I'MMA LET YOU FINISH
The mantra of the radical right and the libertarian Taliban is essentially a variation of this:
Regressive taxes are the fairest in the land.
Progressive taxation is theft.
It's part of the WSJ "Lucky Duckies" theory in their headlong rush to turn us into Brazil.
When they promise money they don't have to special interest groups on such a titanic scale, our legislators violate their fiduciary responsibility to the taxpayers.
She makes it sound like they are giving money to tobbaco or energy companies. When did the elderly become a "special interest group?"
OOps
When did the elderly become a "special interest group?"
You know those old people, always going on and on about the war and their gout and all. They should be happy to eat catfood and watch daytime TV.
I thought I'd heard the last of the "gigantic Ponzi scheme" wingnut whine, but here it is again. This article reads like it was recycled from the conservative rants of the early 1930's. If Social Security is on its last legs, it's because the Repukes have been hacking away at its ankles ever since it was enacted.
yah, that special interest group will be almost 20% of the population in a few years..
Can someone explain to me the whole Ayn Rand libertarian bit about selfishness being a virtue?
Because if Megan and her Galtians were really into what the philosophy says, they'd be out making money instead of writing their often silly pieces. If one notices, they write, and write, and write--for free--and don't seem to be making much money. If selfishness was a virtue and profitmaking business the most important moral calling, then they shouldn't be wasting time with that sort of stuff, should they?
Admittedly, this is a variation of: "If you're a vegetarian, then why are you wearing a leather belt?"
I bring this up, though, because those of us who seek a more economically fair world are always subject to "hypocrite" attacks at some level. Yet, we never attack the hypocrisy of these modern libertarians even though such an attack would prove our point about selflessness also being a human quality quite nicely.
Randism is, on the whole, a rationalization to justify behaving like a three-year old.
What is needed is a mechanism to strip moronic twits like Megan McArdle of all their assets and then send them into the streets of Chicago in January in golf clothing so they can experience what they're advocating first hand. They have no empathy, so a practical demonstration is needed
I don't see how any shorter Jane Galt can avoid mention of the friends and personal experience she has in whatever field she's talking about who can produce anecdotal evidence that she's right. Sure, she may not have mentioned them with this social security bit yet, but she will.
yes, I'm surprised this column didn't have the patented "according to my friend in the SSA...", or "my uncle says.."
Essentially, 'libertarianism' is like Scientology without Xenu and volcanoes.
One has to understand the 'bankrupcy' of SS is forecast using an annual GDP growth rate of 1.6%. I'd suggest that if the US had GDP growth rates of 1.6% or less over the next 30 years, SS would be the least of our worries.
It makes perfect sense to me. You see, all those tax cuts paid for by regressive taxes will promote "job creation" and "economic growth", which will more than make up for the money lost to Social Security taxes, and which will spring forth a private market solution to Social Security that's cheaper, universal, and which will reunite the original E Street Band for all time.
So it is said, so it shall be done.
They should be happy to eat catfood and watch daytime TV.
I like chicken. I like liver. Miaow-mix, Miaow-mix please deliver.
The rapidly increasing demographic group of the retired is causing a whole lot of trouble everywhere. Here, it's the only age-group still increasing, with overall population and births falling. Paying for them, as is right and just, is putting a lot of financial pressure on nations with good welfare systems.
already scrubbed.
Over 10,000 people will see this message today. I need at least 1,000 people to sign this prescription drug benefit petition today. Will you please sign? http://www.thePetitionSite.com/t...ction/
383366962
sign me up.
Recent articles by Paul Krugman state that the Bush Administration's economic policy,as conceived by Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform,is to do away with entitlement programs entirely,so the crisis described by McArdle is the goal not the problem for the current administration.One important step toward solving the crisis IMHO is to replace the current administration.
hi all,
i just want to say that the characterization of jg=mm is a tad unfair and histrionic in some places here. you sound just like many of the folks who comment on her weblog "asymmeterical information" http://www.janegalt.net/
when they are discussing topics dear to the hearts of socialists, communists, and well, folks with liberal leanings.
i find the arguement being made re hypocrisy interesting, and in answer to you, even if i disagree with mm on many issues, i don't think she is a hypocrite on her choice of profession. there is no requirement that i go out and make a profit in money terms in the market, if I CHOOSE not to. there is a requirement that i be allowed to exercise myself to the limits of what my human freedom (and my ability to choose the path of excellence for myself) dictates (with some understandable constraints to be sure). in any case, it could be argued that mm is following a trajectory that will pull in the big bucks eventually.
i actually liked the shorter summary of her position, and i will be interested to see how she will defend herself. since she has a fairly wide across the ideological spectrum group of readers and commentators on her blog, many quite sophisticated and educated, this will probably be argued to death over there, i am sure. don't worry, it has its fair share of nuts as well...
Didn't Ayn Rand think Critics and such were scum-of-the earth parasites?
Any time a writer calls Social Security a Ponzi scheme, it tips their hand a bit.
I never quite saw how that analogy made sense anyway.
In the 18th century, Britian taxed land heavily & didn't tax the mercantile class. The effect was to accelerate the transfer of wealth from the landed class to the mercantile class. See Isaac Kramnick, _Bolingbroke & His Circle_ http://www.semcoop.com/detail/0801480019 (And who said a Ph.D. in English was totally useless?)
Here's the dirty secret of using Social Security to fund the deficit: it's accelerating the transfer of wealth from the have-nots to the haves! If the Feds borrow $$ to fund the deficit, who's holding the notes? Not the working poor....
>>Any time a writer calls Social Security a Ponzi scheme, it tips their hand a bit.
exactly - shows the dishonesty and bankruptcy of McArdle's whole position. Let's hope she doesn't develop a career ending illness or injury and have to rely on SS well before age 65 to survive. About 38% of SS recipients are NOT retirees - but the dishonest people like McArdle never want to acknowledge that because it doesn't fit their propaganda.
Randism is, on the whole, a rationalization to justify behaving like a three-year old.
Gary Frazier
Mr. Frazier has done the world an enormous favor, now all of those people who are tempted to read Atlas Shrugged or the even more brain damagaing Fountain head can be kept from harm. This is it folks, the whole and total analysis of objectivism. There is absolutely nothing more to Ayn Rand than this, except a lot of bad writing.
I nominate Gary Frazier for the Nobel prize for literature.
Thank you.
LIBERTARIABNS ARE ALL IMMATUR AND STUPID AND WE R GONNA PUT THEM ALL IN TEH DUCK PIT AND TEHY R GONNA DIE!!!!!!!!!!1111
Any time a writer calls Social Security a Ponzi scheme, it tips their hand a bit.
I never quite saw how that analogy made sense anyway.
It doesn't. It's just that people can understand that "Ponzi scheme==bad" without actually thinking about it, while explaining the idea of a pay-as-you-go system is a little more complicated.
"Mr. Frazier has done the world an enormous favor, now all of those people who are tempted to read Atlas Shrugged or the even more brain damagaing Fountain head can be kept from harm. This is it folks, the whole and total analysis of objectivism. There is absolutely nothing more to Ayn Rand than this, except a lot of bad writing.
I nominate Gary Frazier for the Nobel prize for literature. "
Uh ok...
Btw, what is the position of the regulars here on personal retirement accounts? Frankly if someone wants to pay into a government system, I guess I wouldn't really care, but I think it's disgraceful that you HAVE to.
Sure Philly G, and perhaps you can explain to the rest of the class why taxes should also be optional. Taxes are the price you pay for living in the civilized world.
In comments over "there" they admit that privitising Social Security means raising Social Security taxes would have to happen to fund the privitization.
Isnt that what theyre fighting about anyway? Taxes rising? So we privitize it and the first thing they have to do are raise SS taxes..
WTF planet are we on?
"Sure Philly G, and perhaps you can explain to the rest of the class why taxes should also be optional. Taxes are the price you pay for living in the civilized world."
Yeah, how absurd. I mean, even Chile has private investment accounts, not to mention most European nations. That crazy, backwards progressives.
How dare they have the audacity to want to decide what to do with their retirement accounts! Don't they know that the government ALWAYS knows what's best for them?!
I apologize for even suggesting that private retirement accounts be considered an option. I just had this crazy notion that most of you were "pro-choice." Perhaps I was wrong.
"Sure Philly G, and perhaps you can explain to the rest of the class why taxes should also be optional. Taxes are the price you pay for living in the civilized world."
And total subservience to the government is the price you pay for living in a Communist world. What's your point exactly?
Philly G-The only countries that have replaced government-funded pensions with private accounts are Chile (under the Pinochet dictatorship) and Britain (and there only partially).
In both cases the programs have been failures. Not catastrophic failures, just a much higher rate of poverty for the elderly than elsewhere.
Most of the elderly in both Chile and Britain now live on less than they did before privatization, though both countries are richer than they were 20 years ago!
Two groups have benefited from privatizing pensions: high-earning taxpayers (who pay higher taxes under public pension provision) and the pension funds industry. Most of the pressure for privatization in the US comes from these two groups.
Don't take my word for it-read Robin Blackburn's excellent book on the future of pensions, Banking on Death.
Next time, Philly, refrain from making snarky comments until you know the facts. There is no excuse for being misinformed, if you insist on putting others down sarcastically.
There's nothing wrong with being a Libertarian, but there's something seriously wrong about advocating a philosphy of human liberation doesn't work in the real world, as Galt does. In this respect, Marxism and Libertarianism have more in common than you know...
To clarify my earlier post, let me add that there are several things that the Libertarians are right about.
I don't see any logic for the persecution of people for their consensual sexual practices, nor for their taste in drugs (marijuana is, in fact, less damaging to your health than alcohol or tobacco). Farming subsidies made sense in the 30s, but not today, when most of the money goes to agribusiness and large landowners. And the government-financed corporate graft that Bush has taken to new heights is opposed by most Libertarians, I should hope.
On a few issues like free trade, Libertarians are half-right; but there are caveats that their extremist philosphy does not allow.
On redistributive taxation and government programs, it is more a question of honesty than anything else. If you understand that low, regressive taxes and mimimal government will lead to higher inequality, including terrible poverty in some cases, but prefer freedom from government to lower poverty and equality-than OK, I don't agree with you but I respect your views. And so, I think, will most Atrios readers. But if you suggest that mimimal goverment you lead to a utopia of human freedom (what about corporate and other wealth-based restrictions on freedom?) and equality, than you are either an idiot or a liar and deserve to be ridiculed, even if your name is Milton Friedman.
And I think this is the heart of the matter. Much of the hostility to Libertarianism (especially Galt and her online ilk) is due more to their attitude than their beliefs. Philly G is a good example-that sacrcastic, arrogant, know-it-all attitude that conceals a fundamental ignorance of how the world works. This is why fanatics are not popular, even when they are right about some things.
Why isnt The FOuntainhead considered an example of terrorism and the wanton destruction of someone else's Private Property ?
I've never understood how Objectivists, much less Libertarians could justify this behavior.
And total subservience to the government is the price you pay for living in a Communist world. What's your point exactly?
This has what to do with my post? This has what to do with the government of THIS country? This has what to do with taxation under question?
Let’s see if you can understand it if it is explained slowly:
Social Security is a TAX.
Beneficiaries of the Social Security program include retirees, the disabled, and children.
People can’t live on just their Social Security payments.
Social Security is not a retirement program.
Demanding that you be allowed to opt out of Social Security is a demand that you be excused from taxation.
Not a single post here has suggested that you should not be allowed to save for your retirement (there goes the pro-choice nonsense).
Hey! My roommate made Atrios! Nice work, Jason.
how do these bastards get away with this bullshit?
If Phyllis G et al were to include the not-insignificant tax subsidies for persons investing in Roth IRAs, 401k programs (Whoopee!), and other similar programs, there is a de facto if not de jure system of individual retirement accounts precisely because businesses want to eliminate the hassle and expense of private pensions. Review at leisure the recent disasters involving steelworker and other pensions as they collapse. Note also that many of the alternative self-directed programs are among those heavily defrauded by the nimble fingers of the money-fondling classes. Frank Zappa said it best when he observed that ignorance and nostalgia together will combine to provide the necessary mass for the universe to collapse into singularity, yielding Bang 2.0.
"Philly G is a good example-that sacrcastic, arrogant, know-it-all attitude that conceals a fundamental ignorance of how the world works. This is why fanatics are not popular, even when they are right about some things."
First off, I'm not as radically libertarian as perhaps I've led on. I do think the government has a purpose in some things. Obviously, much fewer than you, but I do believe government has a purpose. In any case, the reason for my, as you call it, "sarcastic, arrogant, know-it-all" attitude is not to be any of those. It's to expose liberalism for what it is. You claim you're "pro-choice" but that's a bunch of bullshit.
Proof?
Are you pro-choice on guns?
No.
Pro-choice on SUV's?
Nope.
Pro-choice on school?
Nada.
Pro-choice on personal retirement accounts?
Also no.
I could keep going....
The point is that the "pro-choice" label of liberalism is a sham. It's been hijacked by liberals who have no right to use the term other than because it sounds good. In reality, it's meaningless to liberalism. Choice and liberalism are for the most part, polar opposites. Statism is more important than choice to liberals. Republicans are better in this regard but equally guilty on other occasions.
When I say I'm pro-choice, I mean it. And I'm consistent. Liberals use the term when it suits them and couldn't give 2 shits about choice in other instances.
Jean -- Singapore has a private account retirement system (as I understand it at least).
Not that I'd want to live there, but they seem to be able to make it work, more or less.
Pro-choice isn’t the catchall you seem to think it is. And there are few here who have suggested (and none in this thread) that anyone’s guns be confiscated, that people should be barred from owning SUVs, that people cannot choose to spend their own money to send their children to other schools, or that individuals cannot open individual retirement accounts. In other words, your claim of liberal opposition to choice doesn’t hold water; it is merely gratuitous sophistry.
Get something through your, apparently thick, head: there are few liberals who believe in abortion on the day of conception. That is, only those who are pro-abortion (and they are few and far between) believe that there should be no restrictions on the procedure. In fact, even the most ardent of abortion supporters aren’t in favor of removing all restrictions, find me even a single one suggesting that we should allow anyone with a few extra minutes the right to perform an abortion.
That PhyllsG is one courageous stud, baby. Finally, a real man has come along that won't be cowed by those all-powerful, hypocritical Liberals.
One man, alone, (with only Limbaugh, Talk Radio, FOX news, the Randites, Instapundit, the Washington Times, The New York Post, The Weekly Standard, The National Review, The Heritage Foundation, The American Enterprise Institute, The Cato Foundation, Republicans in Congress, the Supreme Court, and the Executive branch providing some support) with the balls to take on the almighty liberal elite that rules this country.
Where does he find the courage?
What a man.
Philly, I'm a liberal.
Are you pro-choice on guns?
This is is civil safety issue, operative at the state and local level, just like motor vehicle licensing. I find all Federal gun bans unconstitutional (the one case where I agreed with a Rehnquist opinion), but I think the 2nd Amendment, closely read, does not protect the right to keep/bear any weaponry one desires, eg. concealable weapons like handguns.
That being said, like I said above, this is a local issue -- choice! -- not a federal one.
Pro-choice on SUV's?
Sure. People should drive whatever they want, within reason -- ie. safety issues are important, and of course the costs of securing gasoline supplies for us to burn in such a wasteful manner should not be externalized like it is (think $1/gallon national security tax).
Pro-choice on school?
A well-funded school system available to all, regardless of means, is critically important in producing an egalitarian meritocracy.
I haven't seen anything wrt privitization that would improve the situation, though I am open to examples.
Pro-choice on personal retirement accounts?
Sure, as long as the social issues SSI was implemented to address don't recur.
Philly G,
You make a common mistake that I often hear from libertarians and conservatives.
SS is not a personal retirement program. It's a social safety net, intended to make sure, as someone above pointed out, the elderly and other social unfortunates don't have to survive on cat food.
It isn't your money.
As for McArdle, she's deeply dishonest and her blog commenters are a bunch of sychophants. I have to wonder if she would be the topic of anyone's converstation if she wasn't the rarest of birds-- a female libertarian.
By the way, if something as brain damaged as McArdle's column (or anything at tech central station) even needs to be rebutted,
You can read this.
"Pro-choice isn’t the catchall you seem to think it is. And there are few here who have suggested (and none in this thread) that anyone’s guns be confiscated, that people should be barred from owning SUVs, that people cannot choose to spend their own money to send their children to other schools, or that individuals cannot open individual retirement accounts. In other words, your claim of liberal opposition to choice doesn’t hold water; it is merely gratuitous sophistry."
Where have you been? Many liberals are appalled at all the things I just mentioned being made freely available. In some cases, it borders on the irrational (or perhaps in politicians case, they know its right but they're just trying to get re-elected). If you're not aware of this, perhaps it's time you switched parties.
"Get something through your, apparently thick, head: there are few liberals who believe in abortion on the day of conception. That is, only those who are pro-abortion (and they are few and far between) believe that there should be no restrictions on the procedure. In fact, even the most ardent of abortion supporters aren’t in favor of removing all restrictions, find me even a single one suggesting that we should allow anyone with a few extra minutes the right to perform an abortion."
Lori, I'm "pro-choice" on abortion too. You don't have to justify it to me.
And like I said, I'm not necessarily against someone wanting to put all their retirement savings into the government fund (even though none of our elected leaders are this same fund ironically, what do they know that I don't?). I would just like the choice, (remember that word?) to put the money where I want it to go. Personally, I think I should be allowed to keep all 100 percent but a personal retirement account of 10% or so that you find in many other nations is a good start.
New Deal?
I want a refund.
Statism is more important than choice to liberals.
There he goes flexing his mass telepathy again.
Though, he is mistaking sensible regulatory oversight as some sort of communist plot.
Are you pro-choice on guns?
Within reason, yes. States can make their own gun laws based on their own needs. The feds have a responsibility to prevent nuclear weapons and other "arms" from getting into the hands of people who shouldn't have them.
Pro-choice on SUV's?
Sure. I just think people should think more carefully about what they actually need. This is an issue that could easily be resolved if the car manufacturers would improve the efficiency of their SUVs. They refuse to do so, and instead spend the money that could be used for that on advertising to sell environmentally irresponsible cars. As a start, the CAFE standards need to be revised to bring SUVs in line with regular cars.
Pro-choice on school?
Certainly. If someone wants to pay to send their kids to a private school, they have every right to do so.
Pro-choice on personal retirement accounts?
I would personally like to opt out of Social Security. The way Georgie is destroying it and the rest of the government, it won't be there when it's time for me to collect it anyway.
Philly, your cartoon version of liberalism doesn’t hold water. What is the bill number in the House or Senate calling for the abolition of guns? What is the bill number calling for the closing of all private schools? The one to eliminate private retirement accounts? I’m sure you can get away with such laughable rhetoric in loony libertarian land, but here where real liberals post no one is going to let your clash with reality stand.
You claim to be pro-choice. I don’t like the fact that my home is in the flight path of the local airport. I have decided to take matters into my own hands and pick up an anti-aircraft gun. Do you support my right to bear arms?
You claim to be pro-choice. I want to send my child to a religious school where the weekly sacrifice of a baby is required; it is my belief that the government should supply me with these children. Do you support my right to school choice?
You claim to be pro-choice. I have an investment program where I sell land in Florida. I don’t happen to own the land. Do you support my right to this personal retirement account?
You claim to be pro-choice. I choose not to honor contracts; I choose to use my superior strength to steal from others; I choose to use my weapons to extort money. Do you support my right to choose?
Everyone draws limits somewhere.
hi pilly. "liberal" here.
am i pro choice on guns? yes
am i pro choice on suvs? yes, for the most part. although i would do away with the tax break on hummers.
am i pro choice on school? yes. i dont think you should have to go if you dont want to. i think the state should provide schools for those who do though.
am i pro choice on personal retirement accounts? yes. my 401(k) is still actually doing ok, in fact.
none of these questions has shit to do with social security, but since you seemed curious i figured i would be polite and answer.
Just testing how to insert a link. Picked an old thread, so hopefully no one will notice...
thinking peace
But go ahead and click!
trying again
thinking peace
ta de
thanks
Characters Remaining:
Commenting by HaloScan
