At 11:34 PM 2/14/2005 -0800, Dave Land wrote: >> >Social Security reflects a certain view of America: a place where >> >people are willing to sacrifice a little to ensure that seniors >> >wouldn't have to suffer the privations that the depression wrought on >> >so many of their fellow citizens. >> >> It also reflects a view whereby we raise taxes on the poor and middle >> class, exempt incomes above $90,000 from taxation, and send government >> checks to the likes of Bill Gates - but curiously, liberals never seem >> to mention that part of it! ;-) > >Sorry, but no. The *current state of the Federal government* reflects a >view whereby those things happen, and I can't believe I have to tell you >this, but that's *exactly* the kind of thing that liberals talk about >all the time. Michael Moore has made several movies on the topic, the >most notable being "Roger & Me." > >My point about Social Security was that it reflected a (perhaps bygone) >view of America as a place that makes sure that its elderly don't go >hungry. > >The biggest hidden costs in the Republican plan to "save" Social >Security will come when millions of retired Americans lose a chunk of >their so-called "ownership society" plans because the stock market >tanks and the Government has to step in because, let's face it, no >president is going to to preside over the starvation of senior >citizens.
Dave, I think that you completely missed my point. You say that Social Security reflects a view where Americans were willing to sacrifice a little to ensure that seniors did not "suffer privations" or "go hungry." My point, however, is that if those were really the values that Social Security were reflecting, then one would expect Social Security to, say, primaly provide benefits to those who were in danger of "suffering privations" or "going hungry." One might also expect it to demand the most sacrifice of those who most able to do so, rather than funding its benefits through regressive taxation. Based on the evidence, however, I can only conclude that Social Security is designed to reflect some other values - with the benefits to those who might "suffer privations" or "go hungry" being mere side effects. I'll also point out that I'm not sure that you really want to use Michael Moore as an exemplar of what liberals are talking about. Right? Well, even if what you say about "Roger and Me" is true, the point remains that liberal Democrats do not often talk about overhauling Social Security (President Bush is famously one of the first major politicans to touch the "third rail" of American Politics), and certainly don't often do so in terms of means-testing the benefits, or even really in terms of making the tax and benefits system more progressive. Lastly, you describe the real cost of President Bush's plan as coming "when" the stock market tanks. This provides an opportunity to discuss a fundamental difference in opinion. Do you believe that one's retirement should primarily be funded through one's own savings, or primarily be funded through the earnings of the next generation? For two reasons, I believe that the former is preferable. First, I believe that all those who are able should take responsibility for their own consumption in their own lives, rather than relying upon the generosity of others, whenever possible. Secondly, given that savings are at the root of economic growth, I believe that it will be best for the American economy in the long run to boost our savings. While it is possible that those who save might suffer losses in assets, this risk can be ameliorated to very low levels by properly diversifying one's investments and by beginning saving early in one's life. I think that proper roles for the Federal Government would be to ensure that proper diversification occurs, to ensure that saving begins early in life, and to ensure that upon retirement a proper annuity is established to keep the retiree out of poverty - in exchange for the government providing a bare-minimum "safety net", to protect individuals against absolute poverty in the event of a catastrophe. Overall, I believe that the risks to retirees of such a system would be reasonably comparable to the risks of government default on Social Security promises (for example, in the form of benefit cuts or a raising of the retirement age). In any event, even if the real cost of the President's plan would be a "bail out" of retirees whose investments tank in a stock market crash, even then, the country, and the Social Security System, still benefits from the President's plan to the tune of every retiree who retires successsfully on his or her own assets - with reduced Social Security Benefits -, between the start of the President's plan and the "stock market crash" you presuppose will happen. JDG _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
