On Socialism (or How Socialism Is Bad Until It Works For You)
By Shaun Kenney | Sunday, May 22nd, 2011 | PolicyHypothetical question: For those of you on *any* sort of government pension or about to become a beneficiary of one… are you willing to give that up in any sort of government budget fix?
It is a worthwhile Q. At the end of the day, we’ve promised a heck of a lot in terms of social security, pensions, Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, food stamps, government securities on mortgages, tax breaks, tax exemptions, promises to the military services…
It gets back to two fundamental points: (1) Socialism sucks… until it works for you, and (2) in all this talk of liberty, what are we really willing to give up?
Pensions and entitlements are an easy answer… until it’s your pension, or grandma’s Medicaid at $75 a day.
When you start getting down to monetary items, or transportation, or education, or the military, or food stamps, or social services, or state police, or EMS providers, or government-sponsored research, or mortgages, or agriculture subsidies, or low-interest student loans…
In short, do we really know what we’re asking for when we are asking for the demise of the current quasi-socialism goop that is the current federal (and state?) budget?
Are we really willing to meet the challenge of what we’re asking for?
There’s a lot of facets to this. I’m sure we can find a wounded vet for every welfare queen… but the point still holds. Maybe we’re all “socialists” at the end of the day if we’re providing for the wounded vet… but differing in degrees?
Still, everyone wants something for free. No one wants decreased services, no one wants their taxes raised (or at least their taxes raised). How do you cure the demands of a generation spoiled? Generation Xers have one heck of a responsibility right now… and frankly, beyond political rhetoric, no one really has the right mathematical equation at the moment.
It’s a serious question, and completely open ended. Offer your ideas in the comments section below, because as we get closer to August, this is going to be *the* national question of import that thoughtful, rational Americans are going to have to answer and reconcile.
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
Shaun Kenney is the Chairman of the Fluvanna County Board of Supervisors, former Communications Director for the Republican Party of Virginia, and an active blogger since 2002. Shaun lives in Thomas Jefferson's backyard with his wife, six children, and a modest attempt at a farm in Kents Store, Virginia.
We're 75% there! Thank you to everyone who has so far contributed! Just $2000 to go!
Comments
40 Responses to "On Socialism (or How Socialism Is Bad Until It Works For You)"
Well it’s nice to see someone is willing to look at the reality. Frankly not many people will be willing to give up the social safety net and services that government currently provides.
However, I do think older generations should be willing to pick up the tab. Younger generations shouldn’t loose their benefits because their parents and grandparents’ elected leaders made poor decisions and borrowed heavily.
ToR. Absolutely backwards. The older generations were sold on a promise and they voted for it. However, we should do what we can to honor that promise. Those of us under 60 need to be willing to see that sacrifices need to be made.
Implement Means testing, raising age requirements and freezing overall spending levels for a period of time. Limit federal government spending to a specific percentage (say 20%) of the economy. Combine these with economic boosts from cutting back on nitnoid job killing regs (the 80 – 20 rule) and perhaps a simplified tax system to produce minimal pain, a true social safety net and economic growth. But it will have to happen very soon. Once a country goes over the cliff, it never comes back as it was. Read the history books.
Valentinus –
Well stated.
That’s what I’m afraid of. It won’t be collapse or anything silly like that, but the telltale cracks will have gone unchecked.
Shawn, You’re argument is flawed because Socialism is an ideological dream, it doesn’t truly exist. There are only two true governments, ogliarchy and Republics. The others are just transitions.
Your argument should be based off collectivism & individualism. People would realize that all collective groups are comprised of individuals with different needs and wants. I understand you’re position but you’ll never overcome the compassionate argument. One that collective groups do not exhibit and a so-called Socialist society can never achieve. It’s the satisfied Individual that truly prospers and can only be accomplished through capitalism.
It’s a shame a whole generation has been indoctrinated with this argument. The Democrats (and some Republicans) are destined to put our country on the path of Cloward and Piven. You’re argument should be whether we are to be a part of a World Government.
Don’t know how crazy that sounds but they’re not hiding their intentions. Americans comprise alot of wealth and that collective argument doesn’t look too appealing when its shared with 1 billion Chinese.
Shaun,
Military retired pay, unlike the other entitlement programs you lump it in with, is not a government give away or a pension. Military retirement is ‘deferred compensation.’ When military pay compatibility studies are conducted annually to determine the appropriate pay raise for military members, that pay raise has always been decremented by 1.5 percentage points. That is the ‘deferred compensation’ that provides the DoD with the statutory authority to involuntarily recall retired service members to active duty.
Military retired pay is not a pension. It is deferred compensation that belongs to a retiree every bit as much as you own your 401k account. And, unlike Social Security, military retirees pay more into the system on average then they withdraw.
I don’t have a position in this… I’m seriously asking the question (1) whether people are living consistent with their ideology, and (2) whether folks are seriously prepared to live in their visionary society that disbands all things deemed “socialist” to them.
@Jackson –
Having read and being a big fan of Mises “On Socialism” the vital question will always be individualism vs. socialism. Whether or not we are willing to find that Aristotelean mean between anarchy and tyranny remains to be seen….
@HisRoc —
Military pensions are pensions all the same, requiring the active employment and participation of the working to pay for the retirees.
Should those participants stop participating, would retirement pay cease? You bet it would… hence it’s not the same as any 401k where what the individual puts in is individually accrued and measured. To the contrary… if the military switched up and stopped paying into the pension system, those checks would stop or be sharply reduced. Hence, it is indeed a pension system.
Anarchy is not part of the Individualist-Collectivist equation, it determines the true role of government. Under collectivism, government provides for the greater good of the whole even if an individual is sacrificed. For Individualism, government protects the individual’s rights and the individual is protected from the collective. That’s a far cry from anarchy.
If you want to discuss anarchy, let’s discuss Cloward & Piven and the true objective of the Democrats (and Washington). If their intention is to collapse the economic system (Cloward-Piven) and to create a new system, this argument is for nothing.
Do you really think Washington is about balancing the budget? And do you think a $4 trillion spending budget is acceptable? Even when there are only two other economies (China and Japan) that could support it. Well, maybe one.
While the Democrats urge open borders, legalize illegal immigrants, pay their tuition, healthcare, food stamps and all the other spending, can you honestly say the Democrats want to balance the budget?
I believe this needs to be the debate. Whether Saul Alinsky’s true inspirations are being exercised. He was the inspiration for Clinton’s thesis and Obama’s classroom. It’s only fitting that a strategy to collapse the economic systems should be discussed.
Shaun,
“Should those participants stop participating, would retirement pay cease?”
Well, to a large extent, that has already occurred. The active military end strength at the height of the Cold War and Viet Nam was 3.5 million. Today it is 1.4 million. Participation has dropped 60%, but retirement pay is still being paid.
The reason for that is because military retired pay is not a pension. In a pension benefit, there is a pension fund sitting somewhere to pay out benefits. It might be the Social Security Trust Fund, an IRA, or a privately held annuity, such as in corporations that still pay a pension. Military retired pay is appropriated annually by the Congress. It gets paid regardless of the participation rates or contributions. Therefore, it is not a pension.
I would be willing to take a hit on my military retiree pay, but not 40% (the approximate percentage of spending that is borrowed). I certainly wouldn’t oppose stopping increases for a while and maybe a small decrease (5% or less) as part of a comprehensive package. I would forego any future Social Security benefits if I could opt out now (I am under 45 years old) and not pay “in” anymore. I definitely agree with means testing social security and Medicare and would love to be one of those who failed the test (or is that pass?). Actually I think everyone on Social Security “retirement” should get just barely enough to pay for a room in a seedy boarding house, enough food to keep you alive, and a little bit for some clothes at a thrift store. That’s it. Just a little better than a cardboard box. All that said, I would want to see real spending and significant spending cuts and a balanced budget along with any sacrifice on my military retiree pay.
The answer to this is easy once you have adopted a consistent philosophy of individual liberty and limited government whose purpose is protecting the liberty and property of the individual.
Cut everything. If the federal government were restored to only its Constitutional functions it would be much less than half its current size.
I have come here very often and made the argument to varying degrees. Here’s the crux of it: for the past thirty years we have been living in a credit bubble, courtesy of the fed. I keep urging you guys to look at the chart of the ten year treasury constant maturity rate security. It tells you everything you need to know. Most adults alive today are emotionally stuck in the easy-money paradigm, and it’s hard to break.
Please read this article:
http://seekingalpha.com/article/262620-why-congress-won-t-cut-the-deficit
I’d be delighted to discuss this article in any level of detail any of you would care to. The MSM seems to just now be waking up, Fox at least seems to be starting to.
The economic environment that has existed for the past thirty years has ended. The paradigm shift has perhaps just begun.
It is impossible to make decisions that will actually put us on a path to prosperity until some significant minority of the populace and the political class are capable of recognizing the epic nature of the situation that confronts us. Epic.Nature. Our situation is unprecedented. We have been abusing the reserve currency privilege and the world is tired of it. This time it will be impossible for us to tell the world, as Connally did the Europeans in 1971: “The dollar may be our currency but it’s your problem.” Things are different now. There will be USD strength in the near term owing to the sequential nature of currency debasement; first the Euro, then USD, then pound sterling, then USD’s turn again. Financial news is now about Greece, so it’s the USD’s turn to shine. This will be temporary.
Everything must be cut. The wars must be ended and the troops brought home. Subsidies ended, departments closed. Money-for-nothing schemes stopped, bailouts clawed back, free livings for protected classes cut off.
We never could afford the welfare/warfare state, but thirty years of Fed credit bubble convinced us we could. It’s over; we have to slash regulations and let Americans produce wealth again, on a scale that still too few people understand.
On a personal level, I concluded about twenty years ago that there would be no Social Security for me. I’d opt out of the system if it could be done; I consider all of the money I put into the system as gone. Social Security and Medicare do not figure into my retirement plans. FWIW I also never counted my inflated home value as part of my net worth, either, I knew it wasn’t real. Neighbors used to tell me about what their homes were worth and I’d just say “It’s not real” and then I’d get a funny look. No more funny looks.
I’d rather send money directly to my parents than have the government steal it from me and spend it on crap. Thing is, my parents saved money all their lives and are providing quite well for themselves in retirement. The thing that threatens them is the Fed’s money-printing will destroy the buying power of their lifetime of hard work and savings.
The Fed giveth, and the Fed taketh away. I can’t understand why we tolerate it.
Shaun,
If I send 15% of wages earned to State Farm, it’s called an insurance policy.
If I send 15% of wages to Wheat First/Wachovia, it’s called a retirement savings account.
If I send 15% of wages to the US Treasury, it’s called a government-funded entitlement program?
Unlike JZ’s military pension, the law requires that paid ‘contributions’ – 15.3% of wages earned fund OASDI and HI – and I’ve been paying FICA taxes since 1974. After I retire, I’ll be buying – not receiving for free – much of my Medicare insurance coverage. Sure, I’ll take that seedy boarding house and thrift store credit – when JZ gives up his taxpayer funded ‘pension’ because … well, sorry bud, we just can’t afford to keep THAT promise either!
That said, my specific suggestions for OASDI/ HI (Medicare) would be:
- HI isn’t capped/ OASDI is capped at slightly over 100K; remove this cap and you’ll automatically help ‘the rich to pay more’.
- Offer front-of-the-line status to all foreign-born, non-citizen students upon graduation from US colleges.
- Move unemployment, disability, aid to families and all unrelated programs out of the SS/ Medicare retirement program and into separate, general fund supported accounts.
- Phase out SS (retirement) and Medicare over time. This program obviously is a dog and should be killed off.
- Punish fraud harshly and severely ~ average length of sentence now is less than 45 months.
- I don’t expect ‘opt outs’ to be part of an allowable solution for at least another decade; still way too many of us boomers working (and paying up to the maximum FICA taxes) for the Fed to give up that kind of cash revenue.
David Stockman on Bloomberg; 6 minutes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qKg1fq1FC8&feature=player_embedded
Right diagnosis, wrong prescription.
Shaun,
Guess your discussion is correct, as long as it doesn’t affect me. It’s a shame that you see the affects of the Democrat handout program. Even proud individuals start crying like babies when they’re portion of the pie is affected.
As Bernie Madoff is sitting in jail, Jay D is championing the government and their ponzi scheme.
As a retired vet, I could’ve gotten out of the military and made a hefty bit of money if I’d known that the Government was tearing down what I thought was my mortgage payment. Even though This attack on jobs and prosperity seem to be killing my secondary plan of working my ass out of this situation.
Meanwhile, we’re squabbling over whether our state government will get the proceeds of oil rigs over a bogus Global Warming. While we’re debating pensions and retirements, Harry Reid’s Cowboy Poetry and Planned Parenthood’s abortions are still funded.
Funny how appeasement works.
John Jackson: Not championing at all. I completely agree, SS is a Ponzi scheme and made worse as more and more ‘benefits’ got piled on it. The question today isn’t do you like it, but what would you do to fix, change, or phase it out. Look, I’m with Jamie … never expected SS would still be around and certainly never included it in retirement plans. But the fact that I’m not counting on it for survival doesn’t discount the fact the government taxed and collected on earnings in exchange for a promise of future payout. Same is true for military pensions – a promise of a future payout was part of your contract. And just as your medical/retirement benefits were expanded and enhanced over time (from space available at a military hospital to CHAMPUS to TRICARE), so has SSI expanded.
We can jail Madoff, but Uncle Sam is off limits. So what is a reasonable ‘out’ here?
Jamie – enjoyed the alpha article. I’m not optimistic at all the system will ever change. For that to happen, an engaged and educated electorate is required. I suspect the future holds something else – bankruptcy and revolution perhaps?
Jay D,
My point is we need to stop appeasing the crack addict, stop providing more revenue to bureaucrats so they can give $1B to Jordan and forgive Egypt’s $1B debt.
Meanwhile, I need to discuss giving up my retirement. As I said before, we need to get our spending down to a reasonable level and $4T is not it. Discussing VAT taxes, increased income, etc. is not going to get there from here because next time,
As I will discuss my retirement and amnesty, when government gets their spending under control and borders secured. But until we get politicians on that 12-step program, it doesn’t matter how much we give up. It won’t be enough.
John Jackson: I can’t disagree with anything you wrote … but the question is which part of government spending will take the cuts? Your retirement; our parent’s social security; my home owner’s tax deduction; the oil company’s tax breaks; the wounded vet’s disability check; the unmarried mother’s aid, food stamps &subsidized housing; the federal highway transportation funds; the national parks upkeep; the border patrol; the cost to fly planes over Libya … all come from the same source: the US Treasury. So where should we ‘cut’?
Shaun makes a great point and asks the right questions. Frankly, IMO, ‘the political’ always trumps ‘the right’ ~ the only way we’ll ever see significant cuts will be an across the board, slash every federal department and agency by x% cut … and then let the chips fall. BTW – whatever happened to PAYGO?
I meant to agree even though my posts don’t come across that, I’ve been working on my delivery. As for cuts, let’s start with Harry Reid’s cowboy poetry and Planned Parenthood and all that discretionary spending.
The intent of the Democrats (and some Republicans) are not to balance any budget. It seems our government is using our own money to put restrictions on us, i.e. body scanners, armored vehicles for local police, etc.
Maybe go back to 2007 spending levels. They expect our carbon emissions to drop to 1990 levels, why not the budget?
Caught the tail end of OMB director Jack Lew’s talk with the Washington Economic Club last night. Couple of interesting points:
#1 – Discretionary spending consumes 12% of the entire budget. Obviously, hard cuts in this area (while many rightly argue are much needed) will, at best, produce minor impact on overall debt.
#2 – Lew also served on the 1983 SS Commission that produced amendments which accelerated payroll tax increases, added federal/state workers to the system, taxed portions of SSI, and removed SS surplus from the unified budget (adopted under the Johnson administration).
#3 – Instead, Congress ‘invested’ the large SS surplus in non-marketable securities, specifically Government Account Series Treasuries that allow the government to borrow from its own accounts (i.e. Trust Funds). In essence, Congress spent the SS surplus and replaced it with IOUs.
I checked out the debt breakout at: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/feddebt/feddebt_daily.htm
On May 11, 2011 the DAILY debt held by the public was 9.7 million millions; the DAILY debt in intragovernmental holdings was 4.6 million millions ~ w/ 99% of this number owed to the SS Trust Fund. Look at these numbers: about 1/3 of all US total debt is owed … to the SS Trust Fund.
It’s Director Lew’s opinion, and one I share, that lumping SS into the overall deficit/debt reduction discussion isn’t the right way to go. We should separate the issues and deal with each one independently. Regarding SS, my guess is we’ll see:
- Another payroll tax increase (while the vast majority of boomers are still working),
- Reduction in full benefits,
- Increased tax on benefits,
- End to all income caps.
Jay D,
#1 – That’s 12% less budget and 12% less government influence over the free market economy. Well, what use to be a free market. Besides, isn’t that a start?
As for the SSI accounting gimmicks, its still owed no matter which hand its in.
Sometimes, I have trouble following you. As you say you agree, most of your points are to the contrary, or to me they read that way. You’re advocating giving the alcoholic another drink.
JohnJackson – We are likely philosophically in alignment, but way, way apart on actual execution.
Political rhetoric & philosophical positions aren’t much help in developing sound public policy, which should be molded by fiscal realities and best available forecasts. You say cut all (non-defense) discretionary spending … a free market, less government, 12% immediate savings!
That rhetoric (in execution) actually means zero federal dollars to fund the FBI, Coast Guard, EPA, veterans affairs, education, housing & community projects, international affairs, transportation, science, technology, energy, space, foreign aid, food, etc. Now that 12% cut will happen when cows fly; so what is gained by repeating the rhetoric?
My original point was, could there be a deliberate attempt to collapse our government using the Cloward & Piven strategy?
Until that question is answered, all this other rhetoric is just that. Rhetoric. No matter how much federally funded facts you put behind it.
It’s funny how funding rather sways the numbers, look at Climate Change.
interesting article for a community leader seeking federal csbg funds for a local town, columbia, per his own press release under the guise of someone else’s pen
mr kenney, i assume your federal deficit decrying is about everything but the millions you seek for a town that should be at the whim of the private sector….or not
Jay D,
Let me give you some facts about my so-called rhetoric on our movement toward the United Soviet States.
1) Norfolk and James City County are members of ICLEI (International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives) Even Charlottesville, VA are partners with ICLEI so Shaun may be familiar with their training?
iclei.org/index.php?id=11454
2) This organization “promotes participatory, long-term strategic planning process that address local sustainability while protecting global common goods.”
iclei.org/index.php?id=about
Note: that they mention a World Congress.
3) They support Agenda 21:
iclei.org/index.php?id=global-themes.
Note the Meeting Milestones, sound familiar with your Community Plans.
4) See paragraph 1.6 “Agenda 21 is a dynamic programme. It will be carried out by the various actors according to the different situations, capacities and priorities of countries and regions in full respect of all the principles contained in the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development. It could evolve over time in the light of changing needs and circumstances. This process marks the beginning of a new global partnership for sustainable development.”
5) Here’s the Community Plans from Norfolk:
norfolkofficialplan.ca/official_plan/
James City County:
jccegov.com/pdf/parksrecpdfs/2011documents/MCPWrap3411.pdf
NOTE: James City County is going through developing their community plan. This is known as “Delphi Technique” brought to my attention by Sandy. Thanks, that was one of my missing pieces.
Charlottesville Comprehensive Plan:
charlottesville.org/Index.aspx?page=1745
It seems like every area has an interest in Light Rail.
Virginia Beach, and you don’t have to be a member to be a part of the Community/Comprehensive Plan (even though its a state law):
vbgov.com/file_source/dept/citymgr/BEACHnet/SCG/Documents/10-12StrategicPlan.pdf
Now, this involves some critical thinking but if you look at all these plans, they resemble each other. Why is that? Is Charlottesville going to have the same agenda as Norfolk? I would imagine not.
An International Organization pushing a UN agenda on your local communities to develop plans and goals. The purpose is to have the city develop goals so they are held accountable. No conspiracy necessary…the organization pushing this is ICLEI. Documentation is available.
Wonder why President Obama is still in Libya and not one comment from our Congress about him violating the War Powers Act.
Oh and here’s a magazine that lays it out alittle better, check out the article on Pg 3 by Michelle Wyman. It doesn’t say anything about creating jobs, actually quite the opposite. She has brought a United Nations program to you and your community, all you have to do is sit back and enjoy.
Check out the milestones, establish, adopt, develop, implement and measure.
http://www.vml.org/VTC/08VTC-PDF/VTC08Feb_Web.pdf
On ICLEI.org website, it’s on the Programs tab right under Agenda 21, the Rio Conventions and the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation.
More “political rhetoric & philosophical positions” coming.
As a public employee 14 years into my 30 needed for retirement, your argument over socialism bad until it works for you struck me. I do expect to receive my defined retirement benefit of 60% of my final average salary.
Four years ago my 2.6% contributions to my pension stopped as the economy was doing well then. I, and many of my coworkers, would agree to once again start contributing 2.6% toward our retirement. Right now the county (state for state workers) is footing the full 5.2%.
It is my understanding NY’s pension plan is on much more solid footing right now as it is 97% funded as of April. Still, I would be willing to pay a little more to protect my current pension.
I would be willing to endure sacrifices for Social Security. Means testing, higher retirement age, and even elimination of Social Security or extreme reduction for people my age. Personally, I am not counting for Social Security for retirement. I am counting on personal savings and my state pension.
I am all for public policy that discourages those of us who are still in a position to make our own arrangements for retirement to rely on ourselves and not rely on Social Security. SS was not meant to be permanent or a primary retirement plan. We need to remind people of this.
Absent any other serious attempts to save Medicare, I support the Ryan plan as something needs to be done to reform Medicare as unfortunately we do not possess the political will to get rid of it.
Shawnie, my understanding is, if I lived in your county, what I’d be giving up is more of my own money because you raised taxes. Yes, son, you.
Socialism DOES work … for politicians.
Glad I did not vote for you.
Cheerio(s)
rtwingtroll –
You don’t have the previous BOS buy the second most expensive high school in Virginia without a tax increase. Without conservatives on the board cutting the budget, it would have been a guaranteed 21 cent tax hike. To date, it’ll only be 7 cents.
Sorry to disappoint… but this is what happens when you get stuck with the bag.
Yesh, and Obama says it’s all Bush’s fault. That’s how you politicians always ‘splain it to us dumb workin folks.
No, Shawn, you could have cut more spending and government jobs to pay for the school, but you didn’t … you knocked the tax rate up rather than fight the teacher’s union and sheriff.
Wuss.
Chippyo
Cut them almost $4 million dollars… still another $1.4 million to go.
To go back to the original question, it seems unreasonable to take away benefits or pensions earned, but the need to reform the tax system should be implemented to increase revenue at the same time that expenditures are reduced as well. Even for social security, certain small changes can help; gradual increase to age 70, different COL index, increase the years to calculate benefits, add all state and local government employees. These realtively small changes make the system solvent for decades.
Going back to the original post, discarding conspiracy theories about one-world government (I’m looking forward to joining Star Fleet), I think people are willing to consider some sacrifice on their part as long as they are assured that it is SHARED sacrifice. I don’t think people are feeling that either party is truly putting forward a plan for shared sacrifice. While Republicans want to chop up the social safety net programs they never liked anyway, Democrats propose soaking the rich and cutting defense. It’s probably the case that we need to do a little of each of these, but nobody is really interested in reaching a solution if the solution doesn’t conform to their ideology.
Well said SV.
Mike, I’m concerned that a ‘gradual increase to age 70′, while tolerable for white collar desk types (like me), would be an extreme hardship for folks that perform “real” labor. We’ve done great (medically) w/ disease, but the body still ages ~ 50 years of laying brick, fabbing steel, commercial construction, welding, etc. ages it a heck of a lot faster than working a keyboard or phone. But all the other options,IMO, should be on the table.
When you read stories like this, it should make you really question certain assumptions about “personal responsibility”, “it’s your money, not the gov’ts”, and “cut entitlements”:
http://finance.yahoo.com/focus-retirement/article/112167/boomers-find-401k-plans-fall-short?mod=fidelity-managingwealth&cat=fidelity_2010_managing_wealth
We may want to cover our eyes and ears, but reality is staring us right in the face. The fact is that retirement planning is something 90% of us can not do. So while we may philosophically want to say “no new taxes” and “cut, cut, cut”, I don’t know that it’s realistic. I’ve worked in finance, and I can tell you this…a small minority of individuals (most of whom, not all but most, are skilled professionals or businessmen/women with good educations) have enough savvy to navigate the pitfalls of retirement “on their own.” But God help us if we say “to hell with SS and Medicare and defined benefit pensions, etc.” Hear me now, believe me later…that would be a very ugly picture for our society. Most people do not have one of the following: the intellect, the income or the self-control to save and WISELY invest the 11 to 17% of earnings, depending on what you earn, it would take to fully fund a retirement WITH SS and Medicare. Imagine a world without SS and Medicare as retirement bridges. Think about it. I too sometimes look at the debt situation and get angry and want to take a knife to the entitlements. But when you step back and look at it rationally, I just don’t see that being a realistic approach if you believe that most people should retire in their late 60s to mid 70s. My best guesses as to “fixes” are: raise the eligibility age for SS to 69, take the cap off SS taxes, means test for Medicare, raise Medicare premiums, and yes, probably raise the payroll taxes a bit for both programs.
It’s a world governance, not government but I’m glad to see that you’re ignoring this possibility as your discussing your retirement plans 30 years from now. Good luck as your local government makes deals to destroying what little wealth you currently have. Oh, and your federal government.
Going back to the original question, you can’t negotiate with tax and spend liberals…there’s not enough money and if we continue to have this SHARED SACRIFICE, then what’s happening when they need to come to the til again. Wasn’t the stimulus going to solve this but that was a slush fund.
Seems like they’ve been here a lot for a $4T spending budget. Until our political class and useful idiots understand that then we’ll continue to masquerade the movement as another capitalist system failure.
Steve, you’re already on your spaceship because the Democrats are yet to put a plan forward. They haven’t proposed anything for two years but the media can’t seem to grasp that. The President did put forth a big 0 in the support category.
Besides the Democrats want to take the poor too, they just want to do it through those evil OIL COMPANIES.
Jay D, Come on buddy…at least call it ignorant.
John Jackson: not ignorant, but also not rational. Look, it took lawmakers 8 decades to convert a do it yourself economy into what is the government going to do for me?. It’s impossible to reverse that level of collective thinking in a single congress (or a single decade). GhostOfTD accurately (IMO) describes where we are today, so my questions are: how to stop the hemorrhages? … begin to reverse the damage?… avoid causing another recession?… and ensure we aren’t just shifting people from one government-run program (SS retirement & Medicare) to another (Medicaid, food stamps, & other programs designed for the poor)?
If you would rather rant on the macro level, fine. But the debate must, at some point, drill down to the micro ~ and that is where potential solutions (and POAs) are to be found.
Offer up specifics (as the thread requests) and I’m more than willing to have conversation. Never said I had all the answers, or even the right answers. But the answers are there, if congress is willing to back out of media spotlights, build trust, and negotiate honestly for solutions.
FWIW …SS is a simple actuarial problem ~ run the numbers and then tweak benefits, participants, & tax rates to return solvency the fund ~ and then legally protect the trust fund from congressional raids.
Jay D – Thank you for acknowledging my comment. It’s burdensome attempting to have, what I consider the true & intellectual debate, while people mock it. It shows the level of truly wanting to solve an issue. As to Socialism, Shaun seems to present two false choices as to the real issues are residing on a micro level.
Oh, Congratulations to Norfolk for winning the “Best in Global Real Estate Sector” and coming in 18th Best World – Wide out of 4,400 Competitors. Norfolk residence must be proud to gain global recognition. You must be doing something right on an International level…
http://www.nrha.norfolk.va.us/content/nrha-annual-report-named-best-global-real-estate-sector-and-18th-best-world-wide-out-4400-co
Now I understand why a commercial realtor like Mike Barrett is pushing such a liberal agenda so hard. He has a lot to gain and it appears that he may be that greedy capitalist he always degrades after all.
As my argument is as local (micro) as you can get, I’m talking about an International business (ICLEI) aligning themselves with Norfolk to push an International (UN) agenda. You can’t get more socialistic than that, even bordering communism. And if you don’t think that they’re robbing from your Social Security to pay for this global agenda, I have some ocean front property in Arizona.
As we have been conditioned to think about Spooky Dude or Rupert Murdock, the biggest threat to our sovereignty is being pushed within our own city limits, reinforced by our own EPA & other government agencies, financed by your tax money and monitored by UN organizations. It’s not about a world government, it’s about world governance to where an international organization establishes guidelines (city comprehensive plan) and organizations within your city monitor the progress. All paid for by you. But it’s all to satisfy a commitment made by the City of Norfolk to meet certain benchmarks…known as Sustainable Development. No…no conspiracy, just crony capitalism gone international.
I have offered up much evidence on a MICRO level. If there’s need for me to provide more, I would be more than happy. If Shaun truly wants to fix Fluvanna school budget issue or Social Security, then he may seek the true agendas within his community. Rather than have me debate what I need to share in the sacrifice.
BTW, Congratulations to Norfolk. You are doing your part as a Global neighbor. Looking at the grants, I guess we can all stake claim to that.
JohnJackson, didn’t mean micro in terms of local -vs- national, but rather as individual units, single factors … specific solutions.
Off thread… not sure what your objections are to ICLEI? I’m not that familiar with the organization but IMO, it’s a huge (and unsupportable) leap from ‘global initiatives’ & ‘international associations’ to ‘socialism’. Plus sustainable development isn’t the same as zero development, nor is it a communistic principle. Norfolk has nurtured international relationships and interests for generations; how is ICLEI (or other international alliances) different from, say the Azalea Festival?
Jay D,
My objective is that there’s an agenda going on that you’re not aware of…ICLEI. Their interest is not your job, your pension or even you, it’s about reducing carbon emissions.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apmkoAzoIGE&NR=1
ICLEI developed your city’s community plan committing you and Hampton Roads to reducing carbon emissions 30% by 2020 and 80% by 2050. Capitalism does not have a role here. In other words, they bypassed Congress and went straight through your local government.
We’re in the phase of Education (2005-2014) and if you go to page 7. It’s about manipulating the youth and city commitments, one that Norfolk is working toward.
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001416/141629e.pdf
No where did I find anything about anyone’s pension.
Leave your response