To Social Security Privatization Supporters

[bishop]

this article's pretty interesting:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/....ap/index.html

seems that there's a republican out there who likes the idea of private accounts, but also wants to do this in a fiscally responsible way. he's advocating raising the tax cap and cutting benefits for those who need it the least.

from what i've gleamed from the article, it seems like graham's on to something. this is the sort of leadership the GOP desperately needs (although i completely disagree with graham on a number of other issues). if he succeeds in winning bipartisan support, i'm not sure if bush almighty will be able to turn down this compromise. he'd just have to break another one of his promises, that social security reform won't include raising taxes.

[donkrabbit]

Quote by: Scribbler1 More like an educated guess based on your boiler-plate rhetoric concerning this issue.

What was the "educated" guess based on? The fact that I said "The issue should not be limited to abolishing SS. The discussion should be on the abolishment of all government transfer-payment programs" wasn't enough to make you believe that I support abolishing all government transfer-payment programs and not just SS?

Stop trying to run from the burden of proof. Show me the evidence that lead you to believe that I support farm subsidies.

Quote by: Scribbler1 I'm pretty sure opinions are allowed here and I never implied otherwise.

Of course they're allowed here. But if you're going to make an accusation about me then you should expect that I would want to check your premises. You've yet to provide any.

Quote by: Scribbler1 BTW, the post you responded to was not aimed at you, so anything I said of a personal natire in IT was not for you so getting defensive is unnecessary.

The original post was not, but then in your next post you refered to me multiple times. In your own words, you "lumped me in with him."

Quote by: Scribbler1 Opinions, or the resulting conclusions drawn from them are not "logical evidence" for anything. They are opinions and you should understand this. Just as your "truth" is your opinion and one I don't share.

Argumentation involves conclusions that are validly supported by sound premises. What kind of discussion are you expecting to have by simply making baseless conclusions, and then calling them "opinions" as if they are never right or wrong and are immune to the burden of proof? Citing your "vibes" as your ownly premise is illogical

[donkrabbit]

Quote by: Scribbler1 Do you honestly believe the people who oppose SS would voluntarily pay for it, PARTICULARLY those who think the people who recieve it are themselves to blame for their situation? It would seem to be against human nature to vehemently oppose something run by the government and then offer to pay for it voluntarily. For the good of society, perhaps some people SHOULD be compelled to pitch in.

No, you misread my post.

If the subject of my first sentence is the supporters of SS, then you can assume that when I use the term "they" in my next sentence, that I am still refering to the supporters of SS. I wouldn't suddenly use "they" to refer to those who oppose SS when the last subject I mentioned was it's supporters- as you seemed to think I did.

The point is that those who oppose Social Security would not pay it if they were not forced to.

[bishop]

The point is that those who oppose Social Security would not pay it if they were not forced to.

oh yeah? how do you manage to get out of paying payroll taxes?

[donkrabbit]

Quote by: bishop oh yeah? how do you manage to get out of paying payroll taxes?

Huh? I didn't say anything about "getting out of paying payroll taxes."

Maybe I'm expecting too much of you guys to retain an abstracted point for the span of more than one post, or for Scribbler1 to grasp the basics of sentence structure.

The point was that abolishing Social Security also abolishes the initation of force involved in funding it. If Social Security were to be abolished, then those who opposed it would no longer be forced to pay for it, yet those who support it would still be able to do so. As the system stands now, you have no choice in the matter.

[donkrabbit]

Somebody please define Social Security in a way that is not theft.

[bishop]

not to make a short reply, but that's all that's necessary.

Huh? I didn't say anything about "getting out of paying payroll taxes."

my mistake, i didn't notice the "not" at the end. but,

Maybe I'm expecting too much of you guys to retain an abstracted point for the span of more than one post, or for Scribbler1 to grasp the basics of sentence structure. The point was that abolishing Social Security also abolishes the initation of force involved in funding it. If Social Security were to be abolished, then those who opposed it would no longer be forced to pay for it, yet those who support it would still be able to do so. As the system stands now, you have no choice in the matter.

something i don't think you realize is that most people here feel that we should have some sort of commitment to the elderly. call it theft, call it whatever, society doesn't really care about that argument - society supports the system. also, it doesn't seem like society as a whole has much sympathy for those who choose to horde and not participate in programs that serve the public good.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Some people want a socialist paradise americana bishop, don't mince words, be proud of who and what you are.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: donkrabbit Stop trying to run from the burden of proof. Show me the evidence that lead you to believe that I support farm subsidies.

This is getting tedious. First, I said: "Did you think it was worth the government "stealing" from you when they gave an unsecured $5 Billion-dollar loan to Saddam Hussein just prior to desert storm? How about paying farmers not to grow crops?" I was making a comparison to illustrate that I wasn't hearing much about other government giveaways.
Second, (and for the second time) I directed that response to Caspian88, and NOT YOU!
You may have misunderstood the post, didn't read what led up to the post, or you just like to butt in and take any comment you disagree with as a personal insult, regardless of the fact that it wasn't meant for you.
This side trip is taking the thread off-topic and it stops now. If you want to take it to PM or the flame fest, be my guest. But I have no intention of hijacking this thread any further simply to repeatedly tell you I was not posting those things to you.

[bishop]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio Some people want a socialist paradise americana bishop, don't mince words, be proud of who and what you are.

are you a moron, or just someone who loves to flame bait?

pull your head out of your rear and look at what i said should be done with social security before you begin to blather like an ignorant fool. post #117 (notice how payroll taxes would be eliminated):

An alternative approach to solving the Social Security mess

[Scribbler1]

It seems tempers are getting a little frayed here. Why don't we all take a step back and start over before it escalates, OK?

[donkrabbit]

Quote by: Scribbler1 First, I said: "Did you think it was worth the government "stealing" from you when they gave an unsecured $5 Billion-dollar loan to Saddam Hussein just prior to desert storm? How about paying farmers not to grow crops?" I was making a comparison to illustrate that I wasn't hearing much about other government giveaways.

And I showed you a quote from a post I had made a mere four days before, and in response to one of your posts;

"The issue should not be limited to abolishing SS. The discussion should be on the abolishment of all government transfer-payment programs."

You've yet to acknowledge this contradiction or admit that your accusation was false.

Quote by: Scribbler1 Second, (and for the second time) I directed that response to Caspian88, and NOT YOU! You may have misunderstood the post, didn't read what led up to the post, or you just like to butt in and take any comment you disagree with as a personal insult, regardless of the fact that it wasn't meant for you.

You directed multiple claims towards me. These are the claims I was responding to. You yourself even admitted that you "lumped me in with him." If you didn't lump me in with him, then why did you apologize for doing so? Here's an example of the claims that were directed towards me (you seem to want to make it appear as if you were only addressing Caspian88 and that you never addressed me);

" If you or caspian want to appear more evenhanded and avoid just looking mean spirited and greedy, a more across the board condemnation of unfair taxes would work."

" I don't recall either of you doing that at any time."

"Forgive me if I'm wrong but for that reason it just looks as if you don't really have a problem with welfare unless it is for the individual and not for the rich and powerful."

"More like an educated guess based on your boiler-plate rhetoric concerning this issue."

All of these are your quotes, and all of the "yous" were in reference to me (they were all in direct response to my posts). You did make multiple claims about me, and these are the claims I am addressing. Please don't try to go back and distort the situation to make it appear as if you were never talking about me.

Quote by: Scribbler1 This side trip is taking the thread off-topic and it stops now.

Don't you think you were the one to originally take the thread off-topic, when you brought up (seemingly out-of-the-blue) foreign aid and farm subsidies? You never explained what the connection was between opposing Social Security and supporting farm subsidies and foreign aid, since you maintained that it was not the Republican Party (the only connection I can think of).

[donkrabbit]

Quote by: bishop something i don't think you realize is that most people here feel that we should have some sort of commitment to the elderly.

I do realize that, and I think that's fine. They should do so.

I don't see the issue here as being whether or not the elderly should be supported. I think the issue here is how to best fund this support.

[bishop]

really? the essence of your argument is that your money shouldn't be used to fund it.

if given the choice whether/not to fund the system, how many people do you think would fund it? i wonder how many millionaires/billionaires would decide to fund it...

[donkrabbit]

Quote by: bishop really? the essence of your argument is that your money shouldn't be used to fund it.

No, the essence of my argument is that the purpose of government is to defend property rights, and that Social Security necessarily involves theft. The problem is not that my money is being used to fund Social Security. The problem is that it is being taken by force. I am not given a choice in the matter. I haven't said anything that should lead you to believe that I am opposed to charity, because I'm not. In fact, I support charity and think that "involuntary charity" is an oxymoron.

Quote by: bishop if given the choice whether/not to fund the system, how many people do you think would fund it? i wonder how many millionaires/billionaires would decide to fund it...

In an earlier post you implied that most people support the program. If this is the case, then they should also be supportive of giving the same ammount, voluntarily.

But that's irrelevant to my argument. I oppose Social Security for moral reasons- not altruistic utilitarian ones. Social Security should be abolished even if nobody would support it voluntarily.

[bishop]

In an earlier post you implied that most people support the program. If this is the case, then they should also be supportive of giving the same ammount, voluntarily. But that's irrelevant to my argument. I oppose Social Security for moral reasons- not altruistic utilitarian ones. Social Security should be abolished even if nobody would support it voluntarily.

while it may seem contradictory, i believe it's the truth. if given the choice, i seriously doubt that many people would voluntarily fund social security. poor people, living paycheck to paycheck, would likely keep the money to help pay their bills, and probably to afford some luxury goods. the wealthy would likely keep the money and either horde it in some fashion (including investments). you seem to have this great opinion of people, that they won't be greedy if given the chance. i don't share that opinion, as this country is ripe with greedy (as well as generous) people.

and, i'm supporting the notion of social security, for the poor, out of moral reasons. leaving them to depend on the charity of selfish people seems like an oxymoron.

i have said, of course, what i think should be done with social security. you must've overlooked it. what i advocated would completely eliminate the payroll tax. scroll down to the mid-bottom: An alternative approach to solving the Social Security mess

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: donkrabbit Don't you think you were the one to originally take the thread off-topic, when you brought up (seemingly out-of-the-blue) foreign aid and farm subsidies? You never explained what the connection was between opposing Social Security and supporting farm subsidies and foreign aid, since you maintained that it was not the Republican Party (the only connection I can think of).

I'm saying this for the last time, I did not aim that post at you and everything you have said since is based on a post I made to caspian88. Now drop it as you will not get any more public replies from me.
I'll be happy to debate you in any othert thread but this one, as you have personalized it and will not let it go. Now if you can, keep your posts on topic or take it to PM.

[fushigi]

donk, I read the article you posted from capmag.com, and I have a few questions related to the thread.

First, Binswanger (the author) continually refers to how Social Security "takes [money] out of the economy." Taking money "out of the economy" seems to imply that they're actually getting rid of it, as in burying it somewhere or burning it or something. But in fact, it seems that money would more likely go back into the economy by way of the stuff seniors buy: pharmaceuticals, mobile homes, denture creams, whatever. Isn't that right?

Second, Binswanger writes that $200 billion of the annual money procured through the SS tax "is doled out as loot to various pressure groups." Is that right? Anyone have any data on this? It would certainly paint my views dramatically on the subject.

[Autolykos]

Quote by: leftcider Privitization will cost at least $700 billion dollars to implement, because young workers who choose savings accounts will no longer be able to pay for the people taking from the system. Where is the government going to get the money? There are far cheaper and easier ways of solving this problem. Supporters of this measure: Where are you going to get this money and why spend $700 billion when there are far easier solutions (raise retirement age, tax wages after $90,000, etc.)? Our economic future is far more threatened by our massive debt than it is by minor problems in Social Security, and we should not worsen the debt problem when there is no real reason to.

Social Security is part of the massive debt.

That said, I do not support this "privatization scheme". I oppose Social Security, period, and as a matter of principle. If I could legally opt out of the system, I would. To me, there are two ways out of the current predicament: Grandfather it out, or watch it collapse catastrophically.

- Rob

[caspian88]

Sorry, I haven't been on lately.

I oppose all unconstitutional government programs and actions. Foreign aid of any sort is one of those. Aid to Israel? Nope. Tsunami aid? Nope. No foreign aid is constitutional and it should all be abolished.

As for other programs such as farm subsidies, those too are unconstitutional. Therefore, dump them.

Taxes are only there to pay for what Congress and the government can legally do. SS is unconstitutional. Foreign aid is unconstitutional. Subsidies are unconstitutional.