say `Look! We're the majority now! You can't have everything you want anymore! You have to work with us.'"
I'm not exactly sure what happened after he said that. All I know for sure is that I blacked out for a little while. I'm not sure if it was one of my brain's natural defense mechanisms, or if too much laughter deprives the brain of oxygen. When I came to I asked him to continue, but for the love of God go slowly! Next time I might not wake up!
"It's just that the Democrats never have to compromise! Republicans just let them ride roughshod all over their legislation."
We waited five minutes for the lightheadedness to pass. "For example?", I asked.
"Okay, Ted Kennedy got to write the No Child Left Behind act, and now all he does is complain about it! Then they let him write the Medicare Prescription Drug bill which is costing us a fortune! That's the reason we've got such big deficits! Because Republicans never stand up to Democrats and say no. And that's why I say I'm a conservative and not a Republican. If the Republicans ever find their balls I'll call myself a Republican again."
"So, in the meantime...who are you going to vote for?"
"Well...Republicans of course!"
So he's only ever going to vote for Republicans, and he believes all the problems with the world stem from the activities of the Democratic minority, but he's not a Republican. This silent protest packs all of the substance of a `Support Our Troops" SUV magnet. But notice how they're able to say "hey, I don't agree with everything Republicans do" while at the same time blaming Democrats for the problem.
The second group defines `X' as `Libertarian.' Keep in mind this group has never voted for, campaigned for, or otherwise supported the actual Libertarian Party. What they mean is they don't hate gay people, and don't necessarily support an outright ban on abortion, but they support everything else Bush has done. The poster boy for the non-Republican Libertarian is Dennis Miller. More specifically it's the unfunny Dennis Miller of today, not the poignant, topical, hilarious Dennis Miller of the early 90s.
There at the end this is what I was. It defines my vote in the 2000 election. I was socially liberal, but fiscally conservative. I believed the social issues were off the table, so my vote was based on fiscal policy. Boy howdy, did I ever get the mother of all bait-and-switches.
Again I never joined, supported, voted for, or contributed to the Libertarian Party. I don't know a single plank in their Party platform to this day. But the beliefs of the actual Party didn't matter. What mattered was that I could call myself `free thinking' without all of the navel-gazing that such a position usually entails.
And so it is with those who think they can duck responsibility by clinging to the Libertarian label. Usually you're hear this group engage in over-simplifications making statements like, "between George W. Bush and Saddam Hussein, Saddam's the bad guy." Or half-way measures like "I think gay people should be able to have relationships, but they should stop short of marriage." Can anyone explain to me what features of a marriage you can leave out and do something other than create a second-class citizen?
Those are the two non-Republican Republican groups that I'm familiar with. I'm curious to know if there are any others. At the end of the day I've decided that this Republican shame is a good thing for us. It's the figurative missing scale from the equally figurative Republican Smaug's underbelly. Now let's get some arrows in the air to take that big, ugly bastard down!
Libertarians are kooks who beleive in anarchy and laissez faire economics talk about hothead far right wing extremists.
So now Erik feels that blasting Republicans wasn't enough, he'll just go ahead and show immaturity towards Libertarians as well. Simply stunning how far the left has fallen with folks like Erik. They disgust me, and are the reason I refuse to support the left on anything now.
Erik, did it ever occur to you that with a simple change in behavior and attitude, you could draw many more folks to your side? Probably not. The modern left is filled with angry people who are hateful of everything and anything that surrounds them. I don't know what happened to you people since 2000, but it's definitely the biggest political fall I've ever seen.
Today's modern liberals are more incendiary, more immature, and less respectful than just about any political movement in this nation's history. They will be remembered for this, because they should be remembered for this.
Also, Erik, reform inherently means change, which makes this following statement of yours one of the most hilarious utterances you have thrown out yet:
Privitization isn't reform, it's changing the system. SS reduced poverty among seniors from over 50% in the 60's to under 10% presently.
From dictionary.com:
Reform- n.
1. A change for the better; an improvement.
Every single one of the numbers show that this reform is a change for the better, especially in the long run. Reform means changing the system, so what you just did was blast reform for being reform, in saying that reform is different from changing the system.
Continue the buffoonery, Erik. I'm getting a kick out of watching you represent the leftist point of view here. It really shows what the left really is. You should just take a word of advice and shut your mouth before you make your situation worse. Let somebody like Hans take over- at least he's not incendiary and condescening towards everyone the way you are.
Do you even bother to think before you write? Does thought ever occur when you parrot someone elses thoughts? The point is that you aren't a libertarian, you are a little r republican that dismisses your behavior by claiming to be something(a libertarian in this case) that you are not. How many libertarians have you voted for? I didn't think so. You vote strict republican and claim to be a libertarian. What's the libertarian platform? I didn't think so again. You didn't evern bother to refute refute anything that I've said. You are a 30%er.
Just to show your utter ignorance let's take this statement:
"Also, Erik, reform inherently means change, which makes this following statement of yours one of the most hilarious utterances you have thrown out yet:
Privitization isn't reform, it's changing the system. SS reduced poverty among seniors from over 50% in the 60's to under 10% presently.
From dictionary.com:
Reform- n.
1. A change for the better; an improvement."
You have contradicted yourself in the stream of one thought. First reform means change than it means change for the better. Privitization does change ss but not for the better. That was the point that I was trying to get through to your thick head.
Thus the facts of what ss has accomplished among poverty rates for seniors.
"Every single one of the numbers show that this reform is a change for the better, especially in the long run."
If you really want to find the facts go to the following sites and read what bipartisan studies were done on the glaveston plan first from here - the Social Security Administration did an analysis of the Galveston plan in 1999(http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v62n1/v62n1p47.pdf)
"Social Security tends to offer higher initial benefits than the Galveston Plan to workers with lower earnings and/or families with dependents who qualify for Social Security benefits. Although many of Galveston’s initial benefits are higher than Social Security’s, they are not indexed to inflation and lose value relative to Social Security’s over time."
Then here - the same year, the Government Accountability Office compared the two plans, coming to a similar conclusion(http://www.gao.gov/archive/1999/he99031.pdf)
In general, low-wage workers and, to a lesser extent, median-wage workers would fare better under Social Security. High-wage earners can generally expect to do better under the Alternate Plans, although if spousal benefits are included, even the high-wage workers could eventually receive higher benefits from Social Security.
Facts are a hard thing to dispute you ignorant fool. So please continue to being ignorant and see how far you get without the facts. I told you before read and research. But you have to watch out what you are reading because you may be getting biased information as opposed to actual facts. That's why you must read from many different sources.
These are non-partisan/bi-partisan commissions that came to these conclusions. They are the only studies done on privitization fo ss that matter. I can find you studies on the british system which is an utter failure and the chile system which is also an utter failure(except if you listen to the right wing echo chamber then it's a glowing success).
So please show me your numbers from a non-partisan/bi-partisan commission that prove your faux claims. And OreillyRushSeanFox don't count as sources. Quit pulling blind facts out of your ass where your head is. You need sources to make statements like that.
"Erik, did it ever occur to you that with a simple change in behavior and attitude, you could draw many more folks to your side?"
You are part of the 30% crowd that will blindly follow republicans so you don't deserve to treated cordially, you need to be desanitized.
Again you attack me as opposed to attacking my claims. I guess they are solid as a rock and you know it. Anything to say about taxes?
"Continue the buffoonery, Erik. I'm getting a kick out of watching you represent the leftist point of view here. It really shows what the left really is."
I represent the truth!!!!!!!!!! I think I've more than proven that against those of you that are willfully ignorant.
Privitization does change ss but not for the better.
That is your opinion, and nothing more.
As has been discussed dozens of times here, there exist numerous evaluations- even by the SSA itself- that show that reform can make the system solvent. Pozen's plan- created by a DEMOCRAT, mind you- solves 70% of the solvency problem while giving people a 2% personal account. This is the plan the President uses as the baseline for reform, yet you argue against it simply because he's the guy promoting it.
I've posted Pozen's column and the analysis of his plan before. You saw it, and you chose to ignore it. You're going to continue to ignore every single counterpoint anyone makes to your claims, because you're so blinded by your own point of view, that you find it incomprehensible that any other point of view could possibly exist.
I highly doubt you would have reacted in this angry liberal manner seven years ago, when Bill Clinton's own commission came up with a plan very similar to the one that exists now. Hell, it even had bigger personal accounts than Pozen's plan proposes. Liberals such as yourself would have cheered that back then, because it was coming from a guy on "your side." But not anymore.
Now, liberals such as yourself are merely about one thing: hate. It's that simple. But, I'm going to give you an opportunity to change that.
You are what is wrong with political system, Erik. You epitomize the angry flamethrowers that have entered Washington DC, and destroyed any sense of progress in this nation. How ironic, coming from a "progressive" such as yourself. Tell me Erik, what has your movement done for the common American in the past 4 years? Tell me what your movement has done for the average college kid in the past 4 years.
In fact, tell me what your so-called progressive movement can do for those of us in the sub-30 age bracket when it comes to Social Security. Go ahead, Erik- I'm now extending the very same challenge I extended to Hans a few weeks ago- a challenge he never answered:
Show me the "liberal plan for Social Security." Show me the POSITIVES of this plan, and WHAT IT WOULD DO FOR ME. Show me why your plan is better than the status quo, show me how your plain creates solvency, and show me how your plan addresses the deficit upcoming in 2017. Show me the opportunities in your plan. Show me what is GOOD about your "progressive" plan for Social Security reform. No, don't blast the President's plan, don't attack your archrivals, don't throw around bitter angry hatred and negativity- show me the POSITIVES OF WHAT YOU HAVE TO OFFER.
Go ahead, Erik. The challenge has been presented. Go ahead and be positive for once, instead of being a condescending angry old man for a second. It is time for liberals such as yourself to show what THEY have to offer, instead of watching liberals such as yourself continue to demagogue and oppose without a plan. Go ahead Erik- show every reader of this blog what is so good about what folks like YOU have to offer when it comes to Social Security.
By the way, Erik, you have no idea who I am, so don't sit here and run your mouth like you know what my political affiliation is. I'm against the Bush tax cuts, I'm against free trade, I was against the war in Iraq when it started, and I'm against corporate welfare and benefits to those companies that outsource. I'm also firmly against America's pro-Israel anti-Palestinian foreign policy, and I think it causes the terror problem to continue.
All of those are either liberal or independent stances. So don't sit here and f**king judge what my political affiliation is. You can call me your enemy if you want- I'll take it as a compliment. If a fool such as yourself wants to call me a 'small r republican' simply because I support common sense reforms on Social Security, then so be it. I am your enemy.
The funny part is that if people like you had kept their mouths shut last year, I probably still would be a registered Democrat, having voted Democratic in November instead of Republican. But because of people like you, I'm going to keep on voting down the "R" side of the scale, even if I don't agree with Republicans on a whole bunch of issues. Why? Because they behave with class and respect even when you disagree with them. I've debated all of the above mentioned issues with Republicans/conservatives/libertarians, and never gotten anywhere NEAR as much condescending trash talk from them as I have from you.
You're pathetic. The Democratic Party would do good to get rid of people like you, so those of us who left such a party can finally come back home. Unfortunately that's never going to happen, because flamethrowers such as yourself have taken the party of opportunity and turned it into the party of hate.
Wow, what at first seems like a discussion about Social Security is a cyber-battle of pseudo-idealogies. People, Social Security provides a benefit to people, who have paid into a system. Some people get more than they put in. Do you bitch at your car insurance company for a refund if you haven't had a car accident in ten years? No, you don't, car insurance much like Social Security is something you pay, in case sh*t happens. All this babble about economics, the reality is the wealthier are getting wealthy, the supposed economic stimulus from the tax cuts barely created a spark our dollar aint worth a sh*t on the global market. Companies are bailing on their pensions promises. Enron, Tyco and Worldcom leaving their employees behind. Reality is these people and all those who follow, are going to need financial help from somewhere, whether it be Social Security or some other not-for-profit organization. That my friends is truly going to be an economic drain, and no amount of fingerpointing is going to stave off this tidal wave. You act like the money going into the Trust Fund is yours. If you are so hyped about personal savings, b*tch, get a stock broker. The average American is dumb as sh*t and you want to let them loose on the market. The costs of an army of morons without a cent to their name and unable to work is a future I don't want to face. Social Security is a good program, if it had been robbed by both parties, we wouldn't be having this problem. If the current administration wasn't so far up corporate America's rectum we may be able to provide for those for whatever reason cannot provide for themselves in old age, disability or after the loss of a loved one. The truth is we can't have a good economy and a failing society.
duppyconquerer
Just ignore erik and his side of absolute truth so we can all get back to the original discussion. If you continue responding to his posts he'll continue to defame, demean and denigrate anyone who offers an opinion or fact contrary to his 'truth'.
WOW, anon you have done it. I can't beleive you made the following comment:
"You act like the money going into the Trust Fund is yours"
Who in the HELL do you think the money is for or where it comes from? How do you think the gov't gets its money?
If I show a little concern for how my money, which is taken from me with the threat of jail time, is spent, it's because I am concerned and you should be too. What are you going to say when the system is bankrupt in 40 years? I'm sure you're going to blame whatever Republican president you can think of for not reforming the system 40 years earlier when it would have been feasable.
Nobody is saying get rid of SS, everbody is saying fix it. Your idea of fixing it may be different than mine, but for God's sake, at least fix the damn problem. I'm tired of staring at this pink elephant in my living room that no one wants to talk about because it's political suicide. If dems admit this is a problem, why don't they want to provide a solution that is better than the repubs solution. I mean, it can't be that hard to find a better solution than the repubs if you believe as Erik does that the solution proposed by the repubs is absolutely terrible. This is ridiculous.
Emotions aside, there is a problem with SS that is looming and if we don't spend money now to address it, we will end up spending a lot more when the problem is staring us right in the face and kicking us in the nuts.
Erik, this is what i know about what you wrote in the following:
"Your taxes have not been reduced over this same period and wage growth has been stagnant but the gap between rich and poor has widened while squeezing the middle class."
I'm 28 and since Bush has been in office, I pay $2200 less in taxes a year, my salary has increased by $40000, I purchased a house, I bought 2 new vehicles, and I have put a good bit of money into my 401k.
What is your plan for fixing SS? Raise the salary cap for those making over $90000? Great idea. Another tax increase on the middle class. I don't know where your middle class cuts off, but those making under $200000 I think would qualify as middle class. Thanks for your compassion, but I think my family will be better off without your help.
"Show me the "liberal plan for Social Security." Show me the POSITIVES of this plan, and WHAT IT WOULD DO FOR ME. Show me why your plan is better than the status quo, show me how your plain creates solvency, and show me how your plan addresses the deficit upcoming in 2017. Show me the opportunities in your plan. Show me what is GOOD about your "progressive" plan for Social Security reform. No, don't blast the President's plan, don't attack your archrivals, don't throw around bitter angry hatred and negativity- show me the POSITIVES OF WHAT YOU HAVE TO OFFER."
Show me the Republicans plan. Show me the plan that Bush is offering before congress that is being debated in both the house and senate. A bill that is being voted on. Why isn't there one? This is why I don't and nobody else beleives people like you. Because you blame one side(Dems) for something that the other side(Repubs) who's responsibility it is make the proposal.
The Repubs are the majority that sets the agenda. Bush and the repubs are in the majoirty if they beleive privitization is the way to go, why have they not offered their privitization plan to the country and allow the debate of said plan on it's merits? Take a political science course and you would know how our government works. The majority sets the agenda and the debate. The minority has no power to propose a plan for ss. What is the presidents plan? Not the empty rhetoric that he traveled around the country espousing at the taxpayers expense. At our expense to the tune of millions of dollars.
Where is the bill, the plan, the concrete piece of legislation that says Bush beleives in privitization so the congress can debate it on it's merits. So the question that I told you and the privitization crowd that you need to ask above can be discussed. Like I said the ignorance of people like you is the reason the debate is muddled. The process has nothing to do with Democrats. The process goes through Republicans.
You ignorant fuck. Are you really that stupid?
"I'm going to keep on voting down the "R" side of the scale, even if I don't agree with Republicans on a whole bunch of issues. Why? Because they behave with class and respect even when you disagree with them."
See the article above about Republcians who claim to be anything but Republcians to absolve themselves of their personal repsonsibility for voting in the worst president ever. Personal responsibility that they claim everyone else must have.
At least noid is honest enough to admit that he is a true fiscal conservative that wants neither private accoutns or ss. Private accounts are the same teet that ss is only instead of an insurance plan to combat the depressions that occur in economic cycles it will become a risk plan that has no safety net, place, or theory in economic cycles. If you all beleive in being conservatives you would call for payroll tax cuts so you can invest the money on your own. Not bureaucratic red tape big government programs running your 401k. But grover norquist and repubs are against payroll tax cuts because they would benfit the majority of americans. And Republicans only give tax cuts to the wealthy elites.
All over tv I can find examples of hate-mongering from the right, from dobson to hannity, to rush, falwell, robertson, coulter, the list goes on endlessly. They do more than call someone ignorant(which is the truth in all your cases), they call for the death of liberals, gays, minorities, etc. So don't parrot right wing echo chamber talking points about how mean liberals have been to you. Do you hear that? It's the world's smallest violin playing just for you.
"I've debated all of the above mentioned issues with Republicans/conservatives/libertarians, and never gotten anywhere NEAR as much condescending trash talk from them as I have from you."
Where at? Right wing blogs don't have comments sections that you can post. Go to the free republic and post something on there that is against repubs. You will be banned from the site. Again don't make shit up to try and back up your phony claims. You have always been and always will be a republican. Anyone can make up a phony id for themselves online.
"Just ignore erik and his side of absolute truth so we can all get back to the original discussion. If you continue responding to his posts he'll continue to defame, demean and denigrate anyone who offers an opinion or fact contrary to his 'truth'."
The trolls here are people like you and the privitization crowd. We are among like-minded people. Go to a right wing blog and talk amongst like-minded people. Oh that's right, right wing blogs don't have comments to post. We beleive in freedon and open-two way communication. But you have to be based in reality not faith, and you can't ignore facts and the truth.
"I'm 28 and since Bush has been in office, I pay $2200 less in taxes a year, my salary has increased by $40000, I purchased a house, I bought 2 new vehicles, and I have put a good bit of money into my 401k."
Anyone can make up an identity for themselves. Knowing your aversion for the truth I'll have to say that I don't beleive a word you say. Nor can I prove your numbers because they cannot be deemed factual or reality.
My plan would be some elimination of the cap. A couple that I like would be to eliminate the cap over 200k or 500k. Also we should go back to a seprate budget for ss/medicare/medicaid. This was done away under lbj(the second worst president next to gw) who began raiding ss and medicare medicaid to fund the budget and debt, deficit and debt problems. It extrapolated under reagan when he raised payroll taxes and created the trust fund, to create more money for his out of control spending. He had the largest deficits as a percentage of gdp. He then began raiding this newly created trust fund to pay down his ever rising debt and unbalanced budgets.
These plans are also progressive taxation. Do you not beleive in progressive taxation? Do you not beleive in the what made this country the world economic power after wwii? Do you not beleive in thoght on progressive taxation in capitilism as spoken about by adman smith? It's our practice of capitilism in this manner that has made us successful and adam smith the father of modern capitilist thought.
I've seen no one refute my view on taxes or even attempt to answer my questions. So I will post for you to specifically answer. If you don't then just go away. Can you ignorant fucks not have an honest or truthful debate?
Freedom, privacy, opportunity, prosperity, open two-way communication, cooperation and community-building, trust, and honesty are values that we should get and deserve from our government. These aren't the values preached by conservatives who want you to fear and hate your government. Hate the governmnet that our founding fathers built for us.
Taxation is paying your dues or membership for having the opportunities to work and do business in our Free society that is America. If you join a conutry club or a community center you pay fees. Why? You did not build the swimming pool. You have to maintain it. You did not build the basketball court. Someone has to clean it. You may not use the free-weights but you still have to pay your dues. Otherwise it won't be maintained and will fall apart. People who avoid taxes, like corporations that move to Bermuda, are not paying their dues to their country. It is patriotic to be a taxpayer. It is traiterous to desert our country and not pay your dues, especially in a time of war.
Perhaps Bill Gates, Sr. said it best. In arguing to keep the inheritance tax, he pointed out that he and Bill Jr. did not invent the internet. they just used it-to make billions. there is no such thing as a self-made man. Every businessman has used the vast American infrastructure, which the taxpayers paid for, to make his money. He did not make his money alone. He used taxpayer infrastructure. He got rich on what other taxpayers had paid for: the banking system, the Federal Reserve, the Treasury and Commerce Departments, and the Judicial system, where 9/10ths of cases involve corporate law. These taxpayers investments support companies and wealthy investors. There are no self-made men. The wealthy have gotten rich using what previous taxpayers have paid for. They owe the taxpayers of this country a great deal and should be paying it back. Do you believe that those that came before us and after us should foot the bill for the me generation?
If you want to pay less taxes then you must demand that the wealthy pay more. Our tax system was fair once when it was progressive. But the burden has been shifted away from wealth. And work is being taxed in it's place.
"If dems admit this is a problem, why don't they want to provide a solution that is better than the repubs solution. I mean, it can't be that hard to find a better solution than the repubs if you believe as Erik does that the solution proposed by the repubs is absolutely terrible. This is ridiculous."
Thereisnocrisis.com. There are much bigger problems with medicare/medicaid, healthcare, deficits, and debt than with ss at this time. Dems can't propose a plan. The Repubs have yet to offer a plan ignorant. Empty rhetoric doesn't count as a plan. When a bill comes before congress then bush and repubs have offered a plan.
Turn off the radio and fox news and stop listening to rnc talking points. You become much smarter when you read and think for yourself.
erik you've just gone off the deep end. Say hi to Howard Dean when you get to the bottom.
Yep, I don't even know what to say to Erik. According to Erik, you can't argue ANYTHING until it is a bill in congress. I didn't realize gov't was that powerful that we can't even argue a change in a gov't program until congress proposes a bill. Why then does Hans keep posting things on a blog site about Bush's plan for privatization? There is no bill in congress.
Semantics, semantics, semantics. You have to be Howard Dean or Dick Durbin's son. This is just getting to be too much.
I have already broke down how much less I pay in taxes and why. Child credit, marriage penalty eliminated, and lowest tax bracket raised.
As far as me buying a house, I can't prove that, but the highest home ownership ever in American should be enough proof.
I am saying that the money doesn't belong to me as it is just another form of taxation. Fleming v Nestor highlights that the money going into SS is not something I can claim as a right. SS is an agreed upon obligation that the gov't and the citizenry share. I know there is a problem with the fiscal sustainability of the program, but there doesn't seem to be a problem with the wealthiest Americans raking in money via capitialist endeavors and tax breaks that are labeled as economic incubators but really are a means to funnel my and your money to the cats on the top. You want to fix SS, Medicare, repeal the tax cuts, put money back into the system. Instead of creating a larger debt, which we will have to pay, invest in our society for the long term. Let the rich eat cake for once. You have failed to respond to the large economic drain the less fortunate will have our society as social programs are starved and dismantled. We all better wake up before there is no turning back. When the economic bubble bursts, and sh*t starts flying, we will have no one to blame but ourselves.
Duppyconquerer
From Erik, in response to this latest diatribe of his:
Show me the Republicans plan. Show me the plan that Bush is offering before congress that is being debated in both the house and senate. A bill that is being voted on. Why isn't there one? This is why I don't and nobody else beleives people like you. Because you blame one side(Dems) for something that the other side(Repubs) who's responsibility it is make the proposal.
The Repubs are the majority that sets the agenda. Bush and the repubs are in the majoirty if they beleive privitization is the way to go, why have they not offered their privitization plan to the country and allow the debate of said plan on it's merits? Take a political science course and you would know how our government works. The majority sets the agenda and the debate. The minority has no power to propose a plan for ss. What is the presidents plan? Not the empty rhetoric that he traveled around the country espousing at the taxpayers expense. At our expense to the tune of millions of dollars.
Where is the bill, the plan, the concrete piece of legislation that says Bush beleives in privitization so the congress can debate it on it's merits. So the question that I told you and the privitization crowd that you need to ask above can be discussed. Like I said the ignorance of people like you is the reason the debate is muddled. The process has nothing to do with Democrats. The process goes through Republicans.
You ignorant fuck. Are you really that stupid?
Funny how you call me an "ignorant fuck" (real classy, by the way, gotta love the maturity of the liberal left), and then you completely disregard the fact that the President has endorsed a plan- the Pozen plan- and has done so since the end of April. What kind of logic is "there has to be a bill to be a plan?" That's ridiculous logic, and it only goes to show your irrationality, Erik. A PLAN leads to A BILL when the time is right, not vice versa. We've all defended and discussed the Pozen plan dozens of times on here, but I'm sure you disregarded that when you chose to be ignorant of everyone else's points here, instead choosing to run around calling people "ignorant fucks."
You didn't answer my challenge. I asked you ONE simple question- show me the liberal left's solution for Social Security, and show me, as a member of the sub-30 class, WHY it is good for me, and WHAT benefits it brings me and the rest of my generation. Erik, you chose to totally ignore the question, and I'd like everyone else here to be fully aware that Erik chose to try to change the subject when I asked him for POSITIVES about his side's solution to this.
I knew you wouldn't answer, Erik. You want to know why? Because you've got nothing. You ARE nothing. You BELIEVE IN nothing. You merely believe AGAINST things, because that is what the liberal left has come down to. Disgusting political movement, consisting of disgusting people like you. You're lucky you're on the Internet, hiding behind your computer screen to call people "Ignorant fucks" with- incendiary bomb-throwers like you are the first to get punched out in real life.
And a much deserved punch it would be.
So go ahead, answer my challenge or I will take it as an admission from you- Erik the irrational liberal himself- that you've got absolutely nothing positive to offer in the Social Security debate, and that people should just stop wasting their time with you if they want to see progress. Present your side's plan- or even semblance of a plan- and show us positives, or quit.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110006842
anon, good link, but watch out erik will be coming along calling you a right-wing echo for posting what many believe is an economic fact. A fact that is proven not by one but two tax cuts in this nation's history.
anon #2 "in response to erik" - good points, but don't hold you breath waiting for erik to divulge the Democratic plan, if he can even find one, because so far the only course of action he supports is higher taxes on everyone from middle class and small business owners to those who pay the most taxes, the evil rich.
I don't know about everyone else, but I'm still waiting for Hans to explain to the youth in America the RTV plan that will save Social Security and why we should support the continuation of a system that unconditionally taxes us 12.4% each payday.
I have issued that very challenge to both Hans and Erik- clearly the two most liberal posters here on this blog- and neither of them have answered.
Hans has been challenged for about a month now. Erik, about a week. Neither of them address the positives of what THEY have to offer- all they do is demagogue the opposition.
It is disgusting.
"Yep, I don't even know what to say to Erik. According to Erik, you can't argue ANYTHING until it is a bill in congress. I didn't realize gov't was that powerful that we can't even argue a change in a gov't program until congress proposes a bill. Why then does Hans keep posting things on a blog site about Bush's plan for privatization? There is no bill in congress."
And that's exactly what we are doing is discussing. But you said that dems have no solutions. You said dems are just against Repubs. It goes both ways. Unfortunately you and the privitization crowd only blame dems. But you directly contradict anony's post that the president has endorsed a plan(he hasn't) The presidernt has said that nothing is off the table. He also beleives that their should be some form of private account. He has also said that we can raise retirement age, raise the tax cap, etc. Are these endorsements anony? Are they Sean you idiot, who seems to think that someone got me? Only facts can get me and you privitization idiots have offered none.
The only ones that would get knocked the fuck out would be you 30%er's. Because man-to-man I don't argue with 30%er's.
When a bill or policy intitiative is put before congress than a plan is being debated. This is where the repub majority would tweak the presidents proposal. Then they would pass it and then if the president agrees with his repub majority he would sign legislation(Bush has vetoed none of the repub majority's bills that have made it to his desk).
That's polisci or governemnt 101 folks. Can the privitization crowd stop being ignorant now?
There is no challenge because you are an idiot. Because I have thoroughly debunked everything that you have said. I don't deal with someone who doesn't deal in facts, truth and reality. I have told you various ways how ss benefits all and what proposals come from the liberal/progressive. They all involve SS. Not privitization. Our plan is SS. Here's one: It has reduced poverty among seniors by over 50% to under 10%. If you can't tell the benefits of that on society than you are an ignorant fool who just hates government, our democracy, and capitalism. If you are going to claim that their is a problem with ss going broke in 2042 then you are an even bigger fool.
If you had a splinter in your finger and a bullet in your stomach which would you get looked at first? That's the problem with ss. It is a splinter in your finger. Medicare/medicaid is a larger looming fiscal crisis than ss(and goes broke first), our deficits and debt, healthcare, etc. These all need resolution before ss.
So why is this being pushed? Because repubs don't like ss. They could care less about you getting your money. If they did they would just cut payroll taxes.
Now answer my question. What benfits comes from privitization. I already showed that gao and ssa concluded that the galveston plan is inconclusive at best and proves that ss is better at worse. That is the only legitimate non-partisan/bi-partisan study. The chile and british systems are utter failures. So how does privitization benefit our generation?
I don't need government for retirement. I have plenty of a nest egg that i am building on my own(that's called personal responsibility for the those parrots that don't know used to be a conservative value). SS will be icing on the cake.
If you are relying on a government handout to fund you in retiremnt than you are in big trouble. Are you a welfare queen?
By the way the repubs are in the majority they can push this through at any time why not do it? So the repubs can play politics by trying to sway public opinion but the dems cannot do the same. This is the problem with the entire little r republican crowd. They don't like it when the people start pushing back. They like it when everyone shuts up and goes along with their agenda. Not gonna happen.
I've answered you continuously. You are a 30%er who just parrots rnc talking points and offers only faith based idealogy that can't be backed up with facts. People see through you childish antics claiming to win with no facts. Just like a good little monkey boy little r would do. Keep listening to rush, sean, fox, bill, and the rest of the right wing echo chamber. You will get no where in life. Start reading son. You got a lot of catching up to do before you can gain the knowledge that I have.
My lord erik, you've gone from semi-civil to down right drooling idiot in a matter of days, congrats.
I would like to point out a few things when you are discussing matters with people.
1) Telling people you won't answer their questions because they are "fucking idiots" or that no challenge can be issued because you consider them idiots is not the best way to help people engage in debate.
2) After degrading individuals who have not shown an ounce of venom towards you personally (your opinions are another matter) based solely on their view of the facts makes it unlikely that they will answer any more questions from you.
Also, when debating people that Social Security is the best thing for the nation and that we should all be taxed 12.4% for the betterment of society its best not to comeback with the following remark:
"I don't need government for retirement. I have plenty of a nest egg that i am building on my own(that's called personal responsibility for the those parrots that don't know used to be a conservative value). SS will be icing on the cake.
If you are relying on a government handout to fund you in retiremnt than you are in big trouble. Are you a welfare queen? "
Basically you just stuck out your middle finger and said do as I say, not as I do. If you do feel that way then many of the posts here that have linked your opposition to SS reform to some manifested hatred of GWB are correct. You have no reason to oppose SS reform based on your own omission and self-proclaimed love of personal responsibility, however you continue to belittle those who believe in personal responsibility and want SS to flourish under that same responsibility.
Basically erik, you've just confirmed what many here already posted, you sir are a hypocrite.
To the idiots who like to use rnc talkings points invoking the name durbin/dean:
GOP comparing Democrats to Nazis
Raw Story:
Last June, then-Bush campaign manager Mehlman defended an ad that contained footage of Adolf Hitler interspersed with images of Democratic leaders including Al Gore, Dick Gephart and John Kerry. The campaign defended the images, saying they were taken from a video on MoveOn.org.
Mehlman said it was used "to show the depths to which these Kerry supporters will sink to win." The video was later removed.
Mehlman is not alone. A raft of Republicans in Congress have invoked Hitler and Nazism on issues from stem cell research, to abortion, to taxes and the environment.
White House confidante Grover Norquist, known for his blistering attacks on U.S. taxes, likened the estate tax to the "morality of the Holocaust" in October 2003.
"The argument that some who play to the politics of hate and envy and class division will say is, 'Well, that's only 2 percent -- or, as people get richer, 5 percent, in the near future -- of Americans likely to have to pay [the estate tax]," he told NPR. "I mean, that's the morality of the Holocaust: 'Oh, it's only a small percentage. It's not you; it's somebody else.'"
After being criticized for his remarks, Norquist expanded them in 2004 to include Democrats.
"The Nazis were for gun control, the Nazis were for high marginal tax rates.... Do you want to talk about who's closer politically to national socialism, the Right or the Left?" he told the Jewish newspaper The Forward. He also "told the Forward that he would not hesitate to use Holocaust comparisons in the future."
A Republican senator invoked Nazism when criticizing stem cell research last year.
"We certainly have all seen the rejections of Nazi Germany's abuses of science," Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) declared regarding his opposition to stem cell research last October. "As a society and a nation, there ought to be some limit on what we can allow or should allow."
In response to a ruling on abortion last September, Congressman Steve King said following law on reproductive rights equivalent to a Nazi guard saying he was following orders.
"That, Mr. Speaker, is a `modern-day' equivalent of the Nazi prison guard saying 'I was just following orders,'" he said on the House floor Sept. 8, 2004. "It was all legal in Nazi Germany at the time."
Another senator even compared the Kyoto climate treaty to Nazism, repeating a quotation from a Russian official.
Sen. James Inhofe said Oct. 11, 2004 that Kyoto "would deal a powerful blow on the whole humanity similar to the one humanity experienced when Nazism and communism flourished."
The Oklahoma Republican added, "The world has certainly turned on its head that we Americans must look to Russians for speaking out strongly against irrational authoritarian ideologies."
Sen. Tom Cole (R-OK) dragged out Hitler to hit Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry.
"Cole Claims a Vote Against Bush Is a Vote For Hitler." KTOK radio in Oklahoma blared last year.
"Republican Congressman Tom Cole claims a vote against the `re-election' of President Bush is like supporting Adolph Hitler during World War Two," the station reported. "It's what he said recently before a meeting of Canadian County Republicans."
Cole later codified his statement, saying through a spokesperson: "What do you think Hitler would have thought if Roosevelt would've lost the election in 1944?"
Others, too, have likened Democratic policy to Nazism. Former Sen. Phil Gramm (R-TX) compared a Democratic tax plan to Nazi law in 2002.
"Now, forgive me, but that is right out of Nazi Germany," Gramm said. "I don't understand ... why all of a sudden we are passing laws that sound as if they are right out of Nazi Germany."
Fact is, the GOP will happily resport to Nazi references when it suits their petty agenda.