How's the shrubbery? (An assessment of Bush)

Frankly what shocks me the most about current debate is how completely reversed society thinks now. It isn't a ding on those participating in debate here, but that nobody has pointed out the glaring problem with how it has been framed is shocking.

For many years, people lived their lives to pass on a better life for their posterity. They wanted society to succeed and to thrive beyond their demise. They realized the value of property rights (to include post-mortem). It is one of those pillars of civilized society. My stuff doesn't become communal property just because I die. My neighbors can't just come into my house and help themselves while the family is at the funeral, so why can they band together and do it through an intermediary? That is a principle I try to couch my arguements on principles. It makes my decision making clear. I don't care if it is Bill Gates or the homeless guy at the end of the street. They both had opportunities and they both had setbacks. One made it and another didn't and just because Mr. Gates has a lot of stuff, doesn't give me some jealousy-driven right to go plunder his life's fruits.

Thinking back to Europe and the large cathedrals that were built over centuries, one has to ask "Why?" Many knew they'd never see it finished in their lifetimes, but they did it anyway as a gift to posterity. Posterity finds importance in our founders writings. They didn't do all that they did for themselves. Washington didn't appoint himself King though he could have. He restrained his appetites for power and even greater wealth as a gift to posterity.

Now we are facing a Ponzi Scheme that benefits the older generations at the expense of the younger. The money you draw out isn't the money you put in. You don't have an account and that money is taken from the future generations. It is a part of the "gimme" generation that is swiftly passing from the scene.

If I were to set up a scheme like SS, I'd be thrown in jail because it is illegal and it is illegal for a good reason. It is fraud. In the case of SS, it is defrauding posterity and deluding yourself thinking that they'll get theirs if they don't screw it up. It is a system with a suicide pill planted in it that the present recipients don't have to swallow and they don't care past their demise. When does the greatest generation decide to do one more thing for posterity because it is right?

I am frightened that people are now stealing from generations yet unborn to support a national lifestyle that we cannot pay for in the present generation and that is purely taxation without representation.

I have paid in my full dues to SS, and I would not be a bit hesitant to abolish the system entirely and let people make their own decisions. If we want to continue to grow, we must think of our children and not of ourselves so much. This issue is similar to the gun issue. The rights given up in 1934 are still absent today. The rights lost in 1968 are still being withheld from me and that is just more freedoms that our children will never enjoy. I have pledged to oppose any more loss of any rights, not for myself, but for my children to make their own decisions.

Just my thoughts.
 
kjm,

Another thing that people don't think about when it comes to SS is the fact that many future workers don't get a chance to draw their first breath.

Now, I know that this could be a tricky issue to discuss, but every action has a re-action (or something to that effect). With less and less future workers being allowed to be born, when the younger now (and even myself at 36/7) get to the age of SS, there won't be as much coming in as there is now.

Now, with the privatization, I don't like the government way (we take the money and put it into an account) but maybe still have money coming out of your check and put into an account with your name on it. I don't know how to solve the issue of some idiot taking the money out beforehand but in my opinion, if they do this then when they retire and don't have any money, tough nuggies. I know this is cruel to say but we can't be our brothers keeper all the time. I am not responsible for anyone but my family and myself. I am not responsibile to feed/cloth/or give you money for living (rent, etc..).

As for the death tax, like many have said, the government and the "people" don't have a "right" to any of that money. As a matter of fact, the government and the "people" don't have a "right" to any of your money, whether you're dead or alive. We got along well without an income tax before it was forced upon us. I firmly believe that no one has "rights" to any one's money except for the one that earned it.

I've made stupid decisions in my life. I could do better in life. What I have when I grow old is going to be shown by the way I've made decisions. If I mess it up, then I would hope that others would help me because they want to, not because they are forced to do so. And if they don't, then it's my own tough nuggies because I made my "bed" and I will have to "lie" in it.

Wayne
 
Now, with the privatization, I don't like the government way (we take the money and put it into an account)
Click to expand...

That's not how the current system works, anyway. Current SS taxes go directly towards paying out current SS benefit checks. Whatever surplus is left in any given fiscal years after the current retirees are paid out goes into the general fund, to be used by the Feds for other purposes in exchange for an I.O.U. in non-negotiable bonds that represent a claim on the U.S. treasury on behalf of the Social Security Trust Fund. Effectively, the Fed is borrowing every year's SS surplus and putting I.O.U.s into the till, promising a repayment of these funds from the U.S. treasury at a later date. Essentially, the Fed promises to pay back those I.O.U.s with future tax revenue. They borrow money, and have done so all along, with your future tax bill as a collateral.

So far, that scheme has been implemented every year, and the Fed has been spending the SS surpluses merrily on other things. There are no accounts into which you pay. There is not a red cent in the Social Security Trust Fund, just a gigantic stack of I.O.U.s that summed up to 1.7 trillion dollars at the end of 2004.

The problem is that at some point in the near future, about 2018 or 2019, projected SS taxes will be less than the sum total of SS checks to be sent out that year, at which point the SS Trust Fund has to call in those I.O.U.s, and money will have to be used from the general fund in order to meet SS benefits checks. Even those I.O.U.s will not last forever, and at some point in the 2040s, the SS Trust Fund will have called in all the outstanding bonds out of the general treasury, and the annual deficity between yearly SS tax intake and yearly SS benefit checks will be about $700 billion in today's dollars.

I am not counting on a single red cent from the SS Trust Fund when I retire, and anyone my age who does is either not blessed with the math skills of a grade schooler, or simply in denial.

The Democrat answer to the problem: There is no problem, the Republicans are just trying to scare you. Poppycock.

The Republican answer to the problem: Hey, let's have folks invest less than 10% of their SS taxes into the stock market with the hope of a better return. Poppycock just the same. The problem is much bigger than that, and will require a profound attitude shift in both government and populace with regards to entitlements. For starters, SS was intended as an emergency aid for people who could not make ends meet any other way, not a general entitlement.

Alas, nothing major will get done, because the AARP voting block is worried about their checks, because the general populace is woefully underinformed about the SS system, and because nobody wants to fess up and admit that Social Security will be financially unsustainable because they made a few slight mathematical errors when SS was launched.
 
Marko,

Now, with the privatization, I don't like the government way (we take the money and put it into an account)
Click to expand...

Wasn't talking about the current system, I know how that works. I was talking of the system that they want now :).

Wayne
 
The real problem with Social Security is not that it was a flawed system from the start, but rather that Congress has tinkered with it over the years adding programs to it that hastened it's bankruptcy. Couple that with their theft of the "Trust Funds" as Marko outlined above.

Had the system remained as a "Retirement Benefit" only and the money invested AS MOST PRIVATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT SYSTEMS HAVE TO BE we would not be having this discussion.

Congress gave away and plundered the system and you young'uns will pay dearly for it.

Get a second job, I want my benefits!!! :p
 
I believe we have the best President available to us that had a prayer of winning. When the election is over, I support my President.

However, in the future, I will not vote for anyone for any office that does not demonstrate some real understanding of the separation of church and state. I am very disillusioned with what it means to be a Republican, watching this new Congress in action. There has been some talk of backlash, and I will be part of that. The Church does not run this country. Everyone is supposed to be equally represented. The best way to do that is to keep religion entirely out of the proceedings.

Beyond that, I don't think we have seen the worst yet from this administration. They are in the mode now where reelection, beyond making the party look bad, is not a constraint. The real agenda of this presidency and GOP majority will be very much in evidence in the next two years.
 
Real Gun said:
Beyond that, I don't think we have seen the worst yet from this administration. They are in the mode now where reelection, beyond making the party look bad, is not a constraint. The real agenda of this presidency and GOP majority will be very much in evidence in the next two years.
Click to expand...

While I disagree w/ the rest of your post (if a man's religious beliefs isn't important enough to guide his decisions, why have religious beliefs?), the above quote is right on target....


...and it should scare the snot out of everyone. :mad:
 
The real problem with Social Security is not that it was a flawed system from the start, but rather that Congress has tinkered with it over the years adding programs to it that hastened it's bankruptcy. Couple that with their theft of the "Trust Funds" as Marko outlined above.

Had the system remained as a "Retirement Benefit" only and the money invested AS MOST PRIVATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT SYSTEMS HAVE TO BE we would not be having this discussion.

Congress gave away and plundered the system and you young'uns will pay dearly for it.

Get a second job, I want my benefits!!!
Click to expand...

Actually, Social Security was created as a temporary, stop gap measure at best, and was never intended to be a permanent solution. It got tinkered with because they didn't want to make a larger effort into developing something that works......
 
I voted for GWB both elections. I am pleased with him to date. I never expected him to be perfect, but he is one of the best presidents during my lifetime.

Added.
As to the separation of the church and state, it is a myth that one can separate himself from his faith. There can be no government that does not have some basis of the religion of the nation. Ours is the Judeo/Christian ethic found in the Holy Bible. I would never vote for someone who had no faith or did not think it important to let it guide his life, including his political life.

Jerry
 
I subscribe to the idea that if Social Securuty doesn't pay off regardless, in proportion to contributions, it becomes a simple redistribution of wealth tax. Those who don't need SS have to get it anyway. That was the deal. If it needs to be changed, call it what it is.
 
Sure the country was mostly based on the judeo christian ethics but it also had a history of religous oppression form our English roots (mostly) from other christian groups (catholics in charge-protestants persucuted, protestants in charge-catholices pursecuted). This is one of the main reasons that our countries forefathers wanted a seperation of church and state. I was to protect judeo christian religeons as much as it was to protect others. If the evangelicals were to impose their version of christianity upon government then I'm sure the Baptists, Lutherans and Catholics would find themselves out in the cold many times on many laws(as well as if the reverse were to happen). It is possible for a strong christian to follow his faith while running the government, but it is when he goes against his oath of office in order to do so is when it becomes a problem. Bush may have not violated his oath of office by doing anything related to his religous beleifs but he does scare some of us. The leader of one of the seperation of church and state organizations is a christian minister. Some christian churches realize the problems with joining church and state or with having the government assume a particular sects ideals. Just think that in 50 years the muslims were able to garner 51% of the electoral college and congress they could make this a muslim state by using almost the same arguments some judeo christian people do now.
 
Any kind or measure of "inheritance tax" is just another form of stealing as far as I am concerned.

Matter of fact, so is taking my money at source for something called "social security". What is needed is not to find new ways to take differing amounts of, and juggle, peoples' money to pay for the growing Federal empire - the Federal empire needs cutting right down to size. That includes all forms of welfare domestic and foreign and all the other wasteful schemes and programs. There are very few mandated tasks for the Federal government, and when reduced to these the revenue required would be quite moderate.
 
With respect to the people who are saying that Bush is now just going to push his agenda, becaues he does not have to pander to aonyone, all i have to say is "we'll see". I tend to think that we will see Bush go the opposite way (at least in some things) during his term. I don't believe he will ditch the progun/prolife/antisocialsecurity platform, but in other things (like international relations and solidarity of our nation and bipartisanship), i'm actually hopeful for this term. Bush has his legacy to worry about, and he needs to do things that he's SURE history will vindicate. At the very least, I suspect he believes that some of the things he did first term were undesireable, but nessecary (IE, making the whole world mad by invading iraq) , and is now trying to repair the damage done.


All i have to say is "GO BUSH" (And please, change your platform on the environment) :)
 
Setting aside the argument that all taxes are annoying and that income tax repeal is all the rage, the parts of inheritance that are tax shelters are rightfully taxed when redeemed or transferred. It would not be accurate to say that "it's my money". Taxing the "net" estate is what should be controversial. An absolute free ride is not consistent with the entire current system. What we aren't hearing about alternatives to social security is the inheritance tax issues. Those personal savings accounts in the form of 401k and IRA have not yet been taxed. If you get too generous with the provisions, it just becomes a windfall for the wealthy.
 
Real Gun said:
If you get too generous with the provisions, it just becomes a windfall for the wealthy.
Click to expand...
Interesting twist of the facts. A "windfall" is generally thought of as receiving money from an outside investment or business. I don't see how one can create a "windfall" for himself with money he already earned and paid taxes on. (While it might be pointed out that taxes on IRA's are deferred; they're deferred for EVERYONE. And the limits are so low that the benifit is clearly geared to middle income families, not the wealthy.)

I'm not against all forms of "progressive" taxation. But I do demand we call it what it is: "State Mandated Wealth Redistribution"; its certainly not about closing "windfall loopholes" or fairness. It's about taking a higher percentage of wages, investments, savings and estates from the wealthy.
Rich
 
Please read carefully. The "windfall" is never paying taxes on those savings. People that are well off are the best capable of setting money aside in tax shelters. My father's estate is exactly that, so I am more than familiar with the concept. Transferring that money by way of estate is a tax shelter. If he were to give it away now, a big chunk of the earnings would be lost to taxes. It depends upon whether it is all redeemed or transferred in a single year. I am all for preserving family wealth, but tax shelters avoid taxes by definition.

It gets worse. He is professionally advised to dump the money by every tax free means possible now so that he can qualify for Medicaid (he's 91). My stepmother, who is also well off, is being advised to do the same. That is not the intent of Medicaid, but that loophole was quietly left in so that people that are well off are not forced to use their own money for extended major care to the detriment of their family's inheritance. There is an entire niche in the legal community to advise very elderly people how to preserve estates.

There has been recent debate in Congress about closing that Medicaid loophole, but I liken that to a penalty for saving to pay one's own way. I think it is a lot to expect for people to be prepared to be retired as long as they were employed. It seems a bit like saying that those who work hard and save are treated the same as those who don't work at all, milking the system.

Avoiding taxes as well as gaining an entitlement to Medicaid is double dipping in my opinion. Other tax payers are covering all that. Inheriting money from relatives is a neat idea for sure, but I don't think it should be subsidized by other taxpayers. I understand that the economy depends upon incentives to gain wealth, but some of these angles don't play well in the cold light of day.
 
OK- my personal situation is quite common.
In 1830 my family recieved a windfall from the government of Mexico in the form of a land-grant in Texas. They farmed the land, defended it against invading armies and marauding Indians. Nearly all of my ascendants are buried there. You'd be amazed at how young most of them died due to the back-breaking labor and harsh conditions.

My father now owns the place and someday will leave it to me. When he dies, my net worth will rapidly go from modest to incredibly wealthy (at least on paper). However, there is a good chance that I will have to sell off a fair portion of it just to pay taxes on the property. The property isn't "income", it is simply a tool of producing income. I am more than happy to pay taxes on income the property generates, but the idea that a government that has such an attrocious record at mismanagment of funds will take a cut just to support their mismanagement is offensive to me.

It is easy to throw around the word wealthy. My father whose income might not exceed $40K for the rest of his life has a net-worth (because of the land) in excess of several million dollars. Would you consider the average farmer living on family land in an old single-wide, whose income is less than what would qualify him for food-stamps, wealthy? Many of those farmers have incredible net-worth, but impoverished incomes.

The death tax is an abomination. People use Bill Gates to support their arguement based on ignorance of the difference between windfalls, net worth, and income. Bill Gate's net worth is based not on cash income but on paper worth. If Bill were to divest himself of Microsoft Stock, you might find that he isn't quite that wealthy (most of the stock price would plummet based on speculation). Bill Gates is locked into wealth that to a large extent he cannot access.

The income tax itself is based on a whole series of lies. The original proposers for the Income tax promised it would only be a 1% tax on the super-wealthy so that the government could pay its war-debts. After WWII, the tax was levied against all and it was promised that the tax would be repealed after the debts were paid. About that same time, the withholding tax was devised to insure that the public would never riot since they would never see the money in the first place.

Letsee- the Government lied to the Indians. The Government lied to the soldiers, the Government lied about returning the gold, the Government lied about the income tax, the government lied about social security, the government lied about guns etc... ad nauseum. What is it about history that is so difficult to understand?

I like the original constitutional tax which was any tax indirectly levied. Direct taxation was expressly forbidden (article I) because of the tendancy for government to become a spend-thrift when given unlimited power to levy taxes. I dare say that the people lost complete control over the government when the income tax amendment was passed and the government became the master, not the servant.
 
I couldn't care less how much the wealthy benefit from the fruits of their labors - or those of their parents when they die.

Just as water finds it's own level, there is an average of what and how wealthy people - like every other class - spend their disposable income and invest the rest. The more money they have to buy everything from yachts to ballpoint pens, the more manufacturers and services are required. That means employment. The more business, the more employment. The more successful, potentially the higher the wages and salaries. The less taxation, regulation and other hindrances, the easier it is to climb the ladder.
 
The more money they have to buy everything from yachts to ballpoint pens, the more manufacturers and services are required. That means employment.
Click to expand...

That's an archaic argument. To a very great extent these days, manufacturing money for consumer goods goes overseas. Only domestic distribution and retailing makes any money as part of the economy.

The controversial part is when those who are well off can legally zero out their tax liability, not even paying their way for the basics, providing arguments for redistribution of wealth. There is a conflict between economics and political correctness. Macroeconomics is judged from a microeconomic perspective. For example drug traffic and illegal immigration are important parts of the economy, but it is not politically correct to admit it. Exactly how wealth is acquired will always be an issue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top