Social Security: if you had a choice

[Iriemon]

Way to straw man.
Money can not be murdered or killed. It is not alive in any way, to any degree, at all. Money has no legal standing or afforded protections as a "person" on any state or federal level. Money has no claim to a right to life, as it can not be identified as either a human being nor a sentient information system. A ZEF, however, can be.

In any event, rape is a common pro life exception to banning abortion. It is sertanly one of mine. So there again your comparison does not fly.

Don't take it out on me; I wasn't the one who interjected abortion into this debate; it was the others who made that argument.

 

[Jerry]

Don't take it out on me; I wasn't the one who interjected abortion into this debate; it was the others who made that argument.

….point being that the choice to abort would be denied per the rights of the aborted, but the choice to pay is denied not per the rights of the money (= fetus by comparison).

The equivalent to mandatory payment of SS is mandatory abortion so that “the less fortunate” can have the stem cells. Both pregnancy and a job require the use of bodily resourses. In taxes, the use of one’s bodily recourses is represented in money, which the gov. then forcefully takes, just like it would the fetus with mandatory abortion.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

OK, you think we should elminate the SS program and to the hell with everyone who paid into it to date.

Well, why not?

Actually, the government's made a promise, and people past a certain point in their lives are depending on that ponzi scheme to live. I not only fully recognize this, I addressed it.

Since it doesn't benefit you, to hell with everyone else. That is consistent with your philosophy.

Yes, it is. Unlike you, I have a consistent philosophy. That's advantage of libertarianism over any other ideology.

 

[Kandahar]

Yes, it is. Unlike you, I have a consistent philosophy. That's advantage of libertarianism over any other ideology.

The downside to your "consistent philosophy" is that you demagogue every single issue (although you happen to be correct on this one).

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

You have halved the SS receipts, which is not even close to being sufficient to pay current SS benefits, much less future obligations.

No, I eliminated them completely. I said stop taxing the worker, and make the employer give their matching tax directly to the employee. That cuts the tax totally.

You are arguing for a new tax, roughly double the size of the current SS tax, where the government controls how I can invest my money? No thanks.

So, first off, note that I said "sales tax". Know what a sales tax is? It's a voluntary tax. People that don't buy things subject to the tax do what with their money? Ohhh, if they can't SPEND it, they'll be SAVING it, which is what the government allegedly wants people to be doing. What a shocking idea.

And right now, the government takes the full amount of money it gets in FICA taxes and spends it, without "investing" a dime. But this doesn't bother you? You want the system to remain as it is?

I agree on means testing.

Go ask an old fart getting on an airplane for a trip to Europe. See what he thinks of the idea.

Tell your conservative friends in Congress to get on the ball. They've done nothing for six years to cut spending.

Ah, partisan blindness, ain't is a wonderful thing? I blame Congress. Every Congress since 1935 when The National Socialist Security Ponzi Act was implemented.

What sales taxes? I support a balanced budget law.

As you see, sales taxes have a purpose in life.

I'm all for cutting spending. Probably not the same way you are, though.

No, you can name any number of socialist driven unconstitutional things the government should steal money to finance. I can't name a one I support.

I don't recall SS being held unconstitutional, or even a serious debate about it. Apparently most disagree with your claim.

Oh, only if a judge makes a ruling is it in violation of the Constitution? You're not capable of reading the document and making your own mind up about whether a proposal fits inside it's limits?

And, it can never be said enough, the majority is almost always wrong.

You have freedom to choose. You can move to Mexico or some other country where you don't have to deal with SS taxes.

No, those are socialist paradises built along lines you people like, and as usual, you people seem to think that you can violate my constitution and order me to leave if I don't like it. Being a patriot, unlike you, I'll stay and fight the enemy on my home ground. Y'all are the enemy of freedom, after all.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

The downside to your "consistent philosophy" is that you demagogue every single issue (although you happen to be correct on this one).

I happen to be correct on all of them.

 

[Kandahar]

I happen to be correct on all of them.

No. Politics is not that simple. Not every issue can be reduced to the same two or three talking points about government having no right to take your money, or to interact with you in any way other than to stop you from shooting your neighbor. Are you against taxes for military and police? How about roads? How about the enforcement of anti-monopoly laws?

You're an ideologue, and you're unwilling to recognize the fact that occasionally government regulation is a good thing and that you don't have absolute rights to your property. In GENERAL, protection of property rights is a good thing, but it's not an ironclad rule of the universe. So stop braying about your "consistent philosophy," when all you're really doing is proselytizing a dogmatic religion.

 

[Iriemon]

….point being that the choice to abort would be denied per the rights of the aborted, but the choice to pay is denied not per the rights of the money (= fetus by comparison).

The equivalent to mandatory payment of SS is mandatory abortion so that “the less fortunate” can have the stem cells. Both pregnancy and a job require the use of bodily resourses. In taxes, the use of one’s bodily recourses is represented in money, which the gov. then forcefully takes, just like it would the fetus with mandatory abortion.

Hmmm. Personally, I see some distinguishing characteristics between abortion and payment of taxes.

 

[Iriemon]

Well, why not?

I have explained my opinions several times why I support social insurance.

I like living in a society where we don't have hordes of cripples, the infirm and the aged living under freeways and begging on the streets. That is my view.

That is the kind of society you want to live in and it doesn't bother you. Fair enough. We are entitled to our opinions.

Originally Posted by Iriemon
Since it doesn't benefit you, to hell with everyone else. That is consistent with your philosophy.

Yes, it is. Unlike you, I have a consistent philosophy. That's advantage of libertarianism over any other ideology.

What is inconsistent about my philosphy?

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Well, why not?
.....I have a consistent philosophy. That's advantage of libertarianism over any other ideology.

See, thats why I would rather be pragmatic in my thinking than just purely ideological. Consistent philosophy is just another way of saying that your way of thinking is set in concrete regardless of the circumstances. Moreover, a consistent philosophy based in pure ideology is not usually a virtue. Fidel Castro has a "consistent philosophy" so did Stalin and Chairman Mao. Those guys never wavered in their ideology. Unless someone is always right, which unless they are Jesus Christ is impossible, a consistent philosophy and the closed mind that goes along with it will only insure that they are often wrong.

 

[Iriemon]

No, I eliminated them completely. I said stop taxing the worker, and make the employer give their matching tax directly to the employee. That cuts the tax totally.

OK, I misunderstood you.

So, first off, note that I said "sales tax". Know what a sales tax is? It's a voluntary tax. People that don't buy things subject to the tax do what with their money? Ohhh, if they can't SPEND it, they'll be SAVING it, which is what the government allegedly wants people to be doing. What a shocking idea.

We don't have a sales tax -- I didn't understand you were proposing a new tax system, which is not the issue of this thread.

And right now, the government takes the full amount of money it gets in FICA taxes and spends it, without "investing" a dime. But this doesn't bother you? You want the system to remain as it is?

Hell yes it bothers me a lot. The Govt should stop irresponsibility borrowing 25% of what it spends every year.

Go ask an old fart getting on an airplane for a trip to Europe. See what he thinks of the idea.

Don't disagree with you.

Ah, partisan blindness, ain't is a wonderful thing? I blame Congress. Every Congress since 1935 when The National Socialist Security Ponzi Act was implemented.

Every Govt over the past 25 years except from '93-2000 (when the deficits were eliminated) is what I blame.

No, you can name any number of socialist driven unconstitutional things the government should steal money to finance. I can't name a one I support.

No surprise.

Oh, only if a judge makes a ruling is it in violation of the Constitution? You're not capable of reading the document and making your own mind up about whether a proposal fits inside it's limits?

And, it can never be said enough, the majority is almost always wrong.

Take it up with them. I agree the majority is almost alwasy wrong; however, I am the only one I have found who is almost always right.

No, those are socialist paradises built along lines you people like, and as usual, you people seem to think that you can violate my constitution and order me to leave if I don't like it. Being a patriot, unlike you, I'll stay and fight the enemy on my home ground. Y'all are the enemy of freedom, after all.

Great. How come you're not in Iraq?

 

[ALiberalModerate]

...I like living in a society where we don't have hordes of cripples, the infirm and the aged living under freeways and begging on the streets. That is my view....

That is where you are wrong. In the United States, we as a nation have decided that we are not going to be a nation where we have hordes of cripples, the infirm and the aged living under freeways and begging on the streets. That is not just your view, that is being an American.

The selfish and greedy right wing always characterizes Social Security as a government program invented by government. That is simply not the case. We elected a president and a congress that created the Social Security program on our behalf. We have consistently elected congresses and presidents ever since that we made sure did not abolish our program. In fact, the surest way for a politician to guarentee they are not reelected is to try to abolish or fundimentaly change Social Security. When people have a problem with the philosophy behind Social Security, they don't have a problem with the government, they have a problem with America and what it stands for.

 

[Kandahar]

That is where you are wrong. In the United States, we as a nation have decided that we are not going to be a nation where we have hordes of cripples, the infirm and the aged living under freeways and begging on the streets. That is not just your view, that is being an American.

Nations can't just "decide" those things. They have to ensure enough economic freedom to make those conditions possible. The reason the United States doesn't have hordes of cripples living on the street has nothing to do with social security; it's because we don't have hundreds of social security-like programs to cripple the economy.

There aren't many modern countries that still cling to hard-core welfare statism (most of Europe is moving away from that). For an example of one of the last holdouts, look at France. It supposedly provides for its citizens from cradle to grave, yet there is a lot more abject poverty in France than in the United States, and its economy is dysfunctional at best.

The selfish and greedy right wing always characterizes Social Security as a government program invented by government. That is simply not the case. We elected a president and a congress that created the Social Security program on our behalf. We have consistently elected congresses and presidents ever since that we made sure did not abolish our program. In fact, the surest way for a politician to guarentee they are not reelected is to try to abolish or fundimentaly change Social Security.

This doesn't prove anything, other than that the voters are often stupid.

When people have a problem with the philosophy behind Social Security, they don't have a problem with the government, they have a problem with America and what it stands for.

This is a thinly-veiled rewording of "If you don't like my view of America, get out!"

 

[Iriemon]

Nations can't just "decide" those things. They have to ensure enough economic freedom to make those conditions possible. The reason the United States doesn't have hordes of cripples living on the street has nothing to do with social security; it's because we don't have hundreds of social security-like programs to cripple the economy.

I agree that an overly lavish welfare system disincentivizes people to work or save, which is why I have stated my opinion that SS should provide minimal sustenance level support for those who need it.

On the other hand, your statement "The reason the United States doesn't have hordes of cripples living on the street has nothing to do with social security" is flat wrong. Tens of millions live on SS and not much more, if you cut it off they be on the streets in short order.

 

[Iriemon]

This doesn't prove anything, other than that the voters are often stupid.

You certainly don't have to blame me, they gave us Bush in 2000 and confirmed it in 2004.

That has always been a criticism of democracy, but to paraphrase Winston Churchill, Democracy is the worst damn system of government every invented, except compared to all the other ones.

 

[My_name_is_not_Larry]

heh, this is why I like the SS issue. There are logical arguments on both sides. Privatizing promotes the citizens choice of what he wants to do with his money and allows the benefit of him knowing where his money is going. Keeping social security raises the standard of living and benefits health care, or at least as long as the program has money, that is.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

No. Politics is not that simple. Not every issue can be reduced to the same two or three talking points about government having no right to take your money, or to interact with you in any way other than to stop you from shooting your neighbor. Are you against taxes for military and police? How about roads? How about the enforcement of anti-monopoly laws?

You're an ideologue, and you're unwilling to recognize the fact that occasionally government regulation is a good thing and that you don't have absolute rights to your property. In GENERAL, protection of property rights is a good thing, but it's not an ironclad rule of the universe. So stop braying about your "consistent philosophy," when all you're really doing is proselytizing a dogmatic religion.

Taxes for military or police? Surprisingly, the military and the police are both facets of the "government exists to protect the freedom of it's citizens" jewel. Also, neither could be rationally "privatized" for that very same reason. So taxes of some form are required to support this function. Sales taxes and tariffs are two forms of voluntary tax, though IMO sales tax provides for less intrusion in the market and is thus preferable.

A proper government can't support a coercive monopoly and free markets never support coercive monopolies, hence there's no need for anti-trust laws.

I've never said that some form of government regulation isn't necessary. There are thieves and con-men out there, and they can't all find jobs in politics, after all.

Example, all states regulate warranties of mechantability, so when I buy a packet of chicken breasts from the store, and find they're stinking rotten when I get home, the store is required to refund my money, since the sold product did not meet the basic expectations of function presumed to exist at the time of purchase. Government is expected to control fraud. That's again part of the "protection" function. Can't do that without some form of rules.

In GENERAL a society that lacks ironclad protection of private property discovers that as time passes more and more property comes under government control.

If I don't have absolute rights to my property, then it's not my property, it belongs to whomever gets to override my decisions on what to do with it. That's what ownership means, after all.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Hmmm. Personally, I see some distinguishing characteristics between abortion and payment of taxes.

Yes, you can only kill the baby once, but taxes never die.

 

[My_name_is_not_Larry]

Yes, you can only kill the baby once, but taxes never die.

My Financial Lawyer had a funny nickname for taxes.......God......

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

We don't have a sales tax -- I didn't understand you were proposing a new tax system, which is not the issue of this thread.

Ah, the hide behind the Off-Topic Button ploy. Actually it's related because the discussion is evolving into a what to do about it? topic. After all, if someone says to ****-can Socialist Security, the next natural question is "okay, now what?". Sales taxes are a possible what.

Hell yes it bothers me a lot. The Govt should stop irresponsibility borrowing 25% of what it spends every year.

Well, you see, an honest person says that government should stop irresponsibly spending 33% more than it has every year.

Don't disagree with you.

More people should take your advice in this regard.

Every Govt over the past 25 years except from '93-2000 (when the deficits were eliminated) is what I blame.

The deficits weren't eliminated in that period. The spending balanced only because the Socialist Security funds were being stolen to finance current expenditures. Any manager of any fund that did that would be in jail, but Congressmen are immune.

Take it up with them. I agree the majority is almost alwasy wrong; however, I am the only one I have found who is almost always right.

Well, you got me, and then you can erase the "almost".

Great. How come you're not in Iraq?

I'm fighting the enemy at home. Besides which I've got MY honorable discharge hanging on the wall for six years of service.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

That is where you are wrong. In the United States, we as a nation have decided that we are not going to be a nation where we have hordes of cripples, the infirm and the aged living under freeways and begging on the streets. That is not just your view, that is being an American.

No, fifty per cent of the elected representatives plus one voted to impose a ponzi scheme on the rest of the people, and they've succeeded every year since to retain the same pyramid scam. "We" as a people didn't agree to squat. I wasn't alive when the chains were forged.

Being American is about being free, not about being taxed.

The selfish and greedy right wing always characterizes Social Security as a government program invented by government. That is simply not the case.

That's true, Charles Ponzi was the private entreprenuer who invented the concept. Government has never invented anything. Ponzi went to jail, though.

Also, a person earning money by trading his skill, time, and labor at a job for agreed wages isn't selfish for expecting to keep those wages for himself, nor is he greedy. The greedy people are those who did nothing to earn the money but who expect to get a piece of it or control how part of it is spent.

We elected a president and a congress that created the Social Security program on our behalf.

No, they created it for their behalf, namely to get votes, and I don't recall ever voting for FDR. Funny, but I think he was dead by the 1960's.

We have consistently elected congresses and presidents ever since that we made sure did not abolish our program.

No, "WE" have not. Some of you, perhaps, but not "we".

In fact, the surest way for a politician to guarentee they are not reelected is to try to abolish or fundimentaly change Social Security. When people have a problem with the philosophy behind Social Security, they don't have a problem with the government, they have a problem with America and what it stands for.

America stands for pyramid scams, theft, and deceit? As well as dependency, sleaziness, and selfishness? Amazing. And here I was thinking America was founded on a Declaration of Independence that defined man's freedom and a Constitution that was supposed to protect it. Silly me.

 

[Kandahar]

Taxes for military or police? Surprisingly, the military and the police are both facets of the "government exists to protect the freedom of it's citizens" jewel.

But I didn't ask if the government has the right to maintain military and police. I asked if they have the right to tax you to pay for it. If so, surely some of that money will go to things other than protecting the people, and therefore falls outside your narrow definition of what's acceptable taxation.

Also, neither could be rationally "privatized" for that very same reason. So taxes of some form are required to support this function.

Since when has rationality stopped libertarian ideologues from wanting to privatize things? According to you I have an absolute right to my property, so what if I don't want the police or military to protect me?

Sales taxes and tariffs are two forms of voluntary tax, though IMO sales tax provides for less intrusion in the market and is thus preferable.

Any tax is "voluntary" by that definition. If you don't buy things you don't pay sales tax, and if you don't work you don't pay income tax.

A proper government can't support a coercive monopoly and free markets never support coercive monopolies, hence there's no need for anti-trust laws.

This is idiotic. If there are no anti-trust laws than the only differences is that you'll have unelected morons from Standard Oil coercing you, instead of elected morons from Congress.

I've never said that some form of government regulation isn't necessary. There are thieves and con-men out there, and they can't all find jobs in politics, after all.

Example, all states regulate warranties of mechantability, so when I buy a packet of chicken breasts from the store, and find they're stinking rotten when I get home, the store is required to refund my money, since the sold product did not meet the basic expectations of function presumed to exist at the time of purchase. Government is expected to control fraud. That's again part of the "protection" function. Can't do that without some form of rules.

That's not what I'm talking about. Government has other functions besides protecting people from force and fraud, such as correcting market failures, which you have failed to acknowledge. Do you want toll booths on every street you drive on because they're all privately owned? Do you want to live in the People's Republic of Microsoft because there are no monopoly laws?

In GENERAL a society that lacks ironclad protection of private property discovers that as time passes more and more property comes under government control. If I don't have absolute rights to my property, then it's not my property, it belongs to whomever gets to override my decisions on what to do with it. That's what ownership means, after all.

But it isn't ironclad protection, even by your own standard. You're willing to make exceptions for the purpose of protecting people from force and fraud.

 

[Iriemon]

A proper government can't support a coercive monopoly and free markets never support coercive monopolies, hence there's no need for anti-trust laws.

Demonstrably false. Monopolies can easily be supported in free markets, particularly where the cost of entry is high. There have been lots of examples in oil, steel, telephone, and more recently, computer software, and many others.

Example, all states regulate warranties of mechantability, so when I buy a packet of chicken breasts from the store, and find they're stinking rotten when I get home, the store is required to refund my money, since the sold product did not meet the basic expectations of function presumed to exist at the time of purchase. Government is expected to control fraud. That's again part of the "protection" function. Can't do that without some form of rules.

Yep. And you should be able to work in a relatively safe environment, that is a function of Govt too. And a company should not be allowed to pollute unimpeded; engage in unfair methods of competition, hire children as labor, abuse their workers, sexually harass the women, discriminate based on gender race ethnic background religion or political affiliation, mislead the public as to its financial status, and on and on, which is why we have the rules and regulations we do. I agree that sometimes they go overboard, it's not always easy to draw the line.

If I don't have absolute rights to my property, then it's not my property, it belongs to whomever gets to override my decisions on what to do with it. That's what ownership means, after all.

In a sense it is not (exclusively) your property; it falls under the jurisdiction of the United States, and you are allowed to "own" it only pursuant to laws which reflect the right to own property. People have never been completely free in this country to do what they want with their property.

 

[Iriemon]

Ah, the hide behind the Off-Topic Button ploy. Actually it's related because the discussion is evolving into a what to do about it? topic. After all, if someone says to ****-can Socialist Security, the next natural question is "okay, now what?". Sales taxes are a possible what.

Sales taxes have been debated in the econ forum, open a thread there if you want to debate it again. IMO regressive tax structures aren't fair, but I would understand why you would favor it.

Well, you see, an honest person says that government should stop irresponsibly spending 33% more than it has every year.

Agree 100%

The deficits weren't eliminated in that period. The spending balanced only because the Socialist Security funds were being stolen to finance current expenditures. Any manager of any fund that did that would be in jail, but Congressmen are immune.

Not true. Govt total debt decreased over $100 billion CY00, meaning the Govt had balanced its budget (surplus actually) even without counting SS surplus payments. Including the SS surplus payments, the surplus was over $200 billion.

But I agree with your general sentiment. It is really outrageous and they should be thrown in jail.

 

[Iriemon]

Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernDemocrat
That is where you are wrong. In the United States, we as a nation have decided that we are not going to be a nation where we have hordes of cripples, the infirm and the aged living under freeways and begging on the streets. That is not just your view, that is being an American.


No, fifty per cent of the elected representatives plus one voted to impose a ponzi scheme on the rest of the people, and they've succeeded every year since to retain the same pyramid scam. "We" as a people didn't agree to squat. I wasn't alive when the chains were forged.

Being American is about being free, not about being taxed.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Iriemon
The selfish and greedy right wing always characterizes Social Security as a government program invented by government. That is simply not the case.


That's true, Charles Ponzi was the private entreprenuer who invented the concept. Government has never invented anything. Ponzi went to jail, though.

Also, a person earning money by trading his skill, time, and labor at a job for agreed wages isn't selfish for expecting to keep those wages for himself, nor is he greedy. The greedy people are those who did nothing to earn the money but who expect to get a piece of it or control how part of it is spent.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Iriemon
We elected a president and a congress that created the Social Security program on our behalf.


No, they created it for their behalf, namely to get votes, and I don't recall ever voting for FDR. Funny, but I think he was dead by the 1960's.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Iriemon
We have consistently elected congresses and presidents ever since that we made sure did not abolish our program.


No, "WE" have not. Some of you, perhaps, but not "we".


Quote:
Originally Posted by Iriemon
In fact, the surest way for a politician to guarentee they are not reelected is to try to abolish or fundimentaly change Social Security. When people have a problem with the philosophy behind Social Security, they don't have a problem with the government, they have a problem with America and what it stands for.


America stands for pyramid scams, theft, and deceit? As well as dependency, sleaziness, and selfishness? Amazing. And here I was thinking America was founded on a Declaration of Independence that defined man's freedom and a Constitution that was supposed to protect it. Silly me.

For the record, none of the statements attributed to me in this post were my statements.