Comments Posted By Ashley
Displaying 0 To 0 Of 0 Comments
Social Security: Point/Counterpoint
I posted this last night, but I put it under the original post. I have decided to move it here since it seems this is where the conversation will continue.
1. Let me start with a complete aside: (1) Happy Birthday Ayn! and (2) to pull a Paris Hilton, “The Cato Institute is Hot!â€
OK, now down to business. Social Security does go for the other things I mentioned because the government has been borrowing from it. And, yes, I have an IRA, but I can’t afford to add to it. That is a lie. If I am going to be responsible I have to admit that I could put money in my IRA but I don’t have a lot of disposable income and I spend what I have left over after paying taxes and paying bills. I am just as interested in living now as I am in living when I am in my eighties. And, I don’t believe that I misinterpreted your “73%†comment. What I took from that was this: in 2043 I could get (if I were eligible-which I wouldn’t be) 73% of the benefits currently being paid adjusted for inflation. If it were not adjusted for inflation, I guess you think I would be getting more than a 100% return. The problem is that, if it is not adjusted for inflation, it would be even less useless than it is now. Which brings me to my next point, you said that I needed to think of SS as a supplement. I do, which was why I referred to it as “bingo and golf money†in my last post. Even the Socialist Times (that would be Time Magazine to the liberals) admitted that no one could live off of social security. That money does not really help any retired person. However, if I could keep that money now I could invest it. And, despite what you think, the return would be higher and the admin costs lower. The government is bloated and inefficient. If we switched to private accounts, brokerage firms would get a windfall, but they would also have to operate in the free market so they would realize that the lower their fees, the more investments they would get. The gov’t has no such checks and balances. Furthermore, if my boss didn’t have to match my contribution he could pay me more and he would have to – again, because a competitor would do it in a free market.
However, my basic problem with SS is that I want my money. I don’t want to pay into this system. I want to make my own decisions. I don’t CARE if my personal account would exceed or equal with what SS would give me – I want to control my own life. I see by your last two posts that you also have a healthy sense of getting back what you earned. That encourages me. You are worried about your own retirement and pissed that you faithfully contributed into a system and now you are afraid that you are going to be double-crossed by Uncle Sam. See, we feel exactly the same way. The only difference is that you will be facing it soon and I see a lifetime of contributions ahead of me that I KNOW will never be returned to me. I sincerely hope that people of your generation don’t walk away from the bargaining table because of fear. All of this rhetoric is fun, but really, if Bush’s plan makes any headway it will be after massive compromises. The Baby Boomer’s will get all of their money and half of mine. I am not OK with that, but, as a member of a much smaller and much more laid-back generation I have to take what I can get.
Completely off the top of my head – how about something like this:
1. Immediately cut FICA on both employers and employees in half for employees under 50. The remainder will continue to go into SS to fund SS for current retirees for the next 20 or so years. This amount will decrease incrementally over an, as now, unspecified amount of time.
2. Cutting government grants to NPOs will fund the remainder.
3. The current liability that is the SS fund will also immediately be funded by cuts in government grants. Any NPO without an independent unqualified audit opinion will be denied Federal funds. Those with unqualified reports will then be audited by the Federal agency administering their funds to verify that they are fiscally responsible. Any found lacking will lose their funding.
4. A law passed that all bills with unrelated riders are automatically rejected from consideration, which would free up a considerable amount of money.
5. A government commission, with oversight from Greenspan, evaluates current private brokerage firms and gives Americans a choice of firms and funds (with an appropriate risk mix determined by age) to choose from to invest the other half of what was the FICA tax. This also has a cut-off date, after which Americans will have to make their decisions for themselves. Because many Americans are unfamiliar with investing at this point, the cut-off date will be a couple of decades in the future. In the intervening time, all high school seniors will have to take a class on personal economics, responsibility, and investing.
6. Further tax cuts (in the form of making invested income non-taxable until withdrawn) for Americans who choose to invest more than the 4% freed up by the cut in FICA. These tax cuts won’t hurt us because we have freed up a lot of money with 2., 3., and 4. above.
7. Right now, any many instances, states get back less Federal funds if they do not comply with things the Federal government thinks they should (seat belt laws, drinking age, grade-level testing for kids are 3 things that have been affected by the heavy hand of the Federal government in my lifetime.) Here, in the interest of comprise, I endorse the Federal government applying pressure. States would have to set aside a certain amount of expected revenue in their budgets to meet the needs of any Americans negatively impacted by SS reform to get back money from the Feds.
8. If there is still a short fall, we could begin a necessary trimming of gov’t excess by (1) making government’s hiring/firing policies match those of the private market and (2) eliminating bloated and unnecessary gov’t departments starting with the DOE. Any taxes paid toward DOE employees’ salaries the gov’t would keep first to pay back SS and second to fund general operating funds and the remainder of the tax would go back to Americans in the form of vouchers to private schools.
Like I said, it is off the top of my head so I expect many holes can be punched in it. Resist the temptation unless you have something constructive to add.
» Posted By Ashley On 04/February/2005 @ 11:06 am
Ah,
Anonymous is about to be outted – that is my man. See why I married him Mom? Not only is he smart he is funny (welfare recipients should eat cat food – *guffaw* *snort* – it’s funny because it’s true.)
And he quoted Benji for me. I quoted John Adams for John a few posts back but he didn’t notice 🙁
» Posted By Ashley On 03/February/2005 @ 12:50 pm
Let me start with a complete aside: (1) Happy Birthday Ayn! and (2) to pull a Paris Hilton, “The Cato Institute is Hot!â€
OK, now down to business. Social Security does go for the other things I mentioned because the government has been borrowing from it. And, yes, I have an IRA, but I can’t afford to add to it. That is a lie. If I am going to be responsible I have to admit that I could put money in my IRA but I don’t have a lot of disposable income and I spend what I have left over after paying taxes and paying bills. I am just as interested in living now as I am in living when I am in my eighties. And, I don’t believe that I misinterpreted your “73%†comment. What I took from that was this: in 2043 I could get (if I were eligible-which I wouldn’t be) 73% of the benefits currently being paid adjusted for inflation. If it were not adjusted for inflation, I guess you think I would be getting more than a 100% return. The problem is that, if it is not adjusted for inflation, it would be even less useless than it is now. Which brings me to my next point, you said that I needed to think of SS as a supplement. I do, which was why I referred to it as “bingo and golf money†in my last post. Even the Socialist Times (that would be Time Magazine to the liberals) admitted that no one could live off of social security. That money does not really help any retired person. However, if I could keep that money now I could invest it. And, despite what you think, the return would be higher and the admin costs lower. The government is bloated and inefficient. If we switched to private accounts, brokerage firms would get a windfall, but they would also have to operate in the free market so they would realize that the lower their fees, the more investments they would get. The gov’t has no such checks and balances. Furthermore, if my boss didn’t have to match my contribution he could pay me more and he would have to – again, because a competitor would do it in a free market.
However, my basic problem with SS is that I want my money. I don’t want to pay into this system. I want to make my own decisions. I don’t CARE if my personal account would exceed or equal with what SS would give me – I want to control my own life. I see by your last two posts that you also have a healthy sense of getting back what you earned. That encourages me. You are worried about your own retirement and pissed that you faithfully contributed into a system and now you are afraid that you are going to be double-crossed by Uncle Sam. See, we feel exactly the same way. The only difference is that you will be facing it soon and I see a lifetime of contributions ahead of me that I KNOW will never be returned to me. I sincerely hope that people of your generation don’t walk away from the bargaining table because of fear. All of this rhetoric is fun, but really, if Bush’s plan makes any headway it will be after massive compromises. The Baby Boomer’s will get all of their money and half of mine. I am not OK with that, but, as a member of a much smaller and much more laid-back generation I have to take what I can get.Completely off the top of my head – how about something like this:
1. Immediately cut FICA on both employers and employees in half for employees under 50. The remainder will continue to go into SS to fund SS for current retirees for the next 20 or so years. This amount will decrease incrementally over an, as now, unspecified amount of time.
2. Cutting government grants to NPOs will fund the remainder.
3. The current liability that is the SS fund will also immediately be funded by cuts in government grants. Any NPO without an independent unqualified audit opinion will be denied Federal funds. Those with unqualified reports will then be audited by the Federal agency administering their funds to verify that they are fiscally responsible. Any found lacking will lose their funding.
4. A law passed that all bills with unrelated riders are automatically rejected from consideration, which would free up a considerable amount of money.
5. A government commission, with oversight from Greenspan, evaluates current private brokerage firms and gives Americans a choice of firms and funds (with an appropriate risk mix determined by age) to choose from to invest the other half of what was the FICA tax. This also has a cut-off date, after which Americans will have to make their decisions for themselves. Because many Americans are unfamiliar with investing at this point, the cut-off date will be a couple of decades in the future. In the intervening time, all high school seniors will have to take a class on personal economics, responsibility, and investing.
6. Further tax cuts (in the form of making invested income non-taxable until withdrawn) for Americans who choose to invest more than the 4% freed up by the cut in FICA. These tax cuts won’t hurt us because we have freed up a lot of money with 2., 3., and 4. above.
7. Right now, any many instances, states get back less Federal funds if they do not comply with things the Federal government thinks they should (seat belt laws, drinking age, grade-level testing for kids are 3 things that have been affected by the heavy hand of the Federal government in my lifetime.) Here, in the interest of comprise, I endorse the Federal government applying pressure. States would have to set aside a certain amount of expected revenue in their budgets to meet the needs of any Americans negatively impacted by SS reform to get back money from the Feds.
8. If there is still a short fall, we could begin a necessary trimming of gov’t excess by (1) making government’s hiring/firing policies match those of the private market and (2) eliminating bloated and unnecessary gov’t departments starting with the DOE. Any taxes paid toward DOE employees’ salaries the gov’t would keep first to pay back SS and second to fund general operating funds and the remainder of the tax would go back to Americans in the form of vouchers to private schools.
Like I said, it is off the top of my head so I expect many holes can be punched in it. Resist the temptation unless you have something constructive to add.
» Posted By Ashley On 03/February/2005 @ 12:37 pm
John,
On a technical note: I think your site is generating typos in my posts. It could be that I forgot to spell check but (and maybe this is just Mom’s liberal genes surfacing in me) I doubt it could be my fault. Please look into it.
Thanks!
» Posted By Ashley On 02/February/2005 @ 1:44 pm
As a dutiful daughter I will most certainly take your advice and do more homework. Unfortunately, I suspect that my homework will lead to a violation of the 5 commandment b/c it will prove you wrong.
Just a few points before bed:
1. You are paying ss taxes on $90,000 not $87,000. Do your homework.. (Damn, I have already violated the 5th commandment)
2. When that socialist set up SS he was playing a game with the American people. He set the retirement age several years after the life expectancy. SS was never meant to be a retirement fund – only a feel good sop to idiots.
3. I have pointed out already that I will never be able to retire. It seems my grandmother’s generation was a bit randy and my generation has a lot of people we need to take care of. (I remember that when I was at USC I had a Chinese sociology professor who explained to us one day that China would collapse because the “sandwich” generation would not be able to care for both their parents and their children. The equivalent is my generation in America.)
3. Of course I would take care of you in your dotage, that wass what families were for before Big Brother.
4. I skirted around this in my first post so as not to make you feel old but the cut-off age where retirees would still receive their checks under Bush includes you. (What the hell-I have already broken the 5 commandment by not buying what you are selling hook, line, and sinker.)
6. What the hell good would 73% of my benefits due me at 2005 dollars in 2043?!?! (Oh, that’s right–accoridng to the letters Michael and I got from the SSA we are not eligble for full benefits unless we WORK until we are 75-so that is probably more like (to pull a fairly conservative number out of my…)55% at 2005 dollars. Whoopee! There is no way we could save that much by ourselves.)
7. if you were paying SS on more than $87,000–oops, scratch that I mean $90,000–that would not benefit me in any way. The gov’t would either give it to crack heads or spend it on pork and I will still end up in a worse position.
8. Bottom line–it is theft. The gov’t is stealing my money. It IS my money. I go to work everyday and I earn it. I love you Mom, but it is not your money and it is not the government’s money. It is my money. You raised me to be a hard worker but if you had told me so it was so the gov’t could steal from me maybe I would have considered other options. I could have been a crack whore-liberals would claim it was because I was downtrodden and I would have had a free ride for life. Or, I could have become a housewife with a pile of kiddies-conservatives would say I was doing my wifely duty and given me lots of nice tax cuts like the Child Income Credit. As it is I am paying for the welfare Moms, the soccer Moms, the Viagra needin’ leacherous old men, and I am staring down the barrel at having to fund the bingo and golf money for the enormous Baby Boomer generation–give me a break, can I please keep something for me??
» Posted By Ashley On 02/February/2005 @ 1:38 pm
My generation’s children and grandchildren are already going to have their taxes doubled to pay for my social security. Never mind them, I am going to have mine raised because the best solutions Dems can come up with is (1)getting rid of the ceiling (tax raise) (2)a more direct tax raise by upping the amount workers and their employers put it or (3) raising the retirement age (also basically a tax increase). So there you have it-the AARP and the liberals in their pocket have indeed solved the problem. I can work until I die to pay your generation’s retirement. I won’t need SS because I will die on the job. Besides, if you would stop with the knee jerk reactions, and listen to the plan that Bush put out there – it is a compromise. Everyone over a certain age (those close to retirement with no real prospects of being able to save at this point) will still get their checks. FDR was a friggin socialist-it was a stupid plan from the beginning and it has just grown worse over time.
» Posted By Ashley On 02/February/2005 @ 8:52 am
Hmm, I am not rich enough to pay for baby boomer’s social security checks or their Viagra, which I just found out will be covered under Medicare. And although I think it is big of you to believe we young people should be “permitted” to save any money we have left over after paying our bills and old people’s retirement – I would like to keep all of my money. And if I blow it and I don’t have any money when I am old-tough cookies for me. If the government keeps taking my money it will be tough cookies for me anyway since I won’t be eligble for social security until 2051.
» Posted By Ashley On 02/February/2005 @ 6:06 am
A picture is worth a thousand words…
Update: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6913272/
Just as I feared.
» Posted By Ashley On 05/February/2005 @ 11:39 am
That picture is great on the first look, because as a U.S. citizen the first thing it brings to mind is freedom. My second thought was of the burka. She very well may have deep religious conviction. However, that conviction is that women are bad and must hide themselves so as not to tempt men. How sad. While I really, really hope that this is the beginning of a democratic and free society where these people can have what we have-I have my doubts. I am not PC and I won’t pull any punches here-their culture is very different from our own. I don’t think they would ever gotten this close to democracy without American intervention and I don’t know if they can handle it. Hell, we can barely handle it-even in America some want to enshrine in law thetheft of other’s rights or money. I believe that Iraq will fall into chaos within the next 10 years with a group like the Taliban in power. Islam is about obediance not self-reliance. I will very happily eat these words if I am wrong.
» Posted By Ashley On 31/January/2005 @ 10:07 am
Hee hee, John you had better find some hobbies cause based on your stories in this post you might end up with a beer belly:)
» Posted By Ashley On 31/January/2005 @ 10:09 am
Great minds thinking alike and all that…
In my original comment I answered each point I pulled from Mom’s and Burlybass’s comments-which confused the issue. My point is that both comments verged on “fringe leftist” and they weren’t aware of it. Incidentially, the responses to my comment didn’t change my opinion. This time my favorite was the comment that all rich people aren’t evil-some of them are philanthropists. Is that an either, or type of thing? If so, I better get to church because only in rare situations (such as the tsunami) do I part with my hard earned money in the name of charity. Anyhoo-to each his own. Personally I prefer the lefty nuts to the righty ones. I can hide my money but I can’t hide my uterus. I just thought John needed some back up.
» Posted By Ashley On 31/January/2005 @ 10:28 am
Mom and Burlybass… already made good points about the power of right-wing extremists (ID-or creationism-, loss of women’s rights, loss of civil liberties) so I don’t feel I need to add anything to that. Instead I would like to point out that the left-wing extremists have started to work their way into the sub-conscious of otherwise rational
Democrats:1. “right wing zealots should be muzzled,â€â€¦I also find right wing zealots offensive and, because I am a woman, frightening. However, “muzzling†people who disagree with us is equally as frightening to me.
2. “…or to prevent genocide. Iraq met neither of those criteria at the onset of this war.â€â€¦um, what about the Kurds? Or did I miss the Michael Moore memo that proved that was a cleverly designed story to justify stealing oil?
3. “…dutifully read your suggested blogs and found it all to be a big yawn.†How jaded can you be to be unmoved to read about man who compares the people working in the WTC to Nazis, the average American to complacent Germans during the Third Reich, and says it will take many more 9/1ls to fix this country (the fixing being that the US should be wiped from the face of the planet) AND is a professor at a college with access to many young impressionable minds. Never mind the mainstream media – he doesn’t need it to reach a large audience.
4. “…like Bush, his family connections have kept him out of prison.†I just don’t even know what to say about this one. Ted Kennedy is responsible for a woman’s death. What did Bush do?
5. “…I’m not saying Bush is an idiot, but he sure isn’t bright.†This is one of my favorites. Bush went to one of our most prestigious schools. Connections alone didn’t get him through that. The whole concept of Bush not being bright is based on the fact that he is not a good extemporaneous speaker. Neither are most of us. (As a complete aside, I really think he actually improved the old adage “Fool me once…â€)
6. “How about a law that says if you were born with a silver spoon in your mouth and a Saudi nose up your ass, you can’t run for President?†and “Let’s find a way to wrest the electoral process away from the moneyed interests.†Granted, those with money and connections have an incredibly easier time rising to prominence than those without. However, the subtext of these two comments (whether or not intended) is that money and those who have are evil – and that is an unhealthy view. Hopefully, the first comment was tongue in cheek or otherwise it is quasi-socialist. And, Michael Moore aside, what is this Saudi business? In the words of John Adams, “Facts are stubborn things and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictums of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.â€
7. “Cheney, a corrupt and evil caricature of a human.†Why? No, seriously, why? (Again, Michael Moore aside)
8. “The blessedly retired Ashcroft, who was like a Nazi,†You know, I am only 29 years old, which means the Nazis were way before my time. However, I still am aware of the fact that the Nazis where responsible for the most heinous crimes in all of history. In case the word “Nazi†has lost its sting let me remind you that they almost exterminated a entire race less than a lifetime ago. It was just a few days ago that the 60th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz was recognized. I saw pictures of very old men crying remembering what had happened. It is not only irresponsible, it is disgusting, and insulting (to the Jewish people) to compare anyone in our government to the Nazis. Enough said.
9. “And Condi Rice…, she IS a LIAR,…just look into her eyes.†I don’t think I really have to say anything here.
10. “Let’s find a way to wrest the electoral process away from the moneyed interests and give real people a chance to be elected.†Back to this one, at the risk of sounding like a broken record on my second posting to John’s blog, we have choices. They require homework and courage to try to make a change. There are third parties out there. Economic conservatives don’t have to accept social conservatives to have their views represented. And social liberals don’t have to accept outright socialists and evil Robin Hoods to have their views represented. We have to stop being complacent. Unfortunately for John, I don’t think there are any hawkish third partiesJ but for the rest of us-there is something else out there if we look for it.» Posted By Ashley On 30/January/2005 @ 10:14 am
John,
I stumbled across another blogger that is an avowed liberal that voted for Bush and I thought you might like to check him out….http://machoresponse.blogspot.com. Check out his “just rant..” entry. You’ll get a kick out of it.
» Posted By Ashley On 30/January/2005 @ 10:23 am
«« Back To Stats PageAfter the election, all of my co-workers (all fundamentalist Christian Republicans) assumed that I voted for Kerry because my beliefs didn’t mirror their own. All of my friends (and most of my family) assumed I voted for Bush for the same reasons. And THAT is the problem. Everyone I know picked a side and defended it viciously. Kevin said that clip doesn’t really represent liberals. Maybe (probably) liberals are different in SC than they are in NoVA, but based on my experiences I believe that it does represent liberals. And I think my co-workers perfectly and obnoxiously represent conservatives. The problem is that more moderate people (like Kevin, Renee, and Mom) are not really represented by the Democrats anymore-and I don’t think the Republican party represents the majority of those who consider themselves Republicans. Even though the two main parties have abandoned the reasonable majority of our country, people still feel obligated to tow the party line. Both parties have been hi-jacked by extremists, but people are afraid to call them to task or to look elsewhere.
As Mom said, you have a message we can all agree on. Unfortunately, we will never see those commonalities represented at the national level as long people keep voting for what they see as the lesser of two evils. It is time to abandon the two party system. And that is my two cents.
» Posted By Ashley On 29/January/2005 @ 2:45 pm