Roger Lowenstein on Social Security

[Michael]

Why doesn't the government just invest the money in the stock market for the masses.

I agree that this would be more sensible than putting them into treasury bills. However, the working poor don't generally vote for Republicans. Draw your own conlcusions on what will be the result.

Though I have no doubt that you think that you would like it.

Actually I don't. Private accounts would not pass if it were up to me. However it is not, and I make my plans based upon the most likely outcome, not on the way I think things should be run. The politicians are what they are.

 

[Bob_Smith]

Mikey, great post! Perhaps your best.

Notice also that Michael believes that "the current system gives more benefits to the working poor than they have "earned...". Such words usually come from people who have had easy lives, as personified by their idol and soul-mate, GW Bush. When I hear Michael proclaiming that the working poor haven't "earned" what they receive from SS, I visualize nurse aids, loggers, farm laborers, janitors, and countless hard working people I have known - and as you describe so vividly in your post. There is never a shortage of lap-dogs eager to serve the plutocracy, panting and yipping for their dog yummy, without any concern for the potential impact on others. They like to pound their chests and speak about hard work and responsibility, when most of them would collapse under the burden of real work while living in poverty, or near poverty. It has actually become fashionable in these circles to view the working poor with an arrogance that borders on contempt.

You mentioned IQs and disabling injuries. I spent my working years trying to help people who came up short through no fault of their own. I have no doubt that many of these "ownership" society advocates are brilliant people who have the connections and the wherewithal to excel with ease. But their kind of brilliance is a cold thing that shimmers without the warmth of wisdom or compassion. They delude themselves into thinking that they have "earned" their state in life through their hard work and responsible living. Arrogance without a shred of wisdom or compassion; that's the part of the Bushite mindset I find most repugnant.

Anyway, I really enjoyed your post.

 

[sgeeeee]

. . . I have no doubt that many of these "ownership" society advocates are brilliant people who have the connections and the wherewithal to excel with ease. But their kind of brilliance is a cold thing that shimmers without the warmth of wisdom or compassion. They delude themselves into thinking that they have "earned" their state in life through their hard work and responsible living. Arrogance without a shred of wisdom or compassion; that's the part of the Bushite mindset I find most repugnant.

Anyway, I really enjoyed your post.

Thank-you, Bob Smith. And I enjoyed your post too, Mikey.

 

[Marshac]

Well said mikey.

I was remarking the other day that there seems to be a decline in the overall quality of the written word. If you look back 200 years, writing was artful and inspired. Examples include some of the speeches written by past presidents while en route (Abraham Lincoln with the Gettysberg Address for example), as well as much of the literature of the era. With the advent of computers, MS spell check with its limited volcabulary, and a general perceived lack of time, it seems as though we are quickly losing the ability to create great literary works.

I'm not saying that Mikey's post was THAT great (it was good), but overall the quality of the posts on this board are quite good; a refreshing change of pace.

nw dat iz sed, brng on d SMS jargon!

 

[et canem meam]

Michael
The current system gives more benefits to the working poor than they have earned, which is what the new system wants to eliminate

Why do a half-assed job? If you don't want people to get anything they haven't "earned" then why are The Rich aka "The Inheriting Class" being let off the hook? Why should they be allowed to keep anything they didn't "earn" directly, and personally? Anyone who knows anything about history, the nature of wealth, or has read Adam Smith KNOWS that THAT kind of wealth is never earned and always a result of strategic alliance with Big Government. Just askin'

 

[Michael]

Inheriting Class

Why indeed. Many people theorize that inheriting just spoils children.

strategic alliance with Big Government

That is why so many special intrerest groups lobby for monopolies protected by law. It is very cost effective to give politicians money in return for eliminating competition by requiring licenses and such.

 

[Michael]

You make a lot of good points Mikey, many of which I agree with.  How would you respond to the standard conservative replies to your points?

there are many ways to become poor other than by being lazy

Charity is best done by private individuals and organizations.  Government officials just waste money on ineffective projects that cause more harm than good.

single mothers

Immorality should not be encouraged or subsidized.  This will just result in even more immorality.  This would not include widows, who are covered under survivor's benefits.

 

[BigMoneyJim]

single mothers

Immorality should not be encouraged or subsidized. This will just result in even more immorality. This would not include widows, who are covered under survivor's benefits.

Um, how about divorced single mothers? My perception is that this is a majority of single mothers. Certainly the case of nearly everyone I know. Dad's still about $15k behind on child support and my youngest sibling is 22. (Meaning child support ended 4 years ago.)

Added: Come to think of it, in the case of "immoral" single mothers it is nearly universal that the mother saddled with care and support while the father is too frequently absent or unable/unwilling to provide adequate monetary support. Why do I hear more about immoral single mothers than I do about the male half of the equation?

 

[Nords]

Immorality should not be encouraged or subsidized.  This will just result in even more immorality.  This would not include widows, who are covered under survivor's benefits.

Thanks, BMJ. Took the words right out of my mouth.

So, Michael, how's your wife feel about the "morality" of single parents?

 

[et canem mean]

This would not include widows, who are covered under survivor's benefits.

You mean evil big government wealth redistribution benefits?

 

[BigMoneyJim]

This would not include widows, who are covered under survivor's benefits.

You mean evil big government wealth redistribution benefits?

Good point! That family obviously was being slothful and didn't save enough. And they probably didn't study to maximize their insurance and investments. This behavior shouldn't be encouraged or subsidized.

(end sarcasm )

On a side note, after the fumes are clearing and I'm wiping the froth from my moth I notice Michael is being careful to present these arguments as a proxy and is trying not to claim them as his own. So what do you think, Michael, or are you just having fun poking with a cyberstick?

 

[Marshac]

Immorality should not be encouraged or subsidized.  This will just result in even more immorality.

Careful there bro, the idea of immoral behavior is entirely relative. Speaking as a Christian, the "right" scare the crap out of me with their religious political agenda. Once precedent for intertwining religious ideology and government has been cast, it will be difficult to change later on. While you may agree with those policies now, you're ignoring the fact that down the road, your religious beliefs may be representative of a minority of the population.... when that happens, will those in power be as kind to you as you were to them?

 

[P.S.]

That misses the point of the program, which is to foster individual responsibility.  Under private accounts, your future is in your own hands.  If you work diligently, you will store up the maximum in your private account each year.  If you are slothful, you will only partially fund your account, and you will suffer for it.  

Whoa!  It is the pinnacle of arrogance to believe that one's own endeavors brought forth the mcmansion home, fancy degree, six-or seven figure income.

Anyone so deluded is denying credit to the reality: just plain luck of the draw in genes, country of birth, childhood school district, having parents, hard-working teachers (underpaid, esp. the private school ones), etc.

This is called society, and it fulfills its function best when all members care for each other and look out for each other.  

And if you make more than $200,000 a year, do you owe alot more to society than the stiff that makes $30,000?  Absolutely yes, IMO!

Immorality should not be encouraged or subsidized.  

Yes, also: intolerance, self-pride, selfishness, stinginess, a non-charitable heart.

I would like to now introduce the concept of enough.  As in- I have been given and granted enough.  I have been gifted enough.  Now I have the choice to share.  I am a member of a community called the US.  I care about myself; I care about my community.  

Actually I'm being selfish.  Who wants to pull out of their gated community and stare at impoverished settlements?  Or have your drive ruined by underdressed women advertising their merchandise on the roadside?  I find life more pleasant when I can understand and communicate intelligently with others, such as the postal clerk and grocer's cashier.

 

[Guest]

It's really disappointing how so many of you can't confine your argument with Michael's post without also deriding him and his assumed ethics personally. This thread really exposes the nasty side of this fine forum.

 

[P.S.]

Guest,

I apologize if I have offended you . My post was in response to the context of Michael's posts. .

 

[johnblake]

It's really disappointing how so many of you can't confine your argument with Michael's post without also deriding him and his assumed ethics personally. This thread really exposes the nasty side of this fine forum.

This was not unexpected when Michael implies that 'single mothers are immoral'.

I grew up in a home with a single mother who is not immoral. Michael's claim that single mothers are immoral is bigotry.

The US culture and tax code encourages reproduction. Unfortunately, there are many people that have children but don't have the time, ability, or financial resources to care for them. Some of these people happen to be single mothers, some are black, and hispanic, many claim to be Christians.

 

[Michael]

I notice Michael is being careful to present these arguments as a proxy and is trying not to claim them as his own. So what do you think, Michael, or are you just having fun poking with a cyberstick?

Personally, I think that any man who would abandon his children is a snake.

 

[Hyperborea]

Personally, I think that any man who would abandon his children is a snake.

What about a society that abandons their children?

 

[JWV]

One thing I would like to point out to you and anyone else who is not only short on empathy but also on common sense is that there are many ways to become poor other than by being lazy.

Bravo Mikey! I've posted my views on this in other places, what you say is so true.
A co-workers husband was just killed on a motorcycle last weekend. He was 37 with 4 young children. Because of financial considerations he was the stay-at-home parent but had just returned to work. She worked 2 jobs (RN) to make ends meet and believe me, they were NOT, by any stretch of the imagination, living high on the hog. What do you think her retirement situation will be?

Judy