Terry Gross of Fresh Air hosted a program this morning on Social Security with Michael Tanner from the CATO Institute and my personal rock star, Paul Krugman. I missed the radio broadcast, but it will be streaming from the interweb at 3 Eastern, 2 Central.

http://www.npr.org/templates/rundowns/rundown.php?prgId=13&prgDate=17-Feb-2005

Johnny 13 wrote:I am not counting on it to be there when I am infirm. <snip> I would rather it fail if I am going to be forced to feed it.

If you aren't counting on it, okay, but there are a lot - a LOT - of people counting on social security. It has been part of, and likely a foundation for, their planning for their last years.

I don't wish to have our fellow men and women's welfare scuttled. No, no thank you, sir. I do not follow this frontierism offhandedness, leaving our wounded and old by the side of the road to be eaten by wolves.

Johnny 13 wrote:I don't much care about what happens to Social Security. I never had a choice about participating, and I am not counting on it to be there when I am infirm. I think anyone who does not plan likewise is heading to a bad end.

As it is, I consider it theft out of my paycheck and I would do quite a bit to be free of it, including giving up all the money I have "paid" into the program to date.

I have no doubt Bush is up to no good. Everything I have read suggests that the plan will cost more, and return less. The original goal of the scheme was for the accounts to become private once critical mass was achieved, but LBJ and everyone after him raided the fund, and put an end to that.

Fuck Social Security, the servents are not serving. I would rather it fail if I am going to be forced to feed it.

Let's have fun:

I don't much care what happens to the military. I never had a choice about helping fund it, and I am not counting on it to protect me from missile strikes or terrorist attacks. I think anyone who does not plan likewise is heading to a bad end.

As it is, I consider it theft out of my paycheck and I would do quite a bit to be free of it, including giving up all the money I have "paid" into the program to date.

I have no doubt Bush is up to no good. Everything I have read suggests that the plan will cost more, and return less. The original goal of the scheme was for the military to defend our nation from invasion, but LBJ and everyone after him sent our soldiers to fight useless foreign wars, and put an end to that.

Fuck the military, the defenders are not defending. I would rather it fail if I am going to be forced to feed it.

Should I do roads next, or schools?

I am not saying you (or we) should abandon anyone. My argument is that this is not a legitimate function of government, and the mechanism is more like tyranny than morality. I do not see why I should care much about the future of a program I am completely opposed to. This was a choice I was not allowed to make, and there is no reason that should be. The idea that people should fuss over the details about how much of someone else's money will be gifted to them later, compared to how much is being taken from them gives everyone a form of Stockholm syndrome that I find disgusting. Bush's plan (which cannot pass, making the clucking seem overwrought) with its illlusion of control is no better or worse than what is currently in place now from my perspective. I am not expecting a return of anything I did not willingly give. I want out because I don't want to steal from the next generation.

Let's have fun:

Don't you mean "fun"?

If you are hoping I see some contridiction in my position you are wrong. I believe the US military is being terribly misused, and as such I feel I am less safe because of that. If I could fund it to a reasonable level I would. The core of governemnt programs should be defined by what can only be done at a national level, I think defence meets that definition and personal retirement does not.

I am not so fond of the way roads or schools are implimented either. We can talk sprawl and pollution if you want. I would rather schools be funded on a local level, but I am not planning on sending my daughter to them.

Johnny 13 wrote:I am not saying you (or we) should abandon anyone. My argument is that this is not a legitimate function of government, and the mechanism is more like tyranny than morality.

This is a disagreement on the function of government and thereby a disagreement on the function of society/civilization.

My guess is that you have something of a Social Contract idea of the proper function of government: I don't want to be invaded, so I provide money for defense (the social contract here is taxes for defense = not being attacked by rabid Canadians, lusting after our cattle and retirement homes).

You don't agree that social security is a good plan (Why? Because you can't choose to participate or ?), don't want to contribute but are forced to contribute. Am I on the right track?

Here's a little of my take on the idea of society:

-- Money is not earned in a vacuum.
-- Our economic lives exist in relation to one another.

Let's continue. Your turn, Johnny 13!

edit: I was typing and submitting before I saw Johnny's response, above.

Johnny 13 wrote:
Let's have fun:

Don't you mean "fun"?

Huh?

If you are hoping I see some contridiction in my position you are wrong. I believe the US military is being terribly misused, and as such I feel I am less safe because of that. If I could fund it to a reasonable level I would.

I wasn't intending to try to point out a contradiction or hypocrisy. My points were: 1. That if you apply the same arguments you're making to something like the military, it looks right in parts, but on the whole wrong. (At least to me it does, I'm sure some people would actually agree completely with my facetious anti-military post). 2. That the reason this looks wrong is because the arguments (your arguments) are faulty.

Your other argument:

The core of governemnt programs should be defined by what can only be done at a national level, I think defence meets that definition and personal retirement does not.

is fine, but it just amounts to saying, "I am a conservative/libertarian", and if I were to argue with it, it would just amount to my saying, "I am a liberal", and that's neither fun nor "fun".

I am not so fond of the way roads or schools are implimented either. We can talk sprawl and pollution if you want.

That's OK.

I would rather schools be funded on a local level, but I am not planning on sending my daughter to them.

I think that's a shame. I think that the system does better the more people are invested (in every sense) in it. But - I don't blame you either! How could I ask you to sacrifice your daughter's education for some small potential gain to society at large? It's a tough situation, in my opinion.

Johnny 13 wrote:I believe the US military is being terribly misused, and as such I feel I am less safe because of that.

Speak it, brother, speak it.

Johnny 13 wrote:The core of governemnt programs should be defined by what can only be done at a national level, I think defence meets that definition and personal retirement does not.

Okay, why defense and not personal retirement?

Linus has such a fast submittin' finger.

Hey Johnny, there are two people here talking on one side of the issue; I don't mean to gang up at all.

The idea of a social contract is a myth. I would like the government to have the consent of the people who make it possible. The government imposing itself upon the population has perverted its mission.

Given a choice about participation in Social Security, I am not sure if I would participate or not. The existence of the plan as it is has motivated me to make other arrangements. Not being required, I might very well make the decision to just buy some government bonds myself as a stable safe investment. Social Security is not a good plan. It has become a greater burden on all tax payers as time has gone by. It will require more and more money to maintain. It is dependent upon constant population growth which is bad for so many reasons.


-- Money is not earned in a vacuum.
-- Our economic lives exist in relation to one another.

Sure, but neither of those facts give greater weight to the idea that we need to surrender ourselves to social programs. My neighbor lives in relation to me too, he does not get to make my household decisions for me.

On preview: No problem bumble

Huh?


I just meant it is not actual fun like laughing with your friends , but online fun which is more like arguing.


Okay, why defense and not personal retirement?

Because I cannot defend the country by myself, but I can save for my retirement. I am not calling for gutting the safety net, I still believe in creating a floor for the percentage of people who have suffered tragedy, or are just incompetent, but that sort of thing should be funded out of the general budget and not off of income in the regressive way that it is. As it is, everyone pays a large part of their earnings in, and they expect to get it back in some way. If people saved for themselves, and paid a smaller amount out of general taxes as they do for road maintenence, (or the tax on phone bills to provide universal access for the truly poor and stupid) the whole thing would run smoother and fairer.

2. That the reason this looks wrong is because the arguments (your arguments) are faulty.

You cannot expect one argument to be a universal answer for all situations. My position applies to one and not the other for the reasons stated above.


is fine, but it just amounts to saying, "I am a conservative/libertarian", and if I were to argue with it, it would just amount to my saying, "I am a liberal", and that's neither fun nor "fun".

That removes the need for any conversation. It is not like we are making policy here. I explain my positions in a desire to be understood. The country has been around long enough for all political feelings to have a legitimate tradition. I am saying more than "I am a libertarian", I am saying that mine in the more basic right in this debate.


I am warming up to you guys tho.