So for all the Chicken Little "the sky is falling" rhetoric from the Libertarians The BatBlog says relax... SS is real, spendable money that makes life easier...
I'm not going to be too hard on the Libertarians though as I admire their grass roots movement to help change government and government spending. I think we all feel the need for lesser government and government intrusion in our every day lives...Waste is common and out of hand, but several programs the U.S. does get right are S.S. ,Medicare, Medicaid ...they are not perfect.... but they allow for everyone to at least lead some semblance of a quality of life whether for the aged, disabled or a child who has lost a parent...If the Libertarians are ever to be a liable factor in the national political scene, they need to ease their stance on government programs that do work as intended...In other words "Don't mess with my Ponzi money".....
You just got demoted back down to a cc on my next press release, pal.
ReplyDeletehee, hee, hee....
ReplyDeleteI'm boycotting FB, so I'll spend some time here ignoring the substance of what you said and take the opportunity to explain why the LP is at least better on SS than the Rs.
ReplyDeleteWhen Rs talk about privatizing Social Security, they're actually talking about a crony capitalist scheme that would run your money through the hands of Wall St allowing them to do significant skimming off the top and then to use it to speculate in the stock market.
When Libertarians say things about privatizing or ending Social Security, we'd just let you keep your own money and invest it yourself, a scenario under which low-income workers wouldn't be taxed beginning with the first dollar they make and retirees who invested prudently would see a higher return than they do from Social Security.
In theory the Libertarian stance on SS appears fine "keep your own money"... but in reality it isn't practical and just wouldn't work. Too many people just don't have the will power, common sense to save and invest for the future, and what happens to those who become disabled or a child who loses a parent...things SS protects us from.
DeleteWhat the Libertarian stance would bring is masses with no income as they move into retirement years and lead to more poverty and homelessness... One has to remember SS is basically an insurance program to protect not so much an investment...
That's a very pessimistic assumption, and also kind of patronizing. It assumes people can't/don't know what is best for the. It also assumes charities would go away and that those paying less in taxes wouldn't donate some of that or use it to help family, friends and neighbors.
DeleteIt may be pessimistic but it's the truth. The reason SS was created in the first place was because there was no protection for the elderly and disabled who had neither the resources or ability to take care of themselves financially and those who didn't know "what is best for them"...
DeleteCharities are already strapped for money even with SS in place. To think charities could provide the same resources and protection that SS provides is big assumption and actually fantasy...
Income needs to be taxed above and beyond $118,000.
ReplyDeleteSo, nobody knew how to save for a rainy day before SS? Yes, people who paid into SS deserve to be paid what was promised them. It is not welfare. It is an insurance policy that we were forced to buy. This Libertarian does not advocate ending SS tomorrow. This Libertarian advocates for a steady phase out of the program. Everybody that pays into should get something in return. Now, since the payouts are being made primarily from the new blood coming in it would still qualify as a "ponzi" scheme. There is no product or service being sold to pay the investors. The investors are paying the investors. That is exactly what a "ponzi" scheme is.
ReplyDeleteSS was created in order to bring more people under the control of government by making them dependent on the government. We had charitable institutions even during the depression era. You won't see piles of bodies in the streets from starvation, but what you will see are people standing in line at a soup kitchen run by private donations. The problem nowadays is that people are stuck in the "there's a program for that" paradigm. We are a very generous people. If a hurricane hits Haiti we are Johnny on the spot. So, why doesn't that happen here at home? My answer is these daggone social programs. They have killed the ideal of taking care of your neighbor. We don't donate to the Appalachian Program for Starving Kids because "there's a program for that."
What Libertarians are proposing is getting rid of those programs so that we can get our soul back. If people were allowed to keep their money and donate it how they saw fit then we would see more foundations designed to help the needy that were supported entirely by voluntary donations. The people in need would receive more assistance because there would be less taken out of every dollar donated. It's more efficient, more ethical, and more moral.
If the government stopped taking money out of your check tomorrow for the social programs would you cease to care about your fellow man?
Thanks for your comments Russell... I don't believe in a minute about your theory on why SS was created...It was created to protect those who can't work or take care of themselves elderly, disabled, children.
ReplyDeleteYour visions about caring and taking care of everyone without SS are wonderful ideas but not practical...Charities can not take care of everyone now and there are too many people who struggle now with SS...To take it away would be a disaster...
I love the ideals of the Libertarians. But, in reality, they translate into positions like
ReplyDelete"It's ok to sell guns to violent felons"...because Freedom. This was what Kelley, current candidate for public office said on the Chatter. SMH
Like you, HT, I admire the libertarian optimism (or is it pessimism?) but it seems to make them take 'unusual' positions on public issues.
Liberty is an unusual position only when living under tyranny.
ReplyDeleteOk Russell, you asked for it....Tell me, under your philosophy, should we ban the sale of firearms to a convicted violent felon?
ReplyDeleteSecond question: If I have the science and the money, should there be a ban on me obtaining a nuclear weapon?
From what I've read Libertarians are against ANY and ALL gun control, laws, registration... any restrictions... so I would assume under Libertarian rule the sky's the limit. If you want a bazooka... go for it. Would come in handy for noisy neighbors though...just put a RPG up their ass...
ReplyDeleteHopefully one of our Lib. friends will weigh in on this...
ReplyDeletecrickets.
ReplyDelete