One of the cool things about social security is its adjustable nature: for instance, we forecast a lot of retirees when the Baby Boomers retired, so we've been building up a surplus in the social security account. Also, it's set aside, not to be haggled over and replaced with a pork project for some Senator.

Again, people have to save for themselves, right? Social security makes a way for us to all save for our old ages.

I do not think this is true. The money you are paying in is going right out the door. You are not saving anything, you are paying up the pyramid, and some kid not yet born is being counted upon to pay your way down the road. The SS surplus gets raided constantly, begining with LBJ. The plan as you envision it is what was intended at the begining, but the politicians could not leave that big pile of money alone.

There are a lot of self-centered or short-sighted pricks, though, that don't want to give anything.

I am not arguing anarchy. Taxes are paid by all via income and sales. Those taxes could be lower, and the SS fund instead of being portrayed as your retirement fund on your paystub (which as I said above is a fictional representation) could be funded the same way the pentagon is paid out of your general taxes. Your relatives would not have a reason to get pissed at mable, because we take care of people like her. Your neighbor who worked at the printing plant for 40 years has been saving because the charity program is not meant for someone like him. Or maybe he entered into the voluntary government savings program to have a safe investment to augment his personal savings.

Why not the government?

Because the government limits choice, and creates waste. Because it is a kludge that the government was not meant to handle. Because we can do things for ourselves.

It is like punk rock never happened.

Johnny 13 wrote:The money you are paying in is going right out the door. You are not saving anything, you are paying up the pyramid, and some kid not yet born is being counted upon to pay your way down the road. The SS surplus gets raided constantly, begining with LBJ. The plan as you envision it is what was intended at the begining, but the politicians could not leave that big pile of money alone.

Your complaint is valid. The fund should be raided less than it has been. The fund still exists, however, and has plenty of money in it, and this is as it should be. This is not an argument for getting rid of the fund and managing SS on the general books.

If it were funded from the general ledger, then in times of crisis or economic downturn, there would be less money in the economy, so less business to tax, less income to tax, and inevitably less money available to pay those who need it, and their numbers grow during these periods. "We'll pay for it when we need it" is an impossible strategy. Putting the money in a fund during times of prosperity (say, any time in my lifetime when a Republican President wasn't in office) is the only way to hedge against future need.

If you say the fund has been raided, I cannot disagree. It is still there though, and that is better than it not being there.

Because the government limits choice, and creates waste. Because it is a kludge that the government was not meant to handle. Because we can do things for ourselves.

I disagree that we would do it for ourselves, in the absence of a mandated system, and I assert that there are many who cannot do it under any circumstances, because they are too poor. I am happy to pay into a system like Social Security, knowing full well that I will not take out of it what I put in. I am not so greedy that I make claim for eternity to every dollar that changes hands under my name, and I am happy knowing that someone (some old person) will be able to eat a meagre lunch at my expense. Not happy that it is meagre.

Johnny 13 wrote:It is like punk rock never happened.

It's annoying enough when people try to talk about what punk rock is "about", it's even worse when they try to say that punk rock is "about" Republican, fuck-the-poor, right wing political policies.

And as annoying as it is to talk about who's punk rock and who's not, I'll tell you that Tiffany is more punk rock than Grover Norquist.

Bush's Social Security tax proposal is another typical example of a Republican 'hook'. You'll get to invest only 2% of the 15% Social Security levy in ways of your own "choice." But here again, do you really think they'll let you invest that money in anything you want? There are bound to be very strict rules (as there are with IRAs and other federal programs). You'll be able to invest your 2% only in investments run by the people with the most political influence. As always, turn a financial, medical, military, commercial, or scientific matter over to the government and it is transformed immediately into a political issue — to be decided by whoever has the most political influence. And that will never be you or I.

It's annoying enough when people try to talk about what punk rock is "about", it's even worse when they try to say that punk rock is "about" Republican, fuck-the-poor, right wing political policies.

Sorry to annoy you Linus, but you have misread me. I was not making a lame definition of punk rock, I was making a lame DIY joke.

You are reading stuff into my positions, as I have not advocated any Republican fuck the poor rightwing policy.

If you read over my previous posts in this thread, you will find that while my posts are unpalatable to you, they are in fact less authoritarian than your own. I trust that your arguments, which I consider to be as bad as you appear to think mine are, are just legitimate disagreement. I would appreciate a little tolerance here.

Most of what you're saying I can tolerate - that punk rock comment kind of set me off - maybe I misread you.

The thing is, I can respect your opinions in theory just fine. I think liberalism, socialism, conservatism, libertarianism, and all the inbetweenisms are perfectly valid in theory. Unfortunately, the bad thing that happens if too many people believe in my ideas is, maybe you can't afford to get that DVD you wanted. The bad thing that happens if too many people believe in your ideas is, maybe old people die from not being able to eat.

You can call my way of thinking 'authoritarian' if you want, and I guess I'll grant that it's more 'authoritarian' than yours. But someone earlier in this thread mentioned something along the lines that, money is not earned in a vacuum. The point is - and Theodore Roosevelt said something that really summed this up well, but I don't have the quote in front of me - that you're here, in this country, doing well because of all of the money that the government is spending to help you do well, and it's not too much for the government to ask for a little of that money back to help others do well - or, in the case of Social Security, to help others merely survive. What's the word? Meager.

To put it another way, the government could raise your taxes to fund Social Security, and raise your taxes further to pay for some other stuff they gotta do, and you'd still be much much better off than if the government decided to get out of your life completely.

And since I couldn't find the quote I wanted from T.R., I can at least give you this one: "The object of government is the welfare of the people." Now that's a compassionate conservative.

Johnny 13,

I probably come off kind of harsh. I've read back through your posts in this thread, and there is a lot of common ground. In fact, I agree with you that Social Security should probably be paid out of the general fund. It would be more honest, since that's what's already happening for practical purposes. I do see disadvantages with that idea, but all in all it would probably be good.

Eh, we agree on some, and disagree on some. I hope you're not taking too much of it personally!

Linus Van Pelt wrote: But someone earlier in this thread mentioned something along the lines that, money is not earned in a vacuum.

Indeed.

**Hey! Please don't read what I'm about to say. It has nothing to do with the practicalities of social security. You see, deeply held but totally untenable positions (e.g. those that characterize American libertarian thinking) push my "beak off" button. But do ignore! I read Karl Marx! I'm a loon. But if I did not allow myself the luxury of mentioning the completey obvious to people who refuse to recognize it from time to time, I would be blowing things up instead. Okay!**

All citizens of the western, industrialized world have what they do *because* people elsewhere do not. Wealth and surplices not only perpetuate poverty, they ensure its existence in the first place. Wealth literally depends on injustice. You get your damn Del Monte bananas at that price for _a reason_.

This dynamic also holds true within individual nations.

You cannot argue this. Not logically. Not factually. Not historically.

And it is not only true of raw goods. It is also true of lifestyles, educations, world-views, etc.

Once you realize this, you can choose to give a shit, or you can repress it. It takes courage to address these inequities. It is hard. It is, in fact, harder than making money! It is a hard way to go. It means, in some sense, a lifetime of struggle. But it is the right thing to do.

I too believe that there will always be inequality of wealth. I don't believe that there must always be a class of desperately poor. In fact, I like to think that eventually we could reach the point where nobody has to go without certain essentials. I think it could even happen in this country, and pretty easily, if the willingness were there.

Johnny 13 wrote:I am willing to be taxed within reason, but a desire to level the playingfield to an unnatural degree just gives the government enough money to finance invasion and topple foreign government.

Oh boy oh boy, you're talking to the younger bumble of Meeting of Friends (Quakers). Yup, I hate giving money to the war machine. Where has Eisenhower's warning about the military-industrial complex gone, you ask? Why, it disappeared in the left ventricle of Cheney's black heart back in '87.

J to the 13 wrote:These social programs are not the worst thing about government, but to a degree they irk me more because the desire for them allow the government to gather more and more resources to do the things that I think we all agree are not in our best interest.

Yes, I hate giving money to corrupt motherfuckers. I think this is where we can monitor our lawmakers and protest what they do with the money, but I see where you are coming from. That general budget? Congress has to approve it. Resolutions of war? Well, Congress used to have to approve those...ack. Anyway, we can participate in this.

-->The Crux of Bumble/Johnny 13: you see tyranny in these things; I certainly understand and kind of agree, but things don't have to be so binary (tyranny/submission). I think there is a different path. For example, I see a flawed structure that we can participate in and have an influence on.

J, 13 wrote:

I, bumble wrote:Social security makes a way for us to all save for our old ages.

I do not think this is true. The money you are paying in is going right out the door.

Right right, silly bumble. Still, de facto, we are putting money in and will be getting money out when we are old. So, we are using it as a method for saving for our old ages.

J wrote:The SS surplus gets raided constantly, begining with LBJ

Right right, you're right. But it's still there.

the same way the pentagon is paid out of your general taxes.

But, this will be subject to yearly fluctuations in tax earnings. I like the idea of a set-aside fund, independent of yearly political manipulations and revenue changes.

Fucking reading ahead. Steve covered this one and the DIY thing well. I am now singing the word "Repetition" to the tune of Stevie Wonder's "Superstition".

The government creates some waste, sure, but so do non-profit organizations. I'm at one right now, and here I am at the EA forums. Hup!

Linus and J 13: earlier, I had "This is a conversation, not battlebots" in obnoxiously large script but erased it. It's good that we can all have a conversation...though if anyone wants to have robot throwdowns while we have a civil discourse, I would be down with that. Dibs on...the CLAW.

The CLAW will come out swinging about this whole General Fund thing.

I am still such a fucking hippie ass Quaker. Is that Punk Rock, yet?