The problem here is that real conservatism CANNOT exist. They want to shrink the Federal Government. There's absolutely no real reason to do this; they don't want to shrink the Fed because of some real world problem it's causing. They want to shrink it because in their ideology, that's going to be the right thing to do.
There's no reason to do this? Take for example what is happening to our food prices now - they are skyrocketing. The government has imposed ethanol mandates and subsidies. As a result, many of our farms are no longer being used to produce food, but corn to be converted to ethanol, and therefore food prices are on the increase as it becomes less available on the market. The poor will feel the pinch of this the worst, of course, and charities and organizations who buy foodstuffs on limited resources to feed the world's hungry are also suffering - so much for Big Government helping those less fortunate. Not to mention all of the waste, fraud, and corruption from all of the pork-barrel spending and earmarks. Your argument is based on a false premise and false stereotype.
What happens when you slash those services? People demand them back. Believe it or not, people do expect the government to serve more than a defense purpose, and they will ask for their libraries and their social security, and the modern conservative is in a dilemma. The result is that he still has to pay for services while slashing taxes. They cannot shrink government, but they are also wholely unwilling to improve it since they don't like the idea of government at all, so you get not only a bigger government, but a more ineffective one.
Lower taxes and lower revenues are not necessarily correlating issues, so that is another false argument and a false premise - indeed the opposite has been demonstrated to be true if an uptick in economic activity proceeds it (as this creates more taxpayers). The FICA tax has never been slashed (SS). Libraries are primarily a function of local governments.
Alan Wolfe goes into detail on this in one of the best pieces of political polemic I've read in a while: If government is necessary, bad government, at least for conservatives, is inevitable, and conservatives have been exceptionally good at showing just how bad it can be. Hence the truth revealed by the Bush years: Bad government--indeed, bloated, inefficient, corrupt, and unfair government--is the only kind of conservative government there is. Conservatives cannot govern well for the same reason that vegetarians cannot prepare a world-class boeuf bourguignon: If you believe that what you are called upon to do is wrong, you are not likely to do it very well.
Wolfe's article is absurd. Big Government is not conservative. President Bush has spent like a drunken sailor, and expanded government mandates and programs across the board. He even created a new entitlement - certainly not a conservative action in the least. And it's creating problems? Rather than acknowledge that government is the problem, you simply state that it isn't really Big Government because the expansion happened under the watch of someone with "R" beside his name - which does not make any sense - sort of like saying Clinton took a liberal action when he signed Welfare Reform into law because he had a "D" beside his name.
They also have incredibly stunted understandings of economics, raised in vacuums and full of jargon that has no application to the real world. For instance, the private accounts plan that Jeff is outlining. President Bush first suggested the plan, claiming Social Security was in some crisis (one that does not exist) and that under the current system, today's generation will suffer under the old system.
Social Security has dwindling amounts of workers for each retiree under the system. The ratio has had a dramatic downward spiral over the years. Moreover, the SS funds from that tax were dumped into the general fund long ago, so the surpluses were already spent, so using those to offset the future deficits is not a valid argument. The pyramidal structure of the SS system is moving toward becoming inverted. It's not a crisis as of yet but that is certainly an issue - it'd be nice if steps could be taken to fix it before there is a crisis. In 1950, for example, there were 16 workers to each 1 retiree. Now, that ratio is 3 to 1 and is continuing to drop. Social Security is a pay as you go system - there is no "investment" in it. To state there is no problem with the base of the system changing like this is to stick one's head in the sand. Your treasuries argument is false as that is government being in debt to itself, not investment.
If you've got a better grasp of economics I certainly don't see it - the advocation of the government taking over sectors of the economy certainly has no evidence or history of being beneficial. China's increasing economic prosperity was not caused by moving further to the left but to the right - implementing more free market and less command economy into its system. By your the premise of the arguments you are presenting, North Korea should have the most prosperous and thriving economy in the world as its government controls literally everything.
You'll notice how there is no evidence of private accounts doing better. That's because, well, there really IS none. There are theories, all untested, and highly controversial to boot. The reason Jeff wants private accounts is because HE thinks it's a better idea. Somehow Jeff, king of the stock market, believes neutering social security and going to private accounts, despite being laughable at best and inhumane more likely, is a good idea because it's part of his ideology. And he likes his ideology because he thinks it's full of good ideas.
The underlying issue, regardless of the debate over which one provides a higher rate of return, is having ownership over your own money that you earned. A private account is your own money - not someone else's - that you can pass on to loved ones if the money is not spent. You repeatedly seem to have an anethema toward the idea of taking personal responsibility for one's self and actually owning what one has earned vs. government as a big nanny being involved in everything one does. Regarding "no evidence" that alternatives to Social Security are better, I would suggest you look up "Galveston County" and "Social Security." Here's a good place to get started - http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/2005-03-15-benefits-reform-galveston_x.htm Regardless of your opinion of this program, your claim that opting out of Social Security is entirely "untested" and merely "theory" is clearly proven false by this.
Try hardwork, pal!
Well, you're going to get farther trying to do that than sitting around not even trying, waiting for someone else to do it for you.
There's no reason to do this? Take for example what is happening to our food prices now - they are skyrocketing. The government has imposed ethanol mandates and subsidies. As a result, many of our farms are no longer being used to produce food, but corn to be converted to ethanol, and therefore food prices are on the increase as it becomes less available on the market. The poor will feel the pinch of this the worst, of course, and charities and organizations who buy foodstuffs on limited resources to feed the world's hungry are also suffering - so much for Big Government helping those less fortunate. Not to mention all of the waste, fraud, and corruption from all of the pork-barrel spending and earmarks. Your argument is based on a false premise and false stereotype.
What happens when you slash those services? People demand them back. Believe it or not, people do expect the government to serve more than a defense purpose, and they will ask for their libraries and their social security, and the modern conservative is in a dilemma. The result is that he still has to pay for services while slashing taxes. They cannot shrink government, but they are also wholely unwilling to improve it since they don't like the idea of government at all, so you get not only a bigger government, but a more ineffective one.
Lower taxes and lower revenues are not necessarily correlating issues, so that is another false argument and a false premise - indeed the opposite has been demonstrated to be true if an uptick in economic activity proceeds it (as this creates more taxpayers). The FICA tax has never been slashed (SS). Libraries are primarily a function of local governments.
Alan Wolfe goes into detail on this in one of the best pieces of political polemic I've read in a while: If government is necessary, bad government, at least for conservatives, is inevitable, and conservatives have been exceptionally good at showing just how bad it can be. Hence the truth revealed by the Bush years: Bad government--indeed, bloated, inefficient, corrupt, and unfair government--is the only kind of conservative government there is. Conservatives cannot govern well for the same reason that vegetarians cannot prepare a world-class boeuf bourguignon: If you believe that what you are called upon to do is wrong, you are not likely to do it very well.
Wolfe's article is absurd. Big Government is not conservative. President Bush has spent like a drunken sailor, and expanded government mandates and programs across the board. He even created a new entitlement - certainly not a conservative action in the least. And it's creating problems? Rather than acknowledge that government is the problem, you simply state that it isn't really Big Government because the expansion happened under the watch of someone with "R" beside his name - which does not make any sense - sort of like saying Clinton took a liberal action when he signed Welfare Reform into law because he had a "D" beside his name.
They also have incredibly stunted understandings of economics, raised in vacuums and full of jargon that has no application to the real world. For instance, the private accounts plan that Jeff is outlining. President Bush first suggested the plan, claiming Social Security was in some crisis (one that does not exist) and that under the current system, today's generation will suffer under the old system.
Social Security has dwindling amounts of workers for each retiree under the system. The ratio has had a dramatic downward spiral over the years. Moreover, the SS funds from that tax were dumped into the general fund long ago, so the surpluses were already spent, so using those to offset the future deficits is not a valid argument. The pyramidal structure of the SS system is moving toward becoming inverted. It's not a crisis as of yet but that is certainly an issue - it'd be nice if steps could be taken to fix it before there is a crisis. In 1950, for example, there were 16 workers to each 1 retiree. Now, that ratio is 3 to 1 and is continuing to drop. Social Security is a pay as you go system - there is no "investment" in it. To state there is no problem with the base of the system changing like this is to stick one's head in the sand. Your treasuries argument is false as that is government being in debt to itself, not investment.
If you've got a better grasp of economics I certainly don't see it - the advocation of the government taking over sectors of the economy certainly has no evidence or history of being beneficial. China's increasing economic prosperity was not caused by moving further to the left but to the right - implementing more free market and less command economy into its system. By your the premise of the arguments you are presenting, North Korea should have the most prosperous and thriving economy in the world as its government controls literally everything.
You'll notice how there is no evidence of private accounts doing better. That's because, well, there really IS none. There are theories, all untested, and highly controversial to boot. The reason Jeff wants private accounts is because HE thinks it's a better idea. Somehow Jeff, king of the stock market, believes neutering social security and going to private accounts, despite being laughable at best and inhumane more likely, is a good idea because it's part of his ideology. And he likes his ideology because he thinks it's full of good ideas.
The underlying issue, regardless of the debate over which one provides a higher rate of return, is having ownership over your own money that you earned. A private account is your own money - not someone else's - that you can pass on to loved ones if the money is not spent. You repeatedly seem to have an anethema toward the idea of taking personal responsibility for one's self and actually owning what one has earned vs. government as a big nanny being involved in everything one does. Regarding "no evidence" that alternatives to Social Security are better, I would suggest you look up "Galveston County" and "Social Security." Here's a good place to get started - http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/2005-03-15-benefits-reform-galveston_x.htm Regardless of your opinion of this program, your claim that opting out of Social Security is entirely "untested" and merely "theory" is clearly proven false by this.
Try hardwork, pal!
Well, you're going to get farther trying to do that than sitting around not even trying, waiting for someone else to do it for you.
The Chairman's Quest (RM2k3) 100% Complete - http://www.gamingw.net/forums/index.php?topic=47923Topic thread contains download links.
