Yes, please do keep talking about social security privatization. Bushie's tour promoting that went great. I think that was the moment his approval really started tanking for good. I hope all GOP candidates talk about how they want to privatize social security.

I think at it's core the difference between libs and cons is that liberals actually believe there is such a thing as common good, and conservatives believe in every man for himself, might is right, the law of the jungle.
some made up name | 10.02.07 - 8:13 pm | #

OK, instead of privitization how about discussing insolvency? 2:1 payer/payee ratios. 85% real taxation?

What's your solution to an bankrupt Social Security, Medicare?

By the way, your Democrat run Congress is really burning up those approval ratings. Harry Reid attacking Limbaugh is so brilliant.
What a coward.
Kermit | Homepage | 10.02.07 - 8:25 pm | #

http://charmingjustcharming.blog...g.blogspot.com/
Here's an interesting take on this.
maxxdog | Homepage | 10.02.07 - 8:28 pm | #

I agree that Rush is a coward Kermit, but why do you have to lie about social security? It's not even close to insolvency even long term. Greenspan was on Meet the Press recently and said:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/2094...0941413/page/4/
"Social Security is not a big crisis. We’re approximately 2 percentage points of payroll short over the very long run. It’s a significant closing of the gap, but it’s doable, and doable in any number of ways."

Why does your party have to constantly lie and scare monger over social security?
some made up name | 10.02.07 - 8:34 pm | #

"doable in any number of ways"

Yup. Raising the minimum age to collect. Raising the percentage from the god-awful 16% it is now. Means testing to just tell people who have paid in all their lives Fuck You.
When you run a shell game like SocSec there's always a new angle to run the Kansas City Shuffle.
Why do you have to lie about simple demographics? You and Harry the Coward have much in common.
Kermit | Homepage | 10.02.07 - 8:57 pm | #

doable as in 1% increase in payroll tax overtime, 1% from sliding the age for payout to 70. That's far from bankrupt. You can curse at me all you want but that doesn't change the fact you lied about the condition of social security, your words speak for themselves, no wonder you're losing it.
some made up name | 10.02.07 - 9:15 pm | #

simply removing the salary cap on SS taxes would virtually eliminate the problem.
Happily Left Leaning | 10.02.07 - 9:20 pm | #

I know of no one stupid enough to wait until age 70 to start payments. Not voluntarily, but that's the bait and switch, isn't it?

A 1% increase. So 17% is just dandy, eh Comrade? It's confiscatory.

Then there's that whole inconvenient Baby Boomer problem you manage to ignore. There's gonna be a whole bunch of us, and if we can manage to keep you from killing us off with your National Health we will be collecting for 30 years.

I haven't "lied" about anything. You live in a socialist dreamworld. I don't curse you. I would pity you, but that would be a waste of time.
Kermit | Homepage | 10.02.07 - 9:44 pm | #

How about this for lowering the SS accounts payable balance:
Get rid of it. I'll forfeit everything that's been put into the Ponzi scheme. Ask me the same question in 15 years and you'll still get the same answer.
Quickest way to remove that ugly number.

Listen, for somebody who just turned 26 and who reports self-employ income, that proposal of 17% is, as Kermit mentioned, confiscatory.

I started receiving those make-believe statements from the goverment two summers ago. I look at the statement and say "hey, that's money I'll NEVER see". Hope that helps explain why, when I think about how much the gobment takes from me, SS is always included.

Expanding on Kermit's points, if means-testing and bump to 70 is enacted, ost of us are screwed.
john wayne of mn | 10.02.07 - 9:55 pm | #

"I know of no one stupid enough to wait until age 70 to start payments." Actually, the number of people waiting past their SS Normal retirement Age is increasing. Boomers are working longer and dont need the benefits in early retirement.

Here's a suggestion to all of you obviously wealthy capitalists -- donate all your SS payments to charity. That will help you avoid looking like more of a hypocrite than you really are.
Happily Left Leaning | 10.02.07 - 9:58 pm | #

John,

The myth that you'll never see that money was created by a wall-street funded lobby to drive privatization. Flat out it's not true. Again, why continue lying? As Greenspan said, social security is solvent long term and at most needs a 2% adjustment over time. As HLL pointed out one easy solution is to raise the cap, right now income over $96,000 doesn't pay any payroll tax at all.
some made up name | 10.02.07 - 9:59 pm | #

Kermit, saying social security is bankrupt when all facts say otherwise and you know it is a lie.

You said:
"What's your solution to an bankrupt Social Security"

It's not bankrupt and won't be, ergo, you are lying.

And when you say "Fuck you" to me that is a curse, but your juvenile level of rudeness has become normal for you.
some made up name | 10.02.07 - 10:03 pm | #

If it's solvent, why does the tax need to rise 2%? Thats a 12 percent increase in taxes. Besides, I contribute more every year just by earning more. But the return is so small that it aint worth it for me.

And doesn't the lack of any "lock box" or the 2:1 payee ratio get your attention?

We can argue about 16 % versus 18% or even 4% for a week. My main point is that it's a Ponzi scheme for redistribution of wealth. White males have an whooping 1% return for their investment in SS. For black males, the ROI in social security is negative. Ban the circus elephants, but where's the outrage here?
john wayne of mn | 10.02.07 - 10:10 pm | #

"Actually, the number of people waiting past their SS Normal retirement Age is increasing."

A) Bullshit
or
B) They aren't too frigging bright.
Which I imagine covers m ost of your associates, HLL.
Kermit | Homepage | 10.02.07 - 10:12 pm | #

SMUN whined "And when you say "Fuck you" to me that is a curse,"
OH! Reading comprehension deficit alert! Kermit really said:
"Means testing to just tell people who have paid in all their lives Fuck You." Should have added "is just".
I wasn't being rude to you, you drama queen. I wasn't referring to you at all.

I also did not say Social Security is bankrupt at this moment. Duh. That's coming in the future. Future. A concept you seem to have a difficult time grasping.
Kermit | Homepage | 10.02.07 - 10:21 pm | #

John, Greenspan said a 2% increase in payroll tax collected or equivilant would solve the problem, how is that a 12% increase?
some made up name | 10.02.07 - 10:41 pm | #

How about back to basics? I say the definition of liberal is way off, and the above conversation confirms it. Liberals do NOT believe that "people are basically good." They believe that THEY are smarter and "gooder" than everybody else, and everbody else needs THEM to tell us how to live our lives. They get very upset and call you names when you disagree with them and their wonderful plans for you.

That's why we have Social Security, and Medicare, and Medicaid, and Hillarycare, you know, because you people are too stupid and immoral to look after your own kids, your own retirement, or yourself. You should be happy that Social Security will tax the bejeebers out of your kids and grandkids to give you a 1% return, because you wouldn't dream of putting that money in a simple bank CD at 4%, would you? The question isn't why privatize Social Security. The question is what the h--l right is it of the government to force me into such an abysmal "investment"?

By the way, here's the dirty little secret about SS: By 2017 at the latest, Congress will have to cut benefits, raise taxes, or increase the deficit to cover SS payments. Those are the only choices and they're unavoidable so long as we refuse to consider a BETTER retirement system.
J. Ewing | 10.02.07 - 10:57 pm | #

In re: Social Security, may I suggest reading some of this? It's from people who are paid to study this stuff. I do have to say, the liberal conception of Social Security seems to be like my college kid's conception that his budget is fine because he can make next month's rent, and will make the one after that if only his boss would give him a raise. I don't know how you handle your budget, but where I'm from we call that "Mr. Ponzi's on the phone, babe."

J.Ewing is largely correct. And I have to take exception, Tracy, with the idea that you need large government for international trade. I put corn on a truck for Montreal, it comes back with Molson. Free trade. Where's the government's role in this?
kb | Homepage | 10.02.07 - 11:25 pm | #

The rest of Greenspans quote:

Medicare is a wholly different issue because, remember, right now, with the current entitlement, we can afford Medicare. It’s easily refunded. We’re going to double the size of the retired population. And by all of the analysis I go through in the book, it’s very evident to me that we are not able to actually deliver on the Medicare we are promising, and I think that is marginally unethical to immoral because we are promising to people who have not yet retired a fairly significant Medicare package which, if they knew they weren’t going to fully get, they would take actions now—maybe retire later, do different things—and I think everybody has been avoiding this issue. We avoided it in the Social Security Commission in 1983, and everyone’s done—been doing it since. Then it was more than 20 years before. We’re now right at the point where if we don’t act we’re going to be in very serious problem—trouble.

I agree that we can make changes to SS that will keep this shitty deal afloat for 30 or 40 more years, long enough for the current crop of politicians to be gone.

BUT, add in the issues with Medicare and the unknowables of the retiring Baby boomers and we have a major financial storm brewing.
Tracy | Homepage | 10.02.07 - 11:39 pm | #

One more thing on SS, in a few years there won't be a surplus to spend. That will hurt but it gets worse. Most people think that the government will be able to raise the cash to pay back the Trillions in IOU's to SS. That will really hurt.

THEN, we get to adress the financial instability in 2041.

There are a series of financial shocks in store, each one gets harder to deal with.
Tracy | Homepage | 10.02.07 - 11:42 pm | #

kb, Canada isn't the issue.

China, Japan and a few other countries have basically unfair advantages in the US market.

The US allowed the Japanese to destroy our domestic electronics industry.

Even our largest companies need the full support of the US government when dealing with other large countries.

I know I'm in the minority on this, but I see how other countries block our products.
Tracy | Homepage | 10.02.07 - 11:45 pm | #

Let us not forget if the dems get there way we will soon have several million old illigal 's relatives that were allowed over the board and never payed a penny into social security will be able to draw from the shrinking pool and also you need to add in the payments for SSI that comes out of the pool for thous that are disabled that comes out of the pool, and not to forget the people drawing from survivor benefits all of them are pulling money from the SS pool and no one mentions them
Tim | 10.03.07 - 12:17 am | #

So SMUN's wonderful plan for a 2% hike in the payroll tax won't necessarily "solve the problem"? Hmm.
I still want to know how he or anyone can justify a 18% payroll tax for Social Security.
Kermit | Homepage | 10.03.07 - 6:27 am | #

The US govt has and is destroying our industries of all types, from autos to electronics, to clothing and food. The tax system if too burdensome for any industry which has the option of moving abroad.

The cost of employment in the US is far beyond the paid wages. The taxes, rules, regulations, and tort risks add significantly to these costs.

For significant economic growth in this country the tax burden on business will have to be diminished. We all know corporations do not pay taxes, they are merely collection agents, passing on their tax burdens to end products.

Tracy, I think liberals believe in governmental action, not to achieve equal opportunity but equal outcome. Conservatives are in favor of equal opportunity, but believe capitalistic principles will achieve those ends--a basketball team which is opposed to hiring anyone over 6 ft tall is destined for failure when they oppose a team which does not.

SMUN & HLL are just talking more left-leaning nonsense when when pushing for either the 2% or cap removal for SS. The cap removal, along with the sunsetting of "Bush's tax-cuts" due in 2011, would saddle the rich with an additional 12.6% + 3% on an already overly burdensome 35%. More than half of what they earn over $96000 would go to the federal govt alone. Add state taxes, property taxes, and embedded taxes in the products they purchase and their tax rate would exceed 75%--and it will still not be enough for these loons.
tomc | 10.03.07 - 7:02 am | #

Read the Greenspan quote again. You can spin all you want, but social security is not in crisis or near bankruptcy, is solvent in the long term, needs minor adjustments only, and when you hear people say they don't believe they'll see any ss payments, that is their agenda talking not the facts. Privatization would be a huge payday for Wall Street.

Medicare does need reform, and your party's part D addition made the problem so much worse. Universal health care is the only real solution to out of control rising health care costs.
some made up name | 10.03.07 - 8:20 am | #

But again, please keep talking about how much you want to privatize social security.
some made up name | 10.03.07 - 8:21 am | #

Hmm, typical conversation. No actual discussion about the topic. Kermit attacks then everything is derailed to talk about social security. Booo!
Dougie D | 10.03.07 - 8:24 am | #

"Universal health care is the only real solution to out of control rising health care costs."
Wrong!

Competition in the health care industry, customised insurance availability and allowing small business to co-op makes more sense than letting the gov't direct it. Hillary says her plan will not create beauracracy. Bullshit!

As for the SS issue,
I see no reason that a small amount of the my money couldn't go into an account that I control instead of all of it being controlled by the pols who have no problems with their retirement due to their own special retirement program. If they had to be covered by SS this would not be an issue.
pig/dog | 10.03.07 - 8:34 am | #

Kermit's fact free name calling is out of control.
some made up name | 10.03.07 - 8:45 am | #

Let's try to get at some real facts, instead of all this gibberish about whether 2% or 3% more in taxes will "save" Social Security. (In my opinion, there's nothing there worth saving.) Let's just take the base numbers. Somewhere around $10 trillion in unfunded liabilities in Social Security, $40-60 trillion in Medicare, and a $10 trillion national debt. If we wanted to cover those liabilities, as corporate pensions are required by law to do (note once again how the government exempts themselves), We would have to DOUBLE the federal budget for the next 30 years, which means doubling the taxes. OK, that's simple math, but it doesn't seem simple enough for the liberals in Congress to want to do anything about it. All they want to do is scream eptithets at anyone who actually wants to warn about the oncoming disaster.
J. Ewing | 10.03.07 - 9:18 am | #

"Kermit's fact free name calling is out of control."

Apart from calling that coward Harry :We Surrender" Reid a coward I haven't called any of you whiney, liberals any names.

Ah, that feels better.
Kermit | 10.03.07 - 9:27 am | #

So when do we get a post about what a conservative believes? So far I can tell they like calling people names and like to talk about social security.
Dougie D | 10.03.07 - 9:28 am | #

Sweet chocolate muhammad, would you guys knock it off already? get over this bickering bullshit and move on!
Jim W | Homepage | 10.03.07 - 9:32 am | #

This was supposed to be the thread where we discussed core beliefs and principals of what is a conservative. This is supposed to be where the progressives and others who tend to disagree with us gain a better understanding of where we're comming from.
Instead thanks to smun and others it's just a godamned snarkfest with SS as a sideshow.

What the fuck?
I was hoping for actual conversation.
Grow up.
sequel | Homepage | 10.03.07 - 9:53 am | #

Don't come back with the "he started it" routine.
Stop acting like you're 8.
sequel | Homepage | 10.03.07 - 9:55 am | #

The post by Tracy mentions social security privatization, so it's fair game, in the first comment above, my first statement concerns ss privatization, how unpopular an idea that is, my second statement discusses core differences between libs and cons. I was civil and on topic. You need to look closer to home if you want more civilized discussions here.
some made up name | 10.03.07 - 9:59 am | #

Yeah "he started it"
That's great.

The first comment was pure snark, then it went downhill.
I don't care if YOU think it's on topic to sit back and be sarcastic.

We were asked to help define our views and why we think the way we do, any chance we can get on with that?
sequel | Homepage | 10.03.07 - 10:17 am | #

What are you waiting for?
some made up name | 10.03.07 - 10:22 am | #

I tried to make a reasonable point about SS insolvency and got the usual snide reprobation.
I even went so far as to try and direct the dialogue:
"OK, instead of privitization how about discussing insolvency? 2:1 payer/payee ratios. 85% real taxation?

What's your solution to an bankrupt Social Security, Medicare?"

And got "Alan Greenspan says there's no problem" as a response. What do you do with that?
Kermit | 10.03.07 - 10:32 am | #

SMUN iks correct that I mentioned SS in the intial post making it fair game.

The level of name calling has reached unacceptable levels.

I think I summarized Conservatism fairly and I added that my brand would probably be labeled Capitalist Conservatism.

While there are a large number of social conservative issues, like abortion, it's not really on my top 10 list.

In other areas like Immigration, Jason Lewis opposes it for social reasons while I oppose it for financial and legal reasons. I hate that illegals and other immigrants (like the Muslims) are turing back the advances of our Western society but I really hate that the illegals are breaking the law, lowering wages and adding to our already over burdened social systems.

Now, describe what sort of conservative you are, or where you part with Capitalist Conservatism.
Tracy | Homepage | 10.03.07 - 10:35 am | #

What are you waiting for?
I'm waiting for you to stop with the sarcastic comments.
sequel | Homepage | 10.03.07 - 10:35 am | #

It seems fair to mention your stands on things such as privatization of SS which would help give a window into your perspective but to actually discuss the programs pluses and minuses derails the point of the post.
Dougie D | 10.03.07 - 10:41 am | #

Since when did I become the voice of reason!
Dougie D | 10.03.07 - 10:51 am | #

Thanks Dougie.
You and I have gone a couple rounds in the past, and I and so I extra appreciate your sober take on this.
It was your question that started the idea of discussing our philosophical roots, and to help others understand why we think the way we do.
sequel | Homepage | 10.03.07 - 10:57 am | #

Thanks Dougie,

I have found that you have to include real world examples to get discussions going. Unfortuantely they do tend to sidetrack discussions.

So what new ideas do the Liberals have for today's problems?
Tracy | Homepage | 10.03.07 - 11:16 am | #

My biggest problem currently is trying to get Metrotransit to actually run the busses on time and to actually send a bus out for my route. It's stupid that I spend 1.5-2 hours a day commuting to travel 5 miles each way. I'm all for stopping expanding LRT until they can get some sort of arrival system set up to tell you when your bus is running late.
Dougie D | 10.03.07 - 11:35 am | #

What category would ex-liberals fall under? Isn't it kind of hard to put specific labels on either side? That may be why we got off on the Social Security issue. It's much easier to define yourself in light of a specific issue.
Kermit | 10.03.07 - 11:35 am | #

It's also odd that I don't think we need to do anything radically different from what we are doing.

Maybe stop paying attention so much attention to the daily sensationalist news.
Dougie D | 10.03.07 - 11:37 am | #

I have a suggestion let us start another thread that the topic is ONLY what our core is and not delving off to other topic and not becoming a flame fest. and by the way what happened to the thread about the constitution ??
Tim | 10.03.07 - 11:38 am | #

I think I would be more along the lines of a libertarian conservative.
Financially very conservative, and agree with Tracy’s take in that most stuff could be better done by free markets. They work every time. Free markets even weed out the lazy. They force people to be self-sustaining.
I think that there needs to be a safety net so that the idiot decisions of parents don’t leave children starving.
I do not believe is subsidizing sloth. There are WAY too many people on some sort of government dole. The way to get them off the dole is through market-based incentives, both positive and negative.

“A nation without borders is no nation at all” I have no idea who said that, but it’s spot on. We must choose whom to allow immigrating to our country: This is perfectly appropriate. The unchecked flow across our southern border is a very bad thing.
The dregs of Central American society sneak across the border bringing crime and a host of other problems with them. The artificial lowering of wages and innovation caused by the virtual slave labor hurts the American economy in the long run. Oh sure it helps farmer X harvest his lettuce on the cheap, it helps Tracy get a new roof cheaper, and it allows lots of other businesses to do well with all that cheap labor. It hurts American workers, and the economy as a whole. Removing this artificially cheap labor would drive up wages to the natural level the market dictates. Businesses that take advantage of this cheap labor and can’t afford to pay those added costs would need to turn to innovation, like harvesting machines, and robotics etc. Yes I’m fine with paying an extra buck for my salad.

Socially I’m very close to libertarian. I don’t care who you do; I don’t care who does you. If you want you and your “partner” to have inheritance, hospital visitation, joint tax returns etc, it seems perfectly reasonable to me. This is normally called domestic partnerships, and I’m in favor of them. If you call this marriage, you get 70% of the populations knickers in a bunch and is counter productive. Calling it marriage is more about in your face activism rather than asking for “equal rights”.

Drugs are stupid. People have the right to be stupid. Go ahead and wreck your life if you wish, just don’t ask me to subsidize your stupidity. Bans against softer drugs are ludicrous; There are plenty of folks who go to work every day, come home, have a beer and smoke a joint, and then smoke a cigarette. Why should any of that be illegal?
sequel | Homepage | 10.03.07 - 12:11 pm | #

Socially liberal (sort of) fiscally conservative describes the largest block of Americans. Neither party is able to stake out that area, hence the revolving doors in Congress.
Tracy | Homepage | 10.03.07 - 12:39 pm | #

Did Tracy just call me a centrist?
sequel | Homepage | 10.03.07 - 12:44 pm | #

So Dougie thinks that we should keep tax levels where they are and not create any new programs?

Welcome to the right side of the aisle!
Tracy | Homepage | 10.03.07 - 12:46 pm | #

I think another defining characteristic for conservatives is attitude. They are generally much more optimistic in outlook. They are certainly less likely to see themselves or others as victims.
Kermit | 10.03.07 - 12:55 pm | #

I think this conversation would be much more fruitful if people talked more about what they thought their beliefs were then projecting what they think other people think.
Dougie D | 10.03.07 - 1:03 pm | #

That's what I just did, Dougie.
Kermit | 10.03.07 - 1:22 pm | #

Dougie, if you're spending that much time commuting, may I suggest a "bicycle" or an "automobile"? Even "Walking" could be faster than that! (or a $40 razor scooter from Target?)

One of the chief aspects of conservatism is taking responsibility for one's own problems, for what it's worth.
Bike Bubba | Homepage | 10.03.07 - 2:16 pm | #

The problem with the US is that we have been told for years that the government is the first, last, and only solution to all the problems of humankind, if we just elect THEM. That is a liberal philosophy in a nutshell, and normally conservative Americans have fallen into the trap. Liberals can NEVER be trusted with government power, because they only solve problems in ways that increase your dependence on them, increase their own power, and in the end don't work. Socialism fails every time it's tried, but every liberal believes it is because THEY weren't in charge of it.

Conservatives believe that "I did it, so can you. Here, let me get out of your way. Oh, sorry, did you need a little help?" Liberals say, "Oh, you poor, stupid thing. You can't make it without US helping you. Just do as we say and we'll take care of you. Give us everything you have and we'll give some back if you deserve it."
J. Ewing | 10.03.07 - 2:31 pm | #

http://anti-strib.blogspot.com/2...ent- thread.html

I will try to moderate this thread to keep the discussion on track and respectful.
Tracy | Homepage | 10.03.07 - 3:12 pm | #

Well I have considered the scooter option but I think what will end up happening is carpooling.

5 miles is too far to walk and since where I work is business wear 4 days a week biking tends to get a tad sweaty. I am working on options. Biking would be the best but not really feasible 3-4 months a year.
Dougie D | 10.03.07 - 3:28 pm | #

Perhaps a automobile is in order Dougie.

Warm in the winter.
Cool in the summer.
Dry in the rain.

If you get a speck, you are likely to use very little petrol with that short commute.
Even at a slow 20mph rush hour crawl your commute would be 15 min instead of 2 hours.

Yes, yes indeed. It's time for a car Dougie.
sequel | Homepage | 10.03.07 - 4:04 pm | #

Sequel--

Your definition of your belief system as a "libertarian conservative" fits me to a "T". I never could place myself, now I know.

That's a load off.

I also identified with Justice Thomas in his interview on "60 Minutes" on Sunday.

Transcript here if you wish:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/ 2...in3305443.shtml

Jimmy
Fighting Irish | 10.03.07 - 4:28 pm | #

Thanks Jimmy.

It's hard to label yourself when you end up with a little of this and some of that. Standard conservatives are anti drug, anti abortion, pro christians.

As far drugs and abortion, I don't feel it's the state's place to interfere.

I am ambivalent toward religion.
Except Islam where I'm extremely antagonistic. It seems to me there ought to be a means test for a religion to make first amendment protection status. The Islamic death cult, forfiets any religious status because of the hate for infidels, and political cultural element where the constitution must be eliminated to achive their visions.

Libertarians go off the deep end with no borders, no standing army, no taxes, no social safety net, no nothing. It borders on anarchy. Government stay out of our lives sure, but there is a diminishing rate of return as you eliminate government.
sequel | Homepage | 10.03.07 - 4:47 pm | #

Libertarians sound like the proverbial slum landlord, me against the world, screw everyone else.

Republicans have some good things like wanting lower taxes, closing the borders, and so on but don't realize our society is too complex now to stop some forms of public funding.

Neoconservatives are like a blend of 'i got mine' republicans and spend like crazy democrats with corporate welfare subsidies and huge deficits.

Democrats are so close to socialists there is hardly much difference. Be nice to the terrorists and criminals while they fight against us, welfare programs creating more poverty, tax everyone into poverty, smoking bans, let any joe schmoe in the world move to the U.S. without obeying our laws, etc.

Can't we come up with something better?
spock jr. | 10.03.07 - 5:37 pm | #

Spock Jr.

I hear ya brotha.
It was my lament about todays republicans that started this topic.
It's my feeling that it's much like the Reagan quote "I didn't leave the party, the party left me.'

I wish I had the answers.
sequel | Homepage | 10.03.07 - 5:44 pm | #