An alternative approach to solving the Social Security mess

[Mr.Vicchio]

Quote by: kharmajunkie It is welfare when some 25 year old slacker gets ssi because he's bi-polar or some other psychological/emotional problem that can be treated and the patient can still work (he hasn't paid into the system, it's defacto welfare).. It happens all the time and if you go to a social service agency for related problems, most likely you'll be encouraged to apply. Vic, I'm still waiting for that source regarding your statement that we never had a balanced budget or a surplus in the 90's. What's the matter, is Sean Hannity not answering his phone today?

No, I'm still waiting for proof anything I post willl be even looked at by you.

Oh wait, it won't.

The concept of a surplus is a fallacy. There was NEVER a surplus. There was a projected surplus based ont eh economic "boom" of the tech bubble.

[Gorgo]

Where is this place that you're talking about?

Quote by: donkrabbit You've found no reasonable a priori evidence that a price system controlled by the forces of supply and demand allocate resources in a way that is more productive and efficient than allocation by central planning?

[fushigi]

Quote by: donkrabbit No. I am in favor of the radical idea that each individual be responsible for his own decisions. The "safety net" is the option not to make risky investments.

Well donk, I'm not sure if the problem is that I'm paternalistic or that you give people too much credit, but not everyone in America has the wherewithall of concerned intellectuals like those who post here - including you - nor is as responsible about their future as I am. Personally, I started a 401k plan at age 18. I work hard and plan to have a well-paying job until at least age 65. I don't gamble or fritter my money away on worthless consumer goods nor bury myself in unnecessary debt. But people do. Members of my family, even - simple, blue-collar workers in Michigan. It drives me crazy to watch it. They're going to need someone's help in old age, and I can't support them all no matter how I try.

And as much as America is built on the ideals of personal self-sacrifice and achievement - and these ideals are good - there will always be these people. Their poor decisions will reduce them to poverty in old age, and 20th century U.S. history tells us that the government will step in to support these people. But any pleasure I derive from saying "see, I told you so, this private accounts approach has flaws" will be overwhelmed by the sense of frustration at spending even more money to fund a system that is equally flawed.

[Autolykos]

Quote by: Gorgo That's what I said. If you want to end government interference, then everyone owns everything. Government is the way that society tells us who owns what. You want to make private "defense" tell people who owns what? That's called robbery. Yes, that happens in government, but only because so many people think that we have a "free market." That's the fault of education, not the government. Government is only a tool.

It seems that you are either unable to understand the concept of private property rights, or you adamantly refuse to believe in its possibility (let alone reality). Therefore, further debate with you seems to be impossible.

If you're ever curious about private property rights in the future, I suggest reading the works of Robert Nozick.

- Rob

[Autolykos]

Quote by: Gorgo Why do you assume that it is me that is not comprehending?

Because your response did not address my question directly. Rather, it attempted to deny that the question could exist in the first place.

My point was: if the government takes your money by use or threat of force (which it does), it is theft, even if it spends it on you. I don't expect you to understand this, however, as you seem to think that property rights come exclusively and necessarily from government.

- Rob

[Autolykos]

Quote by: Scribbler1 Perhaps, but we don't know, having not done it so that point is moot.

There is such a thing as making reasonable assumptions about people's possible behavior. I put forth that the savings rate generally increases in proportion to income. Therefore, if people did not have SS, Medicare, and income taxes taken out of their paychecks, they would be more likely to save more. So, the point is not moot.

As I mentioned earlier, dropping SS at any time without a backup plan invites massive welfare expenditures and we can't fix this by going after IT alone.

I agree, but I don't think anyone is suggesting to categorically drop SS like a hot potato. The only way to viably end it is to grandfather it out, as someone else in this thread suggested.

You mean the SAME churches and private charities which are constantly raising money and saying they don't have enough to do the work they already DO? Again, that hasn't happened so you can't use that as a viable alternative.

Barring any government money they receive, they depend only upon donations. Now let's see here: about 40% of the average American family's income is taken by all levels of government. So, if those families had that money in their own pockets to spend instead, I wager that many of them (if not most) would give more to charity. I cannot say for certain, of course, but then nothing is certain.

In 40 or 50 years, maybe. In the meantime I don't need Chicken Little Bush telling me the economic sky is falling when he does not now, nor EVER had the remotest clue as to the value of a dollar. And Bush must realize that he CAN'T propose dropping it suddenly, as he might not have to worry but the REST of his party likes to get elected and reelected.

The economic sky is indeed falling, but not really as Bush describes. Basically, the American economy, and thus the world's economy, rests on a house-of-cards debt structure thanks to American consumers, the U.S. government, and the Federal Reserve. This economic situation is untenable in the long run and has tried repeatedly to correct itself. However, the government/Fed obstinately prevents the markets from correcting themselves. Anyways, this is all rather off-topic, so I'll just end here.

- Rob

[Autolykos]

Quote by: Scribbler1 Correct me if I'm wrong but to recieve most of the SS benefits you need to PAY into it first. That's what the government is telling me when they send me the info on how much I've paid and how much I'll be entitled to.

Yes, but it's not your own money that you get when you come to collect SS benefits. That money has long since been spent. Thus, it is essentially a welfare program.

- Rob

[Gorgo]

Where does it come from? Jesus?

Quote by: Autolykos I don't expect you to understand this, however, as you seem to think that property rights come exclusively and necessarily from government. - Rob

[Mr.Vicchio]

Gogro, serious question, why do you live in the USA? You have a mindset that all power derives from the government, and that we, the citizens are at tthe whim of the governemnt.

I.E. you seem to have the mindset the constitution grants powers to teh Government. That is how you see it yes?

[Gorgo]

Why do they allow you on these forums, Vicchio? Did we establish that?

If you'll recall, the government is supposed to be, "We the People." The idea is, and I know this has been corrupted by criminals like Bush and Clinton, but "We The People," decide what it is that the government is, and why it is.

My remark about property means that it is the people that decide what property is. One of the vehicles they use to decide that and deal with that is the government. People act as if this idea came from Jesus or something. The idea of property did not come from Jesus, it came from people getting together to decide what property is. The system of taxation is part of that process. Now, do I think that the people who benefit from this system should be the ones paying most of that bill? Yes. Do I think they are? Not really. That would allow mistakes in deciding who owns what, in the mythical free market, to be repaired by the system. Do I think Social Security should be reformed? Yes, I think all people should be given a minimum of certain things period, not just old people. I think everyone should have access to education, housing, transportation, health care, etc. This world is wealthy enough for that. Since we have Social Security, I think it should be improved, not killed, as Bush and his criminal friends would like.

[Mr.Vicchio]

I was invited by one of the members of this forum to be a pro-Bush voice to counter the the voices of "bash bush" like yours. A forum with no dissenting voice often dies a miserable death and doesn't grow.

That's why I am here.

You want a socialist America. America had the chance, in 2000, 2002, 2004 to vote for the party of socialist/progressive ideals. They rejected that party, and show no signs of returning to the such anytime soon.

You call Bush and his friends criminals. Are they really criminals, or are you just so innundated with the hate of the left that you cannot debate anything Bush or the right does without resorting to unfounded, unsustainable attacks?

Besides, what you really want, all ready exists, I am just amazed that you don't move to those places instead of living in a country you feel is lead by criminals, is headed away from the ideals you espouse and rejects as a whole, your notions. You are the minoirty, a fringe minoirty. If I were in your shoes, I'd pack up and move.

[kharmajunkie]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio Quote by: kharmajunkie It is welfare when some 25 year old slacker gets ssi because he's bi-polar or some other psychological/emotional problem that can be treated and the patient can still work (he hasn't paid into the system, it's defacto welfare).. It happens all the time and if you go to a social service agency for related problems, most likely you'll be encouraged to apply. Vic, I'm still waiting for that source regarding your statement that we never had a balanced budget or a surplus in the 90's. What's the matter, is Sean Hannity not answering his phone today? No, I'm still waiting for proof anything I post willl be even looked at by you. Oh wait, it won't. The concept of a surplus is a fallacy. There was NEVER a surplus. There was a projected surplus based ont eh economic "boom" of the tech bubble.

Vic I read everything you post; nice shot though, disingenuous but effective if read by your fellow Fox
followers.
I understand what you're saying about the surplus, I'm referring to your comment some pages back where you said the budget was never balanced. Did my little mind misunderstand your statement?

[kharmajunkie]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio I'm not, the budgets weren't balanced. They were the result of the abnormal "tech bubble" and the economic boom that went with it. When it busted, so did the governments budget. The budget was all ready busted before Bush even TOOK office. Which is something you are conviently ignoreing.

This is the post I was referring to Vic.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: Autolykos Yes, but it's not your own money that you get when you come to collect SS benefits. That money has long since been spent. Thus, it is essentially a welfare program. - Rob

Wrong again. You have already PAID into the system before you collect. Welfare is one way only. SS is a two way street.
I'm done.

[donkrabbit]

Quote by: Gorgo Where is this place that you're talking about?

What do you mean? When did I ever mention a specific place? It's true of all free markets.

Note that I described the evidence as being "a priori." This is the most useful type of evidence when it comes to proving economic conclusions. It's not a matter of certain "places."

[donkrabbit]

Quote by: fushigi Well donk, I'm not sure if the problem is that I'm paternalistic or that you give people too much credit, but not everyone in America has the wherewithall of concerned intellectuals like those who post here - including you - nor is as responsible about their future as I am.

How does any of that invalidate property rights?

The issue isn't whether or not some people deserve charitable donations. The issue is whether or not these payments should be voluntary or forced. I never argued against private charity. What I am arguing against are government transfer-payment programs (such as Social Security) which contridict property rights and force people to give to a cause that they may not necessarily have given to if they were not forced to do so.

Quote by: fushigi And as much as America is built on the ideals of personal self-sacrifice and achievement - and these ideals are good - there will always be these people.

These two things seem to be a contridiction.

A "sacrifice" is when something of one value is traded for something of a lesser value. "Achievement" can be defined as effort that resulted in something of a higher value. If America was "built on the ideals of personal self-sacrifice and achievement," then what is being achieved?

[Gorgo]

Where are these places with free markets?

Quote by: donkrabbit What do you mean? When did I ever mention a specific place? It's true of all free markets. Note that I described the evidence as being "a priori." This is the most useful type of evidence when it comes to proving economic conclusions. It's not a matter of certain "places."

[donkrabbit]

Quote by: Gorgo Where are these places with free markets?

Again, I don't understand what you mean. Simply repeating the question didn't make it any more clear. Your question refers to a certain place as if it had been the subject of my claim, but I didn't refer to any specific places in my claim.

I also don't understand why, when I (twice) described the evidence in support of the claim as being a priori, your next (and only question) would be for empirical evidence. It seems like quite a contradiction to me. Do you not acknowledge a difference between a priori and a posteriori knowledge? A priori evidence is important in the field of economic theory (which is what is being discussed here), because they are not limited to what has been tried in the past. They acknowledge that humans are conceptual beings (not merely perceptual) and that this allows them to prove what the results of a certain policy will be, even if this policy has never before existed in history. Economic theory would be severely limited if it only dealt with a posterior knowledge.

[fushigi]

Quote by: donkrabbit What I am arguing against are government transfer-payment programs (such as Social Security) which contridict property rights and force people to give to a cause that they may not necessarily have given to if they were not forced to do so.

If you can show me one example in a country where state funds for those without the means to provide for themselves was absent, and private giving did a better job, please illuminate me.

[donkrabbit]

Again, you're distorting my argument.

My argument was not that Social Security should be abolished and private charity be emphasized because private charity does a better job at aiding the needy. My argument is (and has always been) that Social Security should be abolished because it violates property rights.

The reason why I brought up private charity was because your posts seemed as if you were attempting to persuade me that some people need charity. I never denied that charity can be a good thing. I was showing that there is not a dichotomy between supporting statist transfer-payment programs and neglecting those in need. The difference between Social Security and private charity is that Social Security forces people to "donate," while private charity respects property rights.

The fact that Social Security is more effective at helping those in need does not justify the theft that is necessary to fund it.