I Dislike Mike
Is this 1622? Because a few of the nitwits running on the Republican side make it sound like it. (Not that I'm enthralled by the Democrats, either -- especially not with Hillarycare.) Here's the latest from Hucky, from a story by Linda S. Caillouet inthe Arkansas Democrat-Gazette:
SALT LAKE CITY -- Government may have dropped the ball in modern American society, but religion dropped it first, Gov. Mike Huckabee told Southern Baptist pastors Sunday night. "The reason we have so much government is because we have so much broken humanity," he said. "And the reason we have so much broken humanity is because sin reigns in the hearts and lives of human beings instead of the Savior."
The reason we have so much broken humanity is that's the nature of humanity, and always has been, and the reason we have so many people sucking off the taxpayer hog is because our elected panderers to their constituents and the lobbying industry toss around handouts, corporate and public, like popcorn.
FDR did much of the breakage in the last century, causing many in this country to believe they can spend, spend, spend, and somebody will pay for them in the end. Problem is, Social Security runs out of money in 2017. And why should some struggling kid in their 20s pay the monthly expenses of some rich old bag?
You want to have money in your old age? Save it. You haven't saved money, well, maybe you should kill yourself so as not to be a burden to others. And I'm just sort of kidding. The thought has crossed my mind, as has making sure nobody leaves me a turnip attached to a machine when the health care dollars could be going to giving some kid with possibilities a chance at a life.
Yoohoo, Hucky, I'm a godless harlot, and I'm for personal responsibility (over handout-ism) as a form of government -- although I'm for health care for the desperately mentally ill and desperately poor. I'm also for paying for school for the children of the desperately poor. The rest of you can pay for your damn selves and your families. Go without a plasma screen or two if you have to, okay? Or use a condom.
I live an evidence-based life (i.e., I see no evidence there's a god, therefore I don't believe in god) and I'm also quite moral, imagine that. I chose my ethics carefully, look all the time to see when I've been an asshole so I can do better, and not because I'm afraid of hellfire and brimstone, but because I've committed to being an ethical person and, well, leaving the campground better than I found it.
link via Drudge
Like I've said before, they can end Social Security -- provided they refund every penny they've ever taken from my pay with at least the interest it'd have earned in a minimal savings account. Hmmm, 33 years of it now, 38 at least (maybe more) by the time I retire. It'd allow me to buy that cute little house down the street that's up for sale for cash. I could handle maintenance and taxes on my state pension alone along with my other living expenseses (including health and homeowners insurance, especially since state retirees pay the same premiums as employees if they choose to continue their insurance). I'd agree to that. Hell, I'd even just take back what I'd put in without the interest though that really wouldn't be fair since it'd have earned it all these years. No tax. They've already taxed me on that income. If they want to tax it as income, we're gonna have to talk because then it won't be enough. (Or I'm gonna have to hire a good accountant who knows ways of sheltering that nice tidy bundle.)
Donna at December 10, 2007 7:56 AM
If only we had somebody who had the guts (stupidity?) to fix what's broken. I say "stupidity" in light of lobbying arms like AARP, the national organization of socialism for old people.
Amy Alkon at December 10, 2007 8:05 AM
And therein lies the rub, Amy. Someone who's smart enough to fix it is smart enough to know they don't want to get involved. o_O
Flynne at December 10, 2007 8:33 AM
"they can end Social Security -- provided they refund every penny they've ever taken from my pay with at least the interest it'd have earned in a minimal savings account."
I completely agree with the sentiment, Donna. But the unfortunate reality is, the money you've paid in has already been spent. Please understand this. It's already done. A generation of people - most of them dead by now - has already received many, many times more in benefits than they ever paid in. People like my grandparents, who got everything back in less than a year and then drew benefits for twenty more. That's where your money went.
When you start drawing, you'll be taking the money someone else paid in, and eventually, as with all pyramid schemes, a bunch of people at the end of the line will be left holding the bag.
I have actually had people tell me that by not having kids, I am not doing my duty to keep Social Security propped up. I laugh at the idea that I have a "duty" to help perpetuate a system that is both financially and morally bankrupt, but seriously - what about the money I've been paying into it for the last 20 years? Money that I will never see a dime of? And how can I be expected to pay for everyone else's retirement through my Social Security taxes, try and save for my own out of what's left over, AND have enough money to have kids?
Pirate Jo at December 10, 2007 9:21 AM
What Jo said. They robbed you, Donna and they still are. Every year they take your money, hand it over to a wealthy interest group that votes a lot and donates to political campaigns, blow what they have left over like a pack of drunken sailors, and send you an imaginary IOU in the mail. The IOU says they'll pay you back when you join the wealthy interest group, but there's nothing at all holding them to it and they'll have to screw other people four times worse in order to pay you.
I wish we would leave the hard-luck bits in Social Security and just do away with the retirement portion. If age-related health problems keep you from working you can file for disability like anyone else. Otherwise, if you're healthy and you didn't plan for retirement then tough luck. Keep working, this isn't the 1930s. Very few people work in industries that just flat couldn't employ a healthy 70-year-old. I've never understood where people got the idea that turning some arbitrary age released adults from an obligation to earn their own damn way in the world.
SeanH at December 10, 2007 10:32 AM
They could EASILY save Social Security, their just not willing to do it.
A person who makes 90k a year is paying the same percentage into SS as the person making 25 million. Raise the ceiling on that, you'd be in business.
Oh yeah... noone will do that because it smells too much like "raising taxes." Ooooh, evil.. evil...
Morbideus at December 10, 2007 10:57 AM
Morbideus, considering the money we pay into Social Security isn't backed by assets, but is instead a government-run Ponzi scheme, it SHOULDN'T be saved. In fact, it never should have been started. If a private company tried to run a pyramid scheme like Social Security, its officers and directors would all be thrown in jail for fraud. Why should the government be able to do something that would land the rest of us po', simple folk in jail?
Using your example, the person making $90K a year and the person making $25 million are BOTH getting screwed, but to the tune of the same dollar amount. You want the $25 million person to do what, exactly? Get screwed even worse? Why should anyone be punished by a bigger screwing just because they make more money? Since when is making money a punishable offense? (I'll bet YOU don't work for free.) Why should either one of them have to get screwed in the first place? It sounds like you would like the existing welfare/wealth redistribution program to be even bigger, more far-reaching, and armed with greater screw-people power than it already has. You could change the rules to tax ALL of the $25 million person's earnings, but I guarantee that in ten years the program would be in just as big of a hole as it's in right now. That's the way government programs work.
Pirate Jo at December 10, 2007 11:19 AM
The person making 25 million is getting hose plenty just not for social security. Also I'm going to guess you are in that 90k range and getting it doggy style come tax time. I get gang banged every single pay check. Social Security is nothing compared to the other taxes. I don't care what they do with SS because I'm certain that I will be getting none of it back, ever. I say set a moratorium on new SS cases. If you are say 35 and under (like me) you will still have to pay out but you won't be getting any back. Look at it as just any other tax. Thus the SS system dies in one generation and no one gets anymore screwed than they are going to get screwed anyway.
vlad at December 10, 2007 11:32 AM
Pirate Jo and SeanH covered it pretty well.
Congress treats your Social Security contribution like another bag of cash they can waste.
The other insidious thing here is that while you see a 7.5% deduction from your paycheck for SS, your employer kicks in another 7.5%, so it is really a 15% tax on your first dollar of earned income, not one bit of progressiveness involved.
doombuggy at December 10, 2007 11:35 AM
That's what really gets my goat about it. I'm not a libertarian so the redistributionist aspect of it doesn't really send me into fits. If we're going to have retirement benefits and we're going to run it like a ponzi scheme can't we at least means test for benefits and make the tax progressive?
I mean, somewhere right now there's a half dozen or so lower-income folks that were about $150 short on their last car payment. They're worrying like hell about getting caught up on the bills and we're taking 15% of their income and giving it to a retired business owner.
SeanH at December 10, 2007 1:30 PM
SeanH, I have no problem keeping old folks off what Amy likes to call "the cat food diet." Do we need a program run by the federal government to accomplish this? I'm skeptical on that one.
Either way, it is interesting that among the United States population, the biggest correlating factor to wealth is age. Not too many old folks would BE on the cat food diet, it seems. So even if you are the biggest pinko on the planet in terms of wealth redistribution schemes, you'd be against this program because it transfers money from poor people to rich people!
Which brings me to my next question for pondering: If those on both the right and left have ample reasons to hate Social Security, why do we still have it?
Pirate Jo at December 10, 2007 3:01 PM
You want the $25 million person to do what, exactly? Get screwed even worse?
SURE! :) Actually, what I'd REALLY like to happen, is for 25 million dollar person to die a horrible painful death, and leave me everything they've got. ;)
"I have no problem keeping old folks off what Amy likes to call "the cat food diet." Do we need a program run by the federal government to accomplish this? I'm skeptical on that one."
Who should run it? If you have any ideas I'm sure the world would love to hear them. OF COURSE you don't want the old folks to be on the cat-food diet, that would make you look heartless and insensitive. Noone wants to be percieved that way... unless you have a better idea, just hang on to heartless insensitive ideals, but be sure to throw in the disclaimer so you don't have to LOOK that way.
"That's what really gets my goat about it. I'm not a libertarian so the redistributionist aspect of it doesn't really send me into fits. If we're going to have retirement benefits and we're going to run it like a ponzi scheme can't we at least means test for benefits and make the tax progressive?"
Absolutely. If it could be done intelligently, it just might be there when you retire after all... ALL of us, even you PJ.
Morbideus at December 10, 2007 7:12 PM
I should have mentioned that I am counting more on my state pension and the savings I don't yet have than I am Social Security but, yes, I was also serious about give me back what you took at least. Maybe then I won't have to move someplace with a lower cost of living to make it or in with my daughter to make it. It should have been run more like my pension plan where my own money goes to me but it's not my fault it wasn't and, at the time, not really the government's. They were trying to fix a problem of people too old to work not having enough to live on that it was already too late to tax when it was set up. I could agree even to showing a need like you do for welfare and food stamps etc. so that wealthy old people don't get it on the backs of poor young people. That's a good point there. It needs to be fixed but shouldn't be done away with entirely. I can retire at 55 and get a partial pension from my employer's pension system but will probably wait 'til I have 30 years state service because my state pension will double (if you have 30 years, there's no penalty for going before age 62) and may be enough (depends on things like cost of living and how much I'm able to save).
I'm willing to forgo Social Security if I don't need it. I don't want to see it become like disability because it takes at least 3 to 6 months to get that and someone has to carry you while you do and (we found this out the hard way with my daughter's recent illness which has swallowed savings I should have had) if someone is carrying you, they will use that to deny you. No, you can't work and pay the rent, you're just supposed to let the rent slide (and pray you're not evicted from your bed) while you wait to be approved and hopefully are. They make that tougher and tougher to get all the time and I understand why but it's like the thing about gun control, those who abuse the system know how to get around it and those who aren't such shysters are left floundering while ill or injured and their moms are supposed to let them get evicted rather than help out, especially if said mom has to use her nest egg to do it.
Maybe instead of just age being a qualifying factor, they should look at your means too but that's also problematic because it would discourage those in the gray area between poor and middle class from saving. I'd do it anyway because I have always preferred standing on my own two feet to a handout but many wouldn't. I don't think there's any simple answer to this. Just like gun control, some middle road has to be worked out and it's gonna take a lot of work to even figure out how best to handle it let alone implement it.
Donna at December 11, 2007 6:44 AM
"Who should run it? If you have any ideas I'm sure the world would love to hear them."
Well, if it MUST be mandatory and run by the government, how about at the state level? Competition between the states would be healthy - people wouldn't want to live in a state where you paid thousands into a pyramid scheme with no assets backing your contributions.
"OF COURSE you don't want the old folks to be on the cat-food diet, that would make you look heartless and insensitive."
Okay, I'm busted. You're right, Morbideus, I *am* heartless and insensitive and now I'm out of the closet, thanks to you! I hate all old people because of how shitty they drive, and have secretly been plotting world domination just so I can replace Social Security with Soylent Green.
Seriously, I'm honored. With all the issues raised on the subject, the best you can do is wave a finger at me and call me heartless and insensitive? Crid must be so jealous!
Pirate Jo at December 11, 2007 7:56 AM
I have no idea who "Crid" is bit... O.K.
Participation is mandatory, because if people had the option, they'd choose not to pay into it, but then try to draw from it as they got older. That's humans for you.
The state idea isn't necessarily a bad one... and you're being heartless, I'm glad to see you are comfortable with that. ;) (just Ruffling your feathers, don't get all whigged.)
Morbideus at December 11, 2007 10:18 PM
I'm 36 and I don't plan on getting any SS when I reach that age - I'm good enough at math to understand that. I'd love to opt out of the system - let me invest 7.5% of my income and keep it for myself.
Scott at December 11, 2007 11:56 PM
That article is scary!! It is amazing politicians spout off stuff like this quote from the Huckster-
"I hope we answer the alarm clock and take this nation back for Christ."
Isn't that statement discriminating against all the other beliefs within America? How can someone like that be elected while holding his beliefs above others?
Separation of church and state - come on.
I'm all for someone being ethical, but not someone pushing their ethics on me, especially in a position of power/government. This guy is an ordained priest. Where do you think his loyalty is?
kbling at December 12, 2007 10:58 AM
Leave a comment