October 16, 2004
Some People...
I am not accustomed to people fervently believing that it is the government's proper job to wipe your butt for you.
I ran into one such person last night.
I'm sure he's a nice enough person, but I came to the above conclusion when he asserted that the Social Security Program is a legitimate extension of governmental power.
I'm not entirely certain why he is opposed to privatization of said program really, especially since that would require that the managing entity take reasonable steps to ensure that funds paid in can be paid back out. That nuance is something the government did not have the foresight to plan into the program, you know.
I'm not sure if people know it, but there is no actual social security account out there with your name on it and containing the money you paid into it. There just isn't. In fact, when you pay money into the Social Security Program, the money goes to the government and is spent in myriad ways.
When asked, the person with whom I was speaking said that the reason he wanted social security is because when he gets old or if something happens to him, he wants to make sure that someone is there to help him. He agreed that he is competent enough to invest his own money wisely enough to provide for those situations but he also said that most people are too stupid for that.
I tend to think better of most people, but my question to him was, "Why is it your fault that so many other people are so stupid?"
I didn't even get a chance to talk about the complete injustice of my property being siezed and used without my approval in ways contrary to my well-being totally without my permission.
But seriously, why is it anyone else's fault when some individual makes a rash of idiotic decisions with their life? Why should everyone else be held accountable when one individual flatly refuses to handle their own business properly? In a country founded primarily on the idea of individual rights, where do these people get off?
I just don't get some people.
Posted by Flibbertigibbet at October 16, 2004 10:00 PM
He's a nice fellow but boy oh boy he sure did have some logic problems. I got him to agree that Social Security will be busted before we reach retirement age but he was still against privatization. He thinks the government should just run it better.
"Do the same thing, just do it better."
If that isn't the Kerry election campaign slogan it should be.
And by the way - it was NOT my fault anyway. It was Fleur who kept you occupied through the end of that bottle. ;-)
What bothers me most about privatization isn't the idea because to me, I'm okay with having the money to invest how I choose to invest, what scares me is a combination of private investment of your future plus Bush as President. I don't trust having economic stability with him in office.
And while I see the gentleman's point that many won't invest wisely I see yours as well that it's not my fault they won't. However, even if its not my fault, I remember what prompted a Social Security program in the first place and if we ever got into a situation like that again, I would frankly support the government helping those who maybe aren't as smart as me. I still think the reason why we say they aren't as "smart" has a lot to do with inequality in opportunity. I think privatization would further that inequality. *shrug* Maybe it should but I wouldn't really feel all that great about my wise investments for retirement if that many more people would be left out in the cold even if its their own fault.
Britton, there's a concept called "pressure to perform." With the government giving the populace no choice in Social Security, there is a huge portion of Americans that don't and will never know how to invest. Why? After all, the government is saving for their retirement anyway.
Without Social Security, more Americans would be forced to plan for their own retirement. "Do or die" takes over. Those who are willing to educate themselves will succeed, those who aren’t will fail.
My 401k with Merrill Lynch, along with the rest of my portfolio, did nothing but boom the past few years while the rest of the economy was slumping. Why? Because I know how to diversify my investments. Social Security accounts for a huge chunk of my paycheck. If I could privatize, I'd have that much more for my retirement, which is still a good 40 years away.
Britton
I also think it would help you to understand that the President doesn't actually have a lot of direct control over the economy.
Many economists would argue that the situation in which Social Security was established does not bear the argument that Social Security was needed or even the right thing to do. It's not the right thing to do-- ever.
Inequality is a fact of reality. It's also the height of stupidity to wage war against reality.
And anyway, if you did make lots of money with your investments and you saw some of these poor, downtrodden masses in the gutter, you would be free to give some of your money to them. I, however, should not be punished by your soft-heartedness.
If anything,Trey,I hope you have learned the many different people that come to our house,have many different and wicked ideas.Every time you come here,you learn new things.I am sorry,I missed the whole conversation (because of being otherwise occupied.:-).
However...we do NOT need a "Nanny" system.They already seized the right to my own body an make me have aids-tests whenever the governmet wants too,against my will (or with a shot gun in their hand),so the last thing we need is MORE rights taken away.
I don't understand much of all this crap,really.I am just plainly TOO damn stupid.BUT,we all sleep with the governmet already,thats about as close as I want them.
Basic line,and IF I got this straight..I don;t need a governmet who keeps/takes MORE...I am in for the privatization,since I would like to see my hubby to have,some time,a little bit back of the money he paid into it for all these years.
Sorry I had to take all the N out of Goverme*t because when I left them I wasn't allowed to post because of "questionable content:me*" (had to leave the N out again!
Why you tryin' t' talk dirty on my website?
I agree with everything you said. While I don't think you should be "punished" for my soft heartedness and I understand the idea of "pressure to perform" isn't there some theory that discusses that if everyone participates in private investm*nt, overall it lowers the value of your performance?
And what would have been the appropriate alternative to Social Security? I agree something needs to be done...not sure what is the best way to do it. And what would you propose is the best way to move towards privatization. It doesn't seem Bush has a very good idea of how to do that. I'm not asking because I'm challenging, honestly curious what your thoughts are on the subject?
The alternative to Social Security, in terms of what the government should be doing, is nothing. The government should not force people to practice wise financial planning.
My idea is that the government should just give everyone their money back.
And Bush certainly does not have a good plan for dealing with any of this because he's the sort of person who thinks that it is the government's job to wipe people's butts.
And where do they come up with that money to just give it back?
And a bigger question...when you have a situation where something like the Great Depression happens lets say and there is a large amount of Americans who are unemployed and you have bread lines and this and that...something of that magnitude. And agreeably it isn't the "job" of the government to "wipe their butts", what exactly happens then? Nothing? People starve? I guess I just don't get how that is a good thing.
Keep in mind, the reason all those people were in the bread lines during the Great Depression was because of government intervention.
The stock market crash wasn't due to irrational speculation. The market was destabilized due to arbitrary forces imposed upon on the economy by the government. What kinds of forces? At the time it was tariffs.
The United States economy has never been able to thrive completely free from government perversion. The U.S. economy--the greatest in the world--is only a fraction of what it could be without interference from the government.
They took the money, don't you think they would know where they put it? I can safely say that the government spent our Social Security contributions and more on other things the government should not do.
The proper role of the government is to protect the rights of individuals for force or fraud. It is neither a good thing nor a bad thing in the eyes of proper governance that people starve as long as they aren't starving because someone robbed them or something.
I guess that is a little broad for me...as long as someone doesn't rob them? So if you lose your job because your employer was conducting illegal activities...or lets say you worked for Enron and lost your pension a year before retirement...isn't that sort of like robbing someone blind? And then what in your opinion is the job of the governm*nt? Merely to put the criminal behind bars or to help you out? I agree with Matt that the governm*nt wouldn't have to feel the need to take care of those in need if the markets were free to run themselves because you might not have as many people in need in the first place. However to say that it was the governm*nt's fault does not give an answer of what to do when that happens if you think Social Security was not the right path? Sure you could fix what the governm*nt was doing wrong but that would not immediately put millions back to work and put food on their tables.
Actually I would be confident of where the money was if it hadn't been stolen by Bush the last four years. Four years ago we would have had enough to move to privatization if he thought it so important. But now it's spent and it'll cost $2 trillion more than what is in there to pay back what is owed to baby boomers facing retirement.
Also what is your stand on taxes that go to state governments to fund thinks like public transportation, highway maintenance, schools, etc.? Are those things the duty of the government as well in your opinion?
Oh dear. I don't think this is the time or place to carefully outline every aspect of political philosophy, but that is what appears to be needed.
Force or fraud - that's what the government protects individuals from.
If a company is involved in forcefully or fraudulently denying individuals their property, then it's a crime. If an individual loses their pension just because the business goes under, well, that's very unfortunate.
The government most certainly should not be involved in building streets, running schools, transporting the public, regulating trade or ANYTHING except protecting individuals from those who would violate their rights by force or fraud.
That being said, I am against all taxes.
Right now we are feeling the so called "protection" of the dear US governme*t personally.Its his damn money,he paied in more then 10 times the amount he has a "right" to.Not to mention the taxes you still over 300 a week.In other words..IF we had paied the 50,000 of UIE into a personal account we would have JUST THAT NOW.No,but for our own "good",because Uncle Sam cares so much,we have basically nothing.And even better,you receive nothing if you accidentially forget yo join the job training program.I know...this is not Social Security,but basicline is the same...the governme*t loves us SO much that they take our money and does what with it?We certainly don;t see it.
I am definatly agaist taxes.You pay taxes over taxes and then again taxes over what you already paied taxes for.We pay school taxes and my kids don't even go to school.Don't give me the homeschool crap slap now,even if we choose NOT to homeschool,our kids are not even SCHOOL AGE yet.
Tax on food?PUHLEASE!Its something I need to survive and STILL get taxed for.What a bunch of shit.Honestly.
Just look at the bunch of CRAP you actually get for paying taxes.
Flibby, I'm not trying to insinuate anything by positing this question. I'm simply wondering what your opinion or idea is. If all taxes are bad, and the government should exist to protect individuals from force or fraud, then how does that get paid for?
Is it an op-in government? Pay for protection? Do city governments get replaced by private corporations that in turn pay the government for local police, legal arbitrators, and an army for national defense?
Yes, the government would be opt-in and it would be paid completely by donation. Donations could be solicited by interested parties by all manner of methods.
I really need to write my essay on anarchy soon so I can outline some of the constraints that a proper government is up against.
The fun aspects of politics, and the only topics really up for debate, are those regarding the actual implementation of a proper government. Sadly, there is actually a fundamental ideological debate going on as well.
And I always thought the Constitution spelled it out fairly well...
I think you're interpreting the Constitution differently than our forefathers...as many of them supported taxes levied for national security, not donations. But I see your point. I just think it's entirely unrealistic and a little scary to me. Although I think it's as realistic as our government using taxes but using them sufficiently for the common good such as public education and transportation issues. We all know they are wasteful and quality is low. While I think taxes to take care of such common interests is okay personally, I do wish the government was more efficient.
Its not OK to use taxes for such things unless you have a say in it,which you don't.
In order to get,for example,quality education you have topay out of your own pocket.I find that an EXCELLENT deal,because I also have insight then.Now...we pay school taxes but have no say in it and those who don't send their kids to public education STILL have to pay those taxes,while they infact are not even beeing used for the purpose.
Education is just ONE example,there are so many more things we are forced to pay for and get nothing in return.
The constituion?Well,its about time somebody sits down and gets that sucker out of the dark ages.Y'all's forefathers have expired a long time ago and times have changed.Logically we do interpret the constitution to our needs.
Isn't that the same people do with the bible??
Comparing the constitution in any way to the bible makes me shudder.
As a product of a public education, both high school and university, I resent the notion that because you choose to send your child to a private school, your tax dollars should not be used to fund public education. Besides the fact many private schools receive some state funding as well. I think you very well have a say in how your tax dollars are spent. You elect representatives to make those decisions. You also elect school board supervisors to public school systems as well. You might not like your tax dollars being used to fund public education but you definitely do have a say in how it is spent.
I didn't say that the founders did see things my way. I said that the way people running our Government today see it is a far cry from what our forefathers intended.
I'll be the first to tell you that I have some notions that don't ken to what the founding fathers had in mind.
Britton, there's no such thing as communal property ownership. That being said, electing an official is a far cry from being the sole voice in how one's own property is disposed.
Again my point Britton.....you have NO clue at ALL.I did NOT compare the constitution to the bible.Screw that,screw it BIG time.
I am not even going to down to the level where I am going to explain myself.Any person with any piece of common sense left got the clue.
YOU are not such an individual.As a matter of fact,I pretty much believe that you are just put on trouble,twisting and turning things to a way "convenient to you".
But I love trouble so I could go on and on here for days.Out of respect,knowing also that there are people agreeing with me that you are annoying (so am I),I am not going into further details here,therefore will stop now.
Even though my brain tells me to keep on going.Idiocy is the word and I am not talking about myself for once.
Can't leave it after all to say one more thing (thats just how obnoxious I am):
I AM paying taxes and you(nice word here) think I have a say.
Think again....since WHEN do NON-CITIZENS have a SAY?That for one...the other is....BS.
Where is the "say" I have,hum?
Unless I see proof,which I don't,I don't believe.
Amen to reality-check (which is not an AMEN out of the Bible).
Suggestion: become a citizen so you have a say. Or so you can become a politician and change things you don't like. If you feel neither of those courses are acceptable, another suggestion, move somewhere where you have a say and don't pay taxes.
My motto: Quit bitching and do something.
You do know that becoming a citizen isn't entirely up to her, right?
And for all the comments you make here about Dubby, I can safely say that you don't follow your motto very well. You should use one of mine:
If you can't find something to complain about, you're doing it wrong.
See Britton,you have (again) NO clue.Because you can't just become a citizen at the wish of you head.So get yourself educated and quit being ignorant.
About the bitching....see,you don't even KNOW me and have NO clue (again)who you are talking to here and what I am doing.
Suggestion once again:get educated.
Moving,well,wouldn't you love that?Sorry,I don't do favors for strangers and certainly not to the ones who WANT me to do something.Must be because I asigned myself a rebell.:-)
I love complaining simply because the world would bore the hell out of me if there wasn't anything to complain about.
