Of Course They Want Free Pie and Chips
July 7, 2006, 4:04pm
Social Security reform has fallen far, far off the political radar. Gay people are trying to become monogamous, and Kim Jong Il is going to blow up America anyways, so who wants to waste time debating the future of entitlement spending? Fortunately like Patrick Swayze and C. Thomas Howell fighting on against the invading Cubans, there are some reformers who refuse to give in.
S4, the leading force behind today's push for Social Security reform, has a sweet idea to communicate the essence of what is our great social net: free Snickers.
Students were drawn into the game by the prospect of winning a full-sized Snickers bar, but once they got to the front of the line and played an easy "drop the ball in the bucket" game, all they would get was a teeny-tiny mini Snickers bar. By the same time they registered their outrage, a deadpan epiphany hit: "We're getting screwed."
Affirmative Action bakesales may be high profile, but this bit of theatre actually makes a point.
Ron Hardin | July 7, 2006, 6:50pm | #
There can't be a trust fund. The government has to return all money collected to circulation immediately, or the economy starves for money. The government can't save.
The ``contributions'' are a tax, and an excellent one : it's a flat tax with no deductions or exclusions and everybody (earning wages) pays it. It would be even better if it extended to all income, the rate was raised to (oh) 20%, and the income tax was dropped.
To say you could do better saving privately doesn't understand what's happening. You could do better saving your income tax too, but what does that have to do with running government? That's what the taxes are for, both income tax and social security.
Now, not only can't the government save for your retirement (a minor paradox, that the government can't save), neither can the whole population, a major paradox! If everybody saves for their retirement, and you have the demographics of today, then everybody will be buying today, and selling at age 65 - driving up prices today, and driving down prices at age 65. Guess what? You can't retire at 65 because your nest egg disappears in an adverse price move.
The invariant is that the workers support the retirees, and if there's too few workers, it won't work.
In the case of SS, simply raise the retirement age until you get the balance you need (without cutting benefits). In the case of private savings, you have to work longer before you can retire, so that more time is spend buying and less selling, the same balance.
Demographics drives the retirement age the same way either way.
Johnny | July 8, 2006, 9:19am | #
Tim Cavanaugh,
My GF's mother did everything right, supposedly. Worked for the same company for 30 years. Invested in the 401k plan there, even though they had a pension fund.
Problem? The law allowed the company to invest the 401k and pension funds as they would. The company went bankrupt. What she got? $7,000.
Oh, I can see the belief that the government that governs not at all governs best. But...I'm glad in her case that there was an insurance program in effect. She now has vascular dementia. If it wasn't for SS we would now not only be housing her, but paying all of our potential savings into nursing care during the hours we work (preventing us from saving for our own retirement).
Of course than we could just go roman, take her to the woods and leave her there.
While I loathe defending the "government", I also ask...how do you really expect people to give up this insurance? Doesn't you arguement work for all kinds of insurance? After all, if your savings are healthy, why bother wasting money on insurance?
Once again, I'm not arguing against reform. I'm just asking, what argument would you use in a conversation with my GF, after she has seen her mother try to do everything right, but suffered because the law, the government, gave her corporation less personal responsibility than she was expected to have? They were practically encouraged to take risks with the contractual obligations to their employees.
In the long run, at the present time, many Americans BELIEVE, right or wrong, that SS reform will only increase the number of destitute among older americans.
It's important to note here that I do believe in SS reform, however, I also believe that the only reason the Republicans do, is that they like the fear that this inspires in the populace. It will make them better workers.
And the fact that I believe that is the conservative motivation, rather than personal responisibilty (a republican canard), makes me move with extreme Skepticism.
Of course this falls under one of the many reasons I went from considering Libertarians lovers of liberty, to considering them yippies for capitalism.
Also why I consider libertarians merely pawns on the republican chess table. To be used as cover.
Johnny | July 8, 2006, 12:10pm | #
Folks, these are all fine points that can be argued in the context of libertarian ideology.
However, there are precious few libertarians in America, and believing in at least limited democracy, I was not asking how you would move me. I am moved, I cannot see how these amount to much more than strawmen arguments. Try admitting the possibility that I am sincere.
Try a brickman argument. If the .gov has corrupted the system so that only SS works, than should not those other reforms be attempted first?
For instance tarran "Government officials are diseases masquerading as their own cure.' Fine and good, and I agree with you, yet even I know of no way, at this point in time and history, of getting rid of "government", I have many ideas about encouraging my fellow Americans away from the dependency, but to eliminate these officials at this time would create a power vacaum that would soon be filled by others seeking power. So I seek to control, rather than eliminate (only at this time...learn to walk, then fly).
And Pig Mannix "I doubt there's any argument I can make that will convince somebody that was the beneficiary of a government program."
You have just failed debate 101. No one who doesn't agree with you will listen. You have failed in the most basic human comprimise, the useful use of language, and indicated yourself to be as much part of the problem as those who love the .gov. Even Buckley would slap you. You get the Rush award.
I am asking a serious question. If you want reform, please, an argument that does not invalidate the rules of logic as an opening gambit.
Frankly, I don't think SS scores very high on the reforms we NEED to make, I believe we start at the beginning, not the end, perhaps only jcarver gets this in some small way with "The argument should've been made to her mother earlier on not to trust the government or her employer."
I live in this way, and frankly, I don't know that I can acvocate paranoia as a way to satisfy "the pursuit of Happiness", even though right now it seems the only viable solution.
Why SS now? When we have a president who belives (but has been unable to make stick) that he can hold any American, for any reason, on his say so, without recourse to the courts.
Why SS reform, before other reforms. Why this, why now, if you are not Republican lapdogs?
This is why so many of us cannot, and will not, call ourselves libertarians, it is not that we don't agree. We just don't think you are going to accomplish what you say, we think you will only increase the power of government in the future.
Johnny | July 8, 2006, 12:58pm | #
Yes crimethink, which is why I am trying to present the argument in a different light.
Why should America listen? Not just your fellow libertarians.
The quality of an argument cannot be exclusively be judged by how it excites the troops, but can it influence actual change? Too often, libertarians are awfuly disdainful of the mechanics of democracy.
Something the founders practiced, dontcha ya know.
Unless you want to live in a country where all changes are top down, and are centralized in the hands of those who hold the power. Perhaps you do? But I think not, so, the question is, how to convince those who are not in agreement, not those who are.
I remember something. I live in an amazingly free country, one in which there is an extreme danger of moving away from that freedom, and like the founders, I wish to adhere to a more Socratic format, rather than a Marxist one, which, to at least some degree requires consensus among the citizens. So, arguments for those who disagree, rather the rallying the troops.
Unless you belive that concensus is not possible? Perhaps the Com/Cap attempts of China are more to this boards liking? I would hope not.
