quote:

Originally posted by ericg75:
I agree that social security needs to be fixed. I don't think you can find anyone, conservative or liberal, who would suggest otherwise. I just wish we had a president who actually had a good idea on how to go about doing it. Then people might actually listen. Again, we're getting off topic with the SS stuff.

I've said this before, but this is complete nonsense. Social security is projected by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office to be completely solvent for the next 47 years. Social security is in better financial shape now than it has been for most of its history. Most people think that Social Security is in dire condition because of the same reason that most people think Saddam had something to do with 9/11: The Bush Administration repeates lies over and over again until everyone believes them, including the media. I mean, how many times have you seen that basic statistic presented in the media, that social security is porjected to be solvent for the next 47 years and that Social Security is projcted to be able to pay out more in benefits to future retirees than it currently does--forever. These are basic facts calculated by a non-partisan government organization.

quote:

Originally posted by RavingLunatic:

I've said this before, but this is complete nonsense. Social security is projected by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office to be completely solvent for the next 47 years. Social security is in better financial shape now than it has been for most of its history. Most people think that Social Security is in dire condition because of the same reason that most people think Saddam had something to do with 9/11: The Bush Administration repeates lies over and over again until everyone believes them, including the media. I mean, how many times have you seen that basic statistic presented in the media, that social security is porjected to be solvent for the next 47 years and that Social Security is projcted to be able to pay out more in benefits to future retirees than it currently does--forever. These are basic facts calculated by a non-partisan government organization.

Even though Social Security's bankruptcy isn't an immediate problem, you still have to start looking at solutions. The fact of the matter is that it's costing the goverment more and more each year because of a large increase in the number of retirees and increased life expectany. You can't just wait 47 years and be like, "Well. we'd better get cracking on that Social Security problem." It would be like waiting to research alternative fuels until after we run out of oil.

Well, first of all, I wouldn't say that in 47 years Social Security will be bankrupt. That's just the point at which it is projected to just not be able to pay 100% of benefits. So, maybe it can pay, say, 95%, which would still equal a much larger payout than what retirees receive today. Like I said before, Social Security is projected to always be able to pay out more in benefits than it pays today. Maybe 50 years down the road, Social Security won't be able to dole out continually increasing benefits, but I would hardly call that a crisis.

If you do decide that it's a crisis, then the solution is really simple: raise the cap on the payroll tax. 50 years from now, workers are projected to have 70% higher wages than today's workers. It would hardly be a tragedy if future workers had to pay a small portion of their increased income to ensure continued growth in Social Security benefits.

The whole Social Security "crisis" is such a farce; if people were informed of the basic facts, they would probably die laughing, especially considering that there are genuine crises in health care (which could be easily solved by implementing a far more efficient national health care system like every other rich nation in the world, which, by the way, are not suffering from health care crises) and the environment. Instead, a CBS/NYT poll revealed that 68% of Americans under 44 think that they will never receive any Social Security benefits, despite all evidence to the contrary.

The whole thing is a transparent ploy to enrich the financial industry, which stands to gain enormously if Social Security is privatized--at the expense of the general public, incidentally.

First of all, this isn't the social security thread, so getting back to my original point, I brought up the subject of Medicare and Social Security not to say that we are spending too much or too little on those programs, or that they are or aren't solvent. As I've said before, my opposition to social security has nothing to do with its solvency and everything to do with the morality (or immorality) of distributing income. Anyway, the point is that if it weren't for these benefits, the amount of people the United States could allow into its borders would be limitless. Making the decision to subsidize the livelihoods of your citizens may help those certain citizens, but it hurts the chances of people trying to become citizens.

We really should move this social security discussion to the politics thread, but to answer RLunatic's last point, the financial industry only benefits when its clients benefit. Saying we shouldn't invest social security funds in the stock market because the financial industry might get rich is like saying someone in a car crash shouldn't sue because his lawyer might get rich. And when you say, "at the expense of the general public," what public are you referring to? Surely not the "public" that would be getting rich because they are investing their social security money more wisely than the government could. Behind all this talk about the public welfare is the hidden assumption that some people have the right to other people's money. I find that disgusting.

quote:

Originally posted by paxsoprano:
Behind all this talk about the public welfare is the hidden assumption that some people have the right to other people's money. I find that disgusting.

And behind all your talk about how people should get to keep "their" money is the assumption that they deserve it in the first place. I know, I know, the all-powerful and all-knowing free market always gives everyone "what they deserve" by definition. Every CEO "deserves" 100 times more than what one of his employees makes. Every person who makes a fortune speculating and serving no societal purpose "deserves" to be rich. Bnagladeshi workers only "deserve" to be making 10 cents an hour. Give me a break.

quote:

We really should move this social security discussion to the politics thread, but to answer RLunatic's last point, the financial industry only benefits when its clients benefit.

That's not true at all. Brokers get fees whether their clients' investments tank or not. Same goes for mutual funds. The cost to the public that I'm talking about are the much larger administrative costs involved in a privatized scheme. (I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I think administrative costs are something like 1% currently but would be 10-15% under a privatized plan.)

Some good points RL. In response I'd have to say that "The game stays the same and the rules are in place." I think that intelligence, motivation, and opportunity/luck are the three main factors in what you do and how well you do it. This doesn't typically apply to those in the sweatshops or factories of a third world country though. I consider myself a fairly intelligent man but I never had the drive to enter corporate American and swim with the sharks. I'd say that every CEO has earned the right to make 100 times what his employees make based on the rules in place. I'm not speaking from a moral standpoint here but from a realistic view, a man who does something illegal and doesn't get caught is innocent in the eyes of the law. As unfair as it may be, those who rise to power and become financial giants did it within either the framework of the law or under the radar of the law. I guess my heart agrees with you and my head agrees with Pax. All we can do though is compare ulcers and discuss unjust things we have no control over. Personally I take many problems of the world and injustices that I have absolutely no control over to heart. My lack of a good night sleep and constant stress are due to these very things that are often discussed on these forums. Perhaps the only answer to happiness is indeed blissful ignorance.

quote:

Originally posted by RavingLunatic:
That's not true at all. Brokers get fees whether their clients' investments tank or not. Same goes for mutual funds. The cost to the public that I'm talking about are the much larger administrative costs involved in a privatized scheme. (I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I think administrative costs are something like 1% currently but would be 10-15% under a privatized plan.)

Come on RL, if a stock broker continually lost his clients money, do you think he would be a stock broker for very long? Same with a mutual fund manager or anyone like that. And your administrative costs remark is irrelevant: if we eliminated social security like I want, how could the administrative costs of social security possibly go up? Also I think that when you say the costs of privatized social security would be 10-15%, you are taking into account the fees that brokers/managers would get and ignoring the increased returns that their involvement might yield.

Once again I'm baffled by what the liberal definition of the word "deserve" is. Do people "deserve" to be born into poverty, or "deserve" to be born into wealth? Asking that question is pointless because there is no way to answer it. You do the best with the hand you are dealt: whether you die a billionaire or a pauper, all that should matter is how you managed the gifts and benefits that were bestowed upon you. RL and P-Bo, your hearts go out to those peasants in Bangladesh, but honestly, what would you do about it? Would you take the Walton fortune and spread it among the deserving people of Bangladesh and not the undeserving Walton heirs? NOBODY can really be deserving of an inheritance, so why should we make 2 million heirs when there was only one before?

quote:

Originally posted by paxsoprano:
the financial industry only benefits when its clients benefit.

quote:

Originally posted by paxsoprano:
Come on RL, if a stock broker continually lost his clients money, do you think he would be a stock broker for very long? Same with a mutual fund manager or anyone like that.

You made it sound as if the only way the financial industry can make money is if their clients make money. I just pointed out that that's not true.

The administrative costs I was talking about are under a government-run privatized social security scheme, like what Bush proposes. I suppose your proposal for eliminating social security altogether would be different.

quote:

whether you die a billionaire or a pauper, all that should matter is how you managed the gifts and benefits that were bestowed upon you.

What if you were born a slave, Pax? I suppose you should just "do the best with the gifts and benefits that were bestowed upon you"?

quote:

Do people "deserve" to be born into poverty, or "deserve" to be born into wealth? Asking that question is pointless because there is no way to answer it.

You don't realize it, but you've answered the question yourself. You obviously think that the status quo justly and accurately describes the way society should allocate its resources. You are disgusted that someone would try to "take" someone else's money. This statement implies that you believe that whatever money a person has is what he deserves or what is rightfully his. I'm saying that most ultra-rich people have no right to the money and power they currently possess. It's not a matter of taking money from them and redistributing it. (You could just as easily say that the rich have "taken" money from the workers and the poor.) It's about creating a system in which the money is distributed the way it should be distributed, in the best interests of all individuals in society.

quote:

Originally posted by RavingLunatic:
What if you were born a slave, Pax? I suppose you should just "do the best with the gifts and benefits that were bestowed upon you"?

Yeah, pretty much. If someone is a slave, he should do his best to be a good slave. I think that's in the Bible.

First of all, I don't think the status quo justly allocates resources at all, thus my opposition to entitlement and welfare programs. Second, you are right that I did answer my own question of what people "deserve," but I'm not sure you caught what my answer was...people "deserve" to be left alone and to think for themselves. Period. No one is born into the world deserving a house, nice parents, a car, an education, or food. Anything that is given to them in these respects is simply a "bonus" which people should try to use to the best of their abilities (essentially, to whom much is given, much is expected). You say the rich have taken money from the poor workers, but when did the poor workers have money? In order for the rich to take from the poor, the poor would have to be born with a right to money, and as I have said, nobody has a right to anything but to be left alone. I don't understand how you can say people are born with a right to things that other people have produced. Third of all, your last sentence really makes no sense. It is impossible to distribute money in the best interests of everyone. Distributing money inherently means taking money from some people and giving it to others...how can such a system possibly be in the best interest of the people from whom money is being taken? You may say that giving money to the poor could help the rich by reinvesting in communities or giving education to workers, but if that is so, shouldn't the people with money be the ones making the decisions as to what benefits them?

quote:

Originally posted by paxsoprano:

Yeah, pretty much. If someone is a slave, he should do his best to be a good slave. I think that's in the Bible.

That's in the Bible...?

What Book, Chapter & Verse?

quote:

You say the rich have taken money from the poor workers, but when did the poor workers have money? In order for the rich to take from the poor, the poor would have to be born with a right to money, and as I have said, nobody has a right to anything but to be left alone. I don't understand how you can say people are born with a right to things that other people have produced.

You're argument seems pretty muddled. You first say that no one has a right to money, that we should all do with whatever we have. Then you say that no one should be allowed to take something that someone else produced. If a worker in an Asian sweatshop works 70 hours a week and produces $1000 dollars worth of products and is only rewarded with $10 in salary, hasn't the employer taken what that worker has produced?

And I am shocked by your slave argument. I really don't know what to say to that. If you think that if you're born a slave you should accept it and not try to do anything about it, I don't know what to say.

You seem to think that there is something very special about the current property laws of society, that they are neutral, or somehow natural. You don't seem to realize that you are advocating a certain governmental system just like I'm advocating a different kind of system. It just happens that the system you advocate is pretty much the one we have (except with no redistribution whatsoever).

You say you want for people to be left alone, but you don't really believe that. For instance, you want the government to step in and protect the property of the rich if it is threatened. You want for the government to ensure that when someone dies that his fortune goes to his surviving family and not to anyone else. (You say that they have no right to this money, but then you turn around and defend their right to inherit it. I don't really understand your view here.) You want for the government to enforce copyrights and patents.

"Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come. But know this, that if the goodman of the house had known in what watch the thief would come, he would have watched, and would not have suffered his house to be broken up. Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh. Who then is a faithful and wise servant, whom his lord hath made ruler over his household, to give them meat in due season? Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing. Verily I say unto you, That he shall make him ruler over all his goods. But and if that evil servant shall say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; And shall begin to smite his fellowservants, and to eat and drink with the drunken; The lord of that servant shall come in a day when he looketh not for him, and in an hour that he is not aware of, and shall cut him asunder, and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth."

Mark 24: 42-51
(What this passage means to you personally can vary, but to me it means that you should be faithful to your responsibilities).



RL, as I've said before, the primary purpose of government is to preserve property rights. I don't see how you can compare that with redistributing income. People have a right to keep what the earn, or to give what they earn to someone when they die. Would the sweatshop worker have been able to produce $1000 worth of merchandise without someone to give him those tools and instruct him how to do it? At what point should he claim the right to all he has produced? If I make a hamburger at McDonalds, do I have a right to that hamburger? That would be absurd. And I don't see anything "natural" about redistributing income. Remember that humans were not created with airplanes and cars and highways...someone had to invent and design and built these things. To truly restore everyone to a natural state would lead to the most survival-of-the-fittest situation imaginable where everyone would have to live off his own initiative.

quote:

Originally posted by Carlito's Way:

quote:

Originally posted by paxsoprano:

Yeah, pretty much. If someone is a slave, he should do his best to be a good slave. I think that's in the Bible.

That's in the Bible...?

What Book, Chapter & Verse?

Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord. - Colossians 3:22

This is shorter and to the point.

Akin to "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's and unto God the things which are God's." Look past this world to the next. Trust in the Lord. But I think it's off-topic.

quote:

To truly restore everyone to a natural state would lead to the most survival-of-the-fittest situation imaginable where everyone would have to live off his own initiative

This is a common misconception about evolutionary theory. A lot of work done in foraging theory (Read John Maynard Smith's hawk-dove theoretical work and DGC Cooper's work with mallards), as well as really recent work in the field of neuroeconomics (read Paul Glimcher) have shown that animals have evolved to approximate Nash equilibrium points, which, while being an optimal solution for each individual are generally achieved through mutual cooperation. In addition, Franz de Wall has done some really good research with primates which explicitly discusses why survival-of-the-fittest (in the sense of every individual ruthlessly out for themselves) is not a very 'natural' explanation.

Anyway, I don't understand your slave-should-accept-his-place idea anyway. I thought you were a libertarian. Honestly, until you came back with bible quotes I thought that was sarcasm.

Well, Libertarians are all for property rights and slaves ARE property, unless they're covered by the Declaration of Independence, along with women.

My question is whether the Spanish lords who lived here before us, and the Native kings, who lived here before them, were Libertarians too (from the POV of the Haves.)

Oh My God...

Does this mean slavery is okay...coz the Bible condones it?

My head hurts.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but slavery (at least in America) didn't end because slaves rose up and demanded freedom. It ended because 1) slavery and capitalism are not friendly, 2) many abolitionists and Northerners were religiously/morally opposed to slavery, and 3) the very idea of slavery was contradicted by the Declaration of Independence (which the Founders knew but chose to ignore in the interest of expediency).

I agree with that except for the capitalism argument concerning the South. Why did the South have "Back of the Bus", Jim Crow Laws, etc, unless they institutionalizedly thought THEY were "worth" more than "people of color"? It's kinda funny to think about (I haven't really before and please don't take TOO much offense), but Southern slaveowners/ descendents of slaveowners always acted like slaves were "lazy and shiftless." I guess I now understand that the reason was because the Southerner rich folk were lazy and shiftless if left to their own "good fortune".

Actually some of the biggest opponents of Jim Crow laws were railroads and other big businesses. Granted that many local businesses didn't want blacks in their establishments, but that was more to avoid local trouble, not because they actually thought blacks were worth less. Businesses will oppose pretty much any law that tells them whom they can serve and whom they can hire.