by Elsewhere 49 Replies latest jw friends
Absolutely. Why then, do you believe, that such donations have to be taken by force?
By force? *looks around*. Um, are you trying to tell me that Uncle Sam is holding me at gunpoint?
If by force you mean mandatory, yes. I know plenty of people who wouldn't give a dime if not for SS.
What sort of social systems do you have over there in Ireland?
Robyn
By force? *looks around*. Um, are you trying to tell me that Uncle Sam is holding me at gunpoint?
Um, yes. Try not paying your taxes for a while. Eventually, you will literally be held at gunpoint.
If by force you mean mandatory, yes. I know plenty of people who wouldn't give a dime if not for SS.
So why should they be forced to? Does the money they earn belong to them or not?
What sort of social systems do you have over there in Ireland?
A typically European mix of capitalism and socialism. It provides ever-increasing handouts for the unemployed (especially long-term unemployed) and single mothers at the expense of hard-working taxpayers.
I sense a great ignorance about economics on this board.
CRR - I'll have to admit that economics continually baffles me. But you proposing that liberals are afraid of hard work is ridiculous and a typical stereotype. Similar things are said about minorities simply because they make up the lowest economy ranks, which is equally ridiculous.
People are not AFRAID to work two or three jobs...they are AFRAID of not seeing their family or getting to enjoy life while they have it. This is not simply about unemployment numbers and social security. This country has an ever increasing gap between the poor and the rich that is very disturbing.
Social Security is a socialist safety net which I have no problem contributing to. To me the idea of privatizing it goes along with everything else Bush has done. It matches the obvious values he was given being raised as a rich boy. Social Security is to help those who were not able to help themselves. The people who it helps the most are those that were not able to invest money wisely or climb to the top (or even get on the ladder to begin with) and have a decent retirement. If you privatize it and let them invest it themselves, what do you think will happen? They'll mismanage the money, no doubt, which is why they need social security in the first place. Social Security is especially for people who NEED HELP, who are not the best at making money or investing it for the future. Privatizing it is simply telling them they are on their own.
I wonder what would have happened if we could have taken a slice of the cost of the War in Iraq and put it to Social Services? Oh wait, then the terrorist boogeymen would get us. Phew! Good thing we have a brave man like W to protect us.
I don't pay into ss...but a big chunk does go into TRS (our own retirement system), which does make private investments...
Big difference...we vote on the people who will manage our money. Whoever the president is will appoint someone to do likewise. If it's this crowd, SS money will go to Halliburton, Betchel, Harken and Enron. having the government set up individual accounts will have one of three results:
1. A much more expanded bureaucracy. all of those people need their accounts taken care of individually, and expect that kind of service. since the government is doing that now, we need to spend some tax loot to provide for this.
2. Inadequate care. Hey, who wants more red tape? just staff these new services with the bare minimum, because we need to SAVE our tax dollars and not waste them on government suits. result...I can't manage my accounts on account of someone at the SSA being swamped.
3. The worst of both worlds. Conservatives love to talk about total waste of resources that serve no purpose, and honestly, they've been right before. It could happen here.
You mean to tell me that 70 years after FDR implemented the most ambitious series of progams that saved American Capitalism from an endless depression and likely revolution, Republicans...The same ones that said they appealed to the "Roosevelt Democrats"...are going to piss on his grave?
The first question that comes to mind when tax money is spent privately should be "Who's getting rich off this?"
Republicans say that big government doesn't work...and then they get elected and prove it.
You mean to tell me that 70 years after FDR implemented the most ambitious series of progams that saved American Capitalism from an endless depression and likely revolution, Republicans...The same ones that said they appealed to the "Roosevelt Democrats"...are going to piss on his grave?
FDR intended to replace the New Deal Ponzi scheme with individual accounts. He meant for them to be included from the beginning, but was shut out by leftist Democrats who wanted a populace reduced to serfdom on their Communist Estates of America.
He was a smart guy, a really really smart guy, who KNEW that the scheme would not last forever as it was designed (which was an emergency provision for the Depression). He intended for this replacement to have happened a long time ago; he just died before he could get around to it. WW2 didn't help either.
The longer we wait to do it, the more it is going to hurt. Real Roosevelt Democrats would understand that and face the challenge head on, instead of hiding from it and hoping it goes away.
CZAR
FUNKYDEREK-
So I?m starting to get the feeling you?re arguing from a Libertarian stance?read any John Hospers lately? It?s certainly interesting enough but has holes all the way through the philosophy. It might be described as immoral for a government to ?take by force? money in order to support programs like Social Security. I argue that it?s more immoral for a government to stand by and let people fall though the cracks of the system.
On top of this, we in the US live in a republic, which means it?s not a government of minimal function. We elect paid officials to decide what to do with our money. Unfortunately, most of these officials listen to special interest groups rather than the people that vote for them and pay their salaries. So, arguing that it?s wrong to force people to pay into Social Security and not give any control to people paying money into SS doesn?t make any sense when we pay tax money that we have no control over. It doesn?t matter who earned the money. It gets put into the system anyway. Would I rather the money I put into the system go to an elderly person instead of one of my senators taking her family on an extravagant holiday? YES, I would. Do I lean towards socialism? Yes, I do. But remember it?s possible to have a socialist democracy.
Please explain to me what exactly Clinton did that created jobs and what Bush has / has not done to create jobs?
Well, how about for starters, passing an economic plan that balanced the budget and that would create a surplus. This created an environment where confidence was very high. Manufactuers increased the size of the workforce and everything hummed along quite nicely. We're talking 22 million new jobs over an 8 year period. When he said "It's the economy, stupid" in his campaign, it wasn't an empty promise, but one acted on. (passed without one single republican vote, i might add)
Before 9-11, Bush started in by totally negating the surplus that he was left. He has continued it by allowing this atmosphere of outsourcing everything you can while giving huge tax cuts to the richest segments of our society and not making corporations pay their fair share. Remember the $300 checks we all got in the mail? That wasn't "our money"...all that was is a loan against whatever refund we were going to get when we filed our taxes later that year. It was a PR stunt pure and simple. Then this administration and congress exacerbates the problem by increasing tax cuts to the wealthy, all the while spending like a drunken sailor, increasing the debt of our nation and weakening our financial position to the point where the majority of big player bankers in the world now choose to deal in Euros rather than Dollars, as has been traditional. People are nervous and the consumer confidence numbers continue to show this. When business owners are nervous, they tend not to expand, as we have been seeing lately.
Also, please understand that my position is that Mr. Bush's plan isn't a good one. In fact, many legitimate voices in economics seem to be of the opinion that this isn't a good idea. I would like to see more of a social security plus plan. One where the protections of social security are left in place but where people are encouraged by other incentives to save for their own retirement, and not in some forced way where their options will be limited, but where they will have a base that is secure. This way, they won't be totally screwed because of the whims of the marketplace.
JMO, of course...
Ern
(of the "neither Republican or Democrat" class)
under74:
So I?m starting to get the feeling you?re arguing from a Libertarian stance?
Pretty much. I prefer a lower-case "l" though.
read any John Hospers lately? It?s certainly interesting enough but has holes all the way through the philosophy.
I haven't actually. Never even heard of him until now. I've read a lot of Ayn Rand though, which has probably influenced my thinking somewhat.
It might be described as immoral for a government to ?take by force? money in order to support programs like Social Security. I argue that it?s more immoral for a government to stand by and let people fall though the cracks of the system.
I argue that it's not the function of government to stop people "falling through the cracks". I have always been of the opinion that "that government governs best which governs least". If you think it's immoral to stand by and do nothing, there is absolutely nothing in a free society to stop you from jumping in and doing something about it.
On top of this, we in the US live in a republic, which means it?s not a government of minimal function.
I live in a republic too, as do the people of China, at least nominally.
We elect paid officials to decide what to do with our money. Unfortunately, most of these officials listen to special interest groups rather than the people that vote for them and pay their salaries.
Which is what always happens when people are given the power to spend money that they didn't earn, with no real accountability. Can you understand why I don't want that happening with my money?
So, arguing that it?s wrong to force people to pay into Social Security and not give any control to people paying money into SS doesn?t make any sense when we pay tax money that we have no control over.
No it doesn't, unless you also argue that taxation should be abolished. Which I do.
It doesn?t matter who earned the money.
It matters to me.
It gets put into the system anyway. Would I rather the money I put into the system go to an elderly person instead of one of my senators taking her family on an extravagant holiday? YES, I would.
If so, wouldn't it be great to have the choice? You could spend all your spare cash on old people, someone else could invest it to provide for their children's future, someone else could blow it all on drunken orgies. Those who did not have money to live on would have to rely on the generosity of people like yourself (and indeed the vast majority of people) who care enough to do something for them. If you had the choice, I'm sure a much higher proportion of your money would go toward those who are unable to provide for themselves, rather than those who are just unwilling.
Do I lean towards socialism? Yes, I do. But remember it?s possible to have a socialist democracy.
It's possible to have a racist democracy as well. That doesn't make it right.
It matters to me.
But it doesn't to me. I want to know that I'm taxed and that the tax money goes to help people that need it in my country and that if need be, I can get that help too.
Those who did not have money to live on would have to rely on the generosity of people like yourself (and indeed the vast majority of people) who care enough to do something for them.
No. This is why there were institutions known as poorhouses or workhouses at one time. People aren't that generous. And I think the government needs to step in to make sure that all it's citizens are taken care of.
But I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
BTW- Hospers wrote"What Libertarianism Is" an essay I'm sure you can find as well as many other works. It's an interesting read.
But it doesn't to me. I want to know that I'm taxed and that the tax money goes to help people that need it in my country and that if need be, I can get that help too.
That sounds almost exactly like insurance except you have no choice in whether you invest or the amount you invest and you have no legal rights to any payout if you need it. Premiums and payments are entirely at the whim of a corrupt government.
No. This is why there were institutions known as poorhouses or workhouses at one time. People aren't that generous.
Except you, right? If people really aren't that generous by choice, should they be forced to be in a democracy?
And I think the government needs to step in to make sure that all it's citizens are taken care of.
Taken care of by whom? Obviously by other citizens, as they are the government's only source of money. What exactly gives one citizen the right to be taken care of, and another citizen the obligation to take care of him. Where does this end? If the government decides you have to spend two hours every week changing the bedclothes of incontinent old woman, are you obliged to do so? It's a good cause, right?They can't do it themselves. If given the choice, people wouldn't do it. Should they be forced?
But I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
Never!
BTW- Hospers wrote"What Libertarianism Is" an essay I'm sure you can find as well as many other works. It's an interesting read.
Thanks. I'll look it up.
