It wasn't a coincidence that she was sitting next to Barak Obama last night.

Too bad her party will essentially no longer exist after 2006.

Dave

You're one of them cock-eyed optimists, ain't ya, Dave?

Dave - What will you do with yourself after the Dems disband and we're left with a one-party nation?

When the Democrats are gone, then the Libertarians will arise from the poltical desert to rule the world.

Hmm, this sounds like either an episode of Pinky and the Brain, or Charlie Manson spouting out on the Spawn ranch. I fear it's more the latter.

Al, thanks for the link to your song. I enjoyed it. How many 2008 candidates can say they already have a campaign song? (wink)

Cheers,

Ron

>>Dave - What will you do with yourself after the Dems disband and we're left with a one-party nation?<<

Start a new party, I imagine.

Dave

No, Dave, he asked what will YOU do. Not what WE'LL do.

The Dems aren't satisfied with a slow death; they want to commit suicide in a big way.

I believe Jack Kervorkian is under consideration for the new head of the DNC.

And Hillary is being groomed for the Presidency because -- apparently, Lucretia Borgia was unavailable.



PS: Shark does a Hillary 'conspiracy' that no one read...

snif...

The Dems aren't satisfied with a slow death; they want to commit suicide in a reeeeelly big way.

I believe Jack Kervorkian is under consideration for the new head of the DNC.

...And Hillary is being groomed for the Presidency because apparently Lucretia Borgia was unavailable.



PS: Shark does a Hillary 'conspiracy' that no one read...

snif...

It's interesting, yes there are a few sites dedicated to Hillary running, but like Al points out in the post, there are also conservatives pining for her, and while we on the Left would certainly be grateful to her running, this 'mania' seems to mostly come from the Right.

So, those of you on the Right, please let those of us on the Left know, after Hillary who do we wish for? We're curious as to who we prefer in second place and the anticipation is killing us. (just in the miniscule case terrorism isn't all neatly packaged up in 4 years, we'll need a contender who can make a sellable Commander-in-Chief).

Too bad her party will essentially no longer exist after 2006

I've said time and time again that the Republicans will not compromise and will not stop until it is a one-party state. People dismiss me as a gay man with a prejudice against the current administration, but it's clear that those on the Right will do anything to kill our party.

Just look at the BlogCritics posts from the Right frisking Reid and Pelosi after the State of the Union. Reid could not be more different from Kerry, yet the attacks on him were the same. 'out of touch, dazed, unable to communicate' No compromise people, no compromise, I'm telling you.

My perspective is this: This last election, Dean broke records with grassroots activism. when people turned from his scream, they went to Kerry, who was labeled the most 'liberal elite'. So people want liberalism.

When you look at what people say, as to why Kerry lost, they either say the Vietnam war or mostly because he wasn't defined, they didn't know where he stands. NOBODY says because he was labeled a liberal elite. So nobody was turned off by the label.

Yes, it's possible to go too far Left, but apparently that wasn't even Kerry's problem. It's also possible to go too far to the Right, and it's not surprising to hear the Right keep clamoring for it. (go to the center, go to the center, closer to us of course). Of course the Right wants the Left to promote more conservative ideologies.

When I go to Democratic websites, the sense I get is that the majority of participants are along the ideology of Dean, the grassroots activism group (think DailyKos, Atrios, et. al). I don't see much from the style of Lieberman or yes, even Hillary. The only thing I can figure is that the Democratic 'center' isn't as politically active or as interested in defining it's party as the rest of the liberals.

Should the Left nominate someone the Right recommends (and remember, keep repeating it over and over until it becomes true), then of course it will be the end of the Democratic party, the head won't be in touch with those who keep the wheels turning. Which is just how the Right wants it.

Steve - It seems like in the current political climate, some folks will find a way to get worked up and foaming at the mouth about anyone running.

HRC: liberal carpet-bagger socialist health-care failure murderer
Edwards: triallawyertriallawyer!! And he looks young!!
Dean: AHSDHAOPSDFASOIF!!!!!!
Harry Reid: He's quiet! Oh so quiet!

And so on.

Actually, Steve. I believe that the Democrats will be destroyed not by letting Republicans pick their candidates, but by their opposition to Social Security reform. To take such an unpopular position as a whole party, even ignoring the wishes of your own constituency is just suicidal.

Dave

Well, from what I've seen Democrats aren't opposed to reform. Just Bush's reform.

On a related note:
There was a guest on the Daily Show last night, Joe Klein, I think he's a reporter? He said the Bush plan, when you retire, you don't get your money, the government does, and then they dish it out to you JUST like social security. You could have dropped a pin on that stage and heard it, when he said that.

Opposition to Bush's privatization scheme is not limited to Democratic politicians, either. Several prominent Republicans are squeamish about this, and a lot of economists are still trying to figure out how the numbers add up in a way that makes this an improvement over the current state of affairs.

Hillary might want to wait until 2012. Just because people love her husband does not mean that people love her.

>>There was a guest on the Daily Show last night, Joe Klein, I think he's a reporter? He said the Bush plan, when you retire, you don't get your money, the government does, and then they dish it out to you JUST like social security. You could have dropped a pin on that stage and heard it, when he said that.<<

If you were listening closely Klein did reluctantly admit that you would receive additional profits above that predetermined amount if your investments did well.

In anycase, what Bush said in the SOTU address sounded much more straightforward than Klein made it out to be, and if the reality ends up being less of a substantial privatization there are going to be a lot of very unhappy people who will want to know why. This isn't the sort of thing to be done in a half-assed, compromise with the democrats, kind of way.

Dave

Thankfully, when the one-party state (finally!) materializes, we won't have to deal with any of this distasteful and unseemly compromise business.

The USSR was a one-party state, if I recall correctly. They didn't mess around with any of that silly compromise stuff either, and were thus an outstanding example of efficient government ...

Also, in regards to the details of the privatization scheme, a lot of supporters are under the impression that they will be able to invest in stocks and mutual funds of their choice. However, the few details I have actually seen point to being able to invest in an extremely limited selection of extremely broad mutual funds that probably won't be all that competitive in terms of investment performance. And then there is the small matter of management fees. Other countries that have tried privatization (U.K., Argentina) have dealt with fees that were outrageous to say the least.

I'm pretty skeptical of W's Social Security talk. He has the right buzzwords, about ownership and personal accounts, but just how will that actually play out? He clearly intends for the government to keep effective control, and tell you what you can and can't do, how much and when you can get to it, etc. And if they have control, then they can always just TAKE it, slapping taxes on it and such.

Also, he's only talking about you keeping some small portion of the continuing Social Security taxes, leaving probably two-thirds of your money with the government to keep pounding down their various rat holes.

And that's still a big improvement over what we've got now.

>>I have actually seen point to being able to invest in an extremely limited selection of extremely broad mutual funds that probably won't be all that competitive in terms of investment performance. <<

The plan is for them to be index funds and bond funds. And even those would provide at least 3x the returns of social security.

>>And then there is the small matter of management fees. <<

Bush said specifically that this program would not have high management fees if it has any at all.

>>Other countries that have tried privatization (U.K., Argentina) have dealt with fees that were outrageous to say the least.<<

Bush is using the Chilean and Galveston Texas systems as a model and neither of them had problems with outrageous fees.

Dave

"Bush said specifically that this program would not have high management fees if it has any at all."

Yeah...and how much did he say that little war in Iraq was gonna cost?

My understanding is that there is no firm plan yet. Many options are still on the table. One idea is to model it after the Thrift Savings Plan for federal employees. In that plan there are about four or five options in index funds that incorporate a broad range of stocks. I think the S&P 500 is one of them. There is also a very safe fund that guarantees a small, although adjustable, positive return around 3 to 6%. There are virtually no fees involved. Owners of these plans divert their funds themselves over the internet.

I've said it before, but it bears repeating: This ownership society thing is a political strategic masterstroke with long range implications. Once people (voters) have a vested interest in things economical, They will be much more likely to vote for leaders who craft conservative economic policies that are thought to encourage economic growth.

"I believe that the Democrats will be destroyed...by their opposition to Social Security reform. To take such an unpopular position as a whole party...is just suicidal"

Actually, it could easily work the other way. If republicans fail to push thru the reform, it could push people to vote for Democrats. Not only does it seem that this is one issue all the Democrats are locked against but some Republicans aren't too crazy about it either. Bush doesn't have to worry about any future elections. Everyone in the house does and a third of the senate does and that's gonna play an important role in who votes for it.

If Bush gets serious SS reform through the Congress, he will be hailed as one of the greatest Presidents ever.

Obviously, Dems don't want that. So they will attempt to block any meaningful reforms proposed.

While Bush is looking towards the future of the country, as well as his own legacy, Dems are merely playing partisan politics.

Sadly, the Dems have the advantage here...

I can't imagine the Dems coming back with a social security privatization plan 4 years from now after blocking Bush's attempt at one. So if they do block it they will be forever tainted by that in the eyes of the public. The public is so overwhelmingly in favor of anything that lowers their tax burden, especially in the area of social security, that anyone who stands in the way of plans to give them what they want will be essentially politically dead.

Dave

Dave - I think a great many GOP leaders would love to have the level of confidence that you have about the popularity of SS privatization.

In response to comment 20:

"The plan is for them to be index funds and bond funds. And even those would provide at least 3x the returns of social security."

What are the assumptions you are using regarding future economic growth to support this assertion? I have yet to hear of any serious attempt to answer this question.

>>What are the assumptions you are using regarding future economic growth to support this assertion? I have yet to hear of any serious attempt to answer this question.<<

The fact that there has never been a period of 30 years since the stock market opened in the 1790s where there has not been cumulative positive growth over the course of those 30 years averaging out to less than 5% per year, including the period of the Great Depression. So, in order for the system not to work we'd need to have an economic collapse larger and longer lasting than the Great Depression. And if we have that I doubt that even Social Security as it exists now could survive without floating a lot of bogus paper.

You have to remember that bear markets are almost always preceeded and followed by bull markets, and that the life of these trends is rarely more than a few years. If you look at the performance of the S&P 500 from 1925 to 1955 - a period which includes the entirety of the depression and WW2, by the time the 30 years were over the real value of the S&P (including dividends and adjusted for inflation) had increased by more than 3 fold. That means an average overall increase per year of about 10% even taking into consideration the 40% loss in 1929 and 1930. If there had been indexed funds during that period and you bought your stocks at the height of the bull market in mid-1929 (the worst possible price) and then sold them 30 years later in 1959 you would have STILL ended up with almost triple your initial investment.

Growth is actually a bit worse in periods like the 1970s where the market was relatively stagnant, but even in those periods the per year return over 30 years averages more than 5%.

As a side note, even in Germany which was hit worse by the depression and WW2 than any other country, investments made prior to the depression averaged almost 8% return averaged over the next 40 years.

So, as long as workers are required to put money in their investment accounts from the time they start working until a minimum age at least 30 years later, it's as close to a sure thing as you can get. I'd be more worried about the government repudicating all of its own debt and seizing your assets and nationalizing all the corporations than not making money over that long a term of broad investment.

Dave

What do you propose to do for this hypothetical (but entirely plausible) investor in Bush's privatization scheme:

A not very knowledgeable individual decides to be conservative and put all his money in the most conservative bond fund from 1990-2000. He then decides he is screwing himself by not being in stocks and switches all his money into the most aggressive stock fund. He then gets hammered in the dot.com meltdown and general bear market that began in 2001 and then puts all his money back into bonds. He then repeats this plan for every peak and correction in the stock market for the next 40 years.

Does anybody think he will have a positive return? And if not, will anybody help him?

Roy, you're really reaching here. I'm tempted to say that someone this determinedly stupid should be allowed to climb out of the gene pool.

However, this would never be allowed. Any version of the personal accounts would involve conservative mutual funds and bonds. You wouldn't be picking individual stocks, and certainly wouldn't be allowed to invest all your money in a couple of dot coms.

Back to Hillary...

Oh how it would restore my faith in America to see the people vote a women into office! Not to mention a democrat. No doubt if she wins, the Family First crew will argue its unconstitutional that a women take up such high public office.

Anyway it occurred to me, that its a shame Americans identify so strictly with one party or the other. That families inherit their politics, their political party. Its high-time a viable party is created to bridge the gaps between dem's and repub's (though it should certainly be further left than right..).

If their was a more democratic political situation in America than we would have progressed in so many ways. As it is, with the current political climate, we've regressed to a spot somewhere between the 50's and the 80's. It leaves a bad taste in my mouth... I lose faith in people these days.

Yes Sydney, we should be electing a woman as president. Better yet, we should look for a woman of color.

Thus, I'm sure you'll be happy to support Condi in 2008. She could be president. She's got that Maggie Thatcher kind of thing going on. She's the main obvious woman who would be a credible commander in chief.

Plus, the Hillary vs Condi campaign would be real interesting.

People the world over inherit politics from their parents, community, and environment. It doesn't always take root, but it's always a huge influence.

The major difference for the US is that we're a largely two-party system, which may have the result of disaffecting many people who feel they have no real political home to turn to. It would be nice if there were several other viable alternatives, but I think this will take a long time. Ralph Nader, for example, did an enormous disservice to the Green Party by breaking away for his own silly and ill-fated '04 run at the presidency.

Roy, I suspect that the system would come with some basic instructions, and the kind of person who's easily panicked like the one you describe would either be afraid to change their account at all once they set it up, or would slavishly follow any instructions they were given. But even the scenario you describe would require real, deliberate effort on the part of the person to time their changes to the account at the worst possible times. It would be hard to be that dumb without actually trying.

Dave

Al,

If condi hadn't contaminated herself with her Bush support I might have voted for her. But alas, there's blood on her hands.

Even Colin Powell, a truly great African American, has ruined his chances at Presidency with his (though, reluctant) support of Bush.

The difference between the two is that Powell made it clear that he had doubts about the Bush Direction, yet aquiesed just the same. Condi, on the other hand, has a conservative heart (I believe) and was true to her principles. From my liberal perspective, I don't know who of the two dissapoints me more.

Oh well, it shouldn't matter because I think Hillary would get the vote hands down. She's smarter than Bill, less kinky, and has similar politics. Very exciting!

Comment 28 answered the question about the projection of the future by quoting history. So again, what projections of future economic growth (i.e., real GDP growth, population growth, etc.) are privatizers of Social Security using to support their suggestion that this scheme will pay off as happily as they would like?

Simple question, should be a simple answer ...

From a column by Paul Krugman:
"The Social Security projections that say the trust fund will be exhausted by 2042 assume that economic growth will slow as baby boomers leave the work force. The actuaries predict that economic growth, which averaged 3.4 percent per year over the past 75 years, will average only 1.9 percent over the next 75 years."

Those are the assumptions that the Social Security Administration uses to support the contention that the trust fund will be exhausted. Unfortunately, this rate of economic growth does not support the same level of stock yields that we have enjoyed for the past 75 years. So, quoting the past to predict the future doesn't work very well.

In response to comment 30:

1) Social darwinism is your response to the less fortunate (i.e., the stupid and/or unlucky investor)? Well, at least that is a clear position.

2) It only takes two conservative mutual funds to make the disaster for the investor I have described come to pass: a S&P 500 index fund and a government bond fund.

I think more people than you might expect will switch from bonds to stocks when things have gone well with stocks for a while, and from stocks to bonds when the market has crashed. Doesn't make sense, granted, but it happens - many financial and investment advisors are too familiar with the phenomenon of the amateur small investor who manages to buy high and sell low, sometimes repeatedly.

Lastly, I thought these were supposed to be personal accounts. If so, why restrict them to "conservative" mutual funds? And who gets to pick what mutual funds are available to be invested in?

>>Lastly, I thought these were supposed to be personal accounts. If so, why restrict them to "conservative" mutual funds? And who gets to pick what mutual funds are available to be invested in?<<

I would imagine they would set specific criteria and then allow the funds to submit their offerings that qualified. That seems like the only sensible way to do it. They would have to be no-load index funds at least as broads as a S&P 500 fund I would think.

As for your concern about people switching back and forth, maybe the options shouldn't include a bond fund at all. Maybe all the funds should be mixed stock and bond funds so that they're balanced regardless of market circumstances.

Dave

Roy, I have limited patience for premising every bit of social policy on the basis of the worst possible stupid thing that anybody could come up with to do. It's not that damned complicated to invest in a mutual fund and leave it the hell alone.

Now, this is definitely a good set of questions: "why restrict them to "conservative" mutual funds? And who gets to pick what mutual funds are available to be invested in?"

To expand on that point slightly, why would I trust anything about my investments to the people who have so thoroughly screwed the pooch with the current system? Did I mention that there is NO money put away in any "trust fund"?

Of course, these questions lead to arguments going way the other direction, toward much more radical privatization, and getting the government completely away from our retirement funds.

Also, Congress has absolutely ZERO authority under their charter, ie the US Constitution, to be involved with retirement funds at all.

"Even Colin Powell, a truly great African American"

And a great American. And a great human being...

"who gets to pick what mutual funds are available to be invested in?"

This is actually a VERY good question...

The disintegration of the Democrats was discussed in the earliest comments above, with the notion that the Libertarians replacing them.

As much as I would enjoy that scenario, I strongly doubt that it would happen that way. My money has been on the disintegration of a major party for some time- the GOP- and I'm holding firm.

Sure, the GOP had significant gains in 2004 and enjoys real majorities, and should have real momentum. However, these kind of majorities are rare in American politics, and historically, they are followed by backlash and a swing of the pendulum in the other direction.

Mainly, the policies of the majority party become overexposed. I'm confident in the growing rift between the rheotric of fiscal conservatives and the reality of Republican policy. True fiscal conservatives correctly see the GOP advancing leftward. The opportunity for alienation grows.

As for the left, there is nothing like having your back up against the wall to help put petty (or even large) differences aside in order to regain prominence and to attack the common enemy. The election of the new DNC Chair is crucial towards the reformation of the base, and its being focused in purpose and message.

People like Hilary, Barak, Evan Bayh, and others who are posturing for 2008 are foot soldiers. The DNC Chair will give marching orders.

The Republican party also has the potential for a very real rift between social conservatives (i.e., those who want government to be involved in personal decisions for the moral good of individuals involved) and the "Rockefeller Republicans" who believe less government involvement in individuals lives is better, both in economic matters (they are the ones who are the best fiscal conservatives) and in social matters (they tend to be libertarian in these types of questions). Most notably, these types of Republicans tend to be very moderate or even liberal in their attitudes on abortion and gay rights, on the grounds that THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT BE INVOLVED IN PERSONAL MATTERS.

In response to comment 39:

Question:

These are "voluntary personal accounts" as I understand it. Does that mean that if I decide not to participate I will continue to contribute to conventional social security at the current rate and will see the same benefits when I retire that the system is currently set up to provide?

Al, in response to comment 39; or, why I am concerned with what the worst possible outcome for the stupid and/or unlucky person will be:

Excerpted from Matthew 25 (the final judgement, verses 31-46):
Then they also will answer, "Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not take care of you?" Then he will answer them, "Truly I tell you, just as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me." And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.

So, in a nutshell, my religious beliefs compel me to worry about the worst case scenario for the unfortunate.

Social security is not a program that is designed to provide the best possible return for the well off; it is designed to ensure that ALL individuals who spend a lifetime working can maintain a certain minimal level of dignity when retired (or worse, when disabled). That it does, and reasonably effectively.

All people not identifying themselves as Christian feel free to ignore this post.

Comments 41 and 42...Mike and Roy...I agree. The Republicans are split between the mods and the ultra-conservatives. "What's the Matter with Kansas?" by Thomas Frank talks about it quite a bit. Whether or not the GOP will actually dissolve, it seems like a long shot...but I certainly think that after one political party has held a majority for an extended time there is a backlash against it.

Of course, Democrats are not a model of solidarity either but at least they all agree about stopping social security reform (except for Ben Nelson).

I prefer the term "dismantling Social Security" to "Social Security reform". Another good name is "Bush's privatization scheme". Reform usually implies improvement.

As I've pointed out before, since ANYTHING would be an improvement over the current system, including buying lumber, seasoning it for 3 years and reselling it, I think 'reform' is a perfectly appropriate term.

Dave

Dave and Al:

Do either of you think the Social Security system is a valid concept that is worth fixing, or would you prefer to get rid of it entirely?

Roy: Do either of you think the Social Security system is a valid concept that is worth fixing, or would you prefer to get rid of it entirely?

I can't speak for Al. But I believe that Social Security does serve a purpose. The question is whether that service could be performed better with a different type of system. If we got rid of the system alltogether than those people who are just psychologically incapable of saving money would be left out in the cold. So what we need is a system which provides for those who are not financially responsible, while not massively penalizing those who are more ready to take control of their own money.

I believe that the government should continue to take money and put it aside for individual retirement needs. Ideally after that the individual should have the choice of what is done with that money, either leaving it in something like the current system or putting it in something a bit more growth-oriented. Just taking 12% per year and putting it into a CD-based savings account at a guaranteed 3% interest would be substantially better than the current.system and I think that could be the base option.

The real key is controlling the rate at which money is taken out of the account after retirement so that no one runs out of money.

Dave

"Of course, Democrats are not a model of solidarity either but at least they all agree about stopping social security reform (except for Ben Nelson)."

Doesn't one of the ND Dem Senators also support Bush's plan?

Roy, I think that we definitely should be working to establish social security, which we just do not have now. Besides little issues of constitutionality, putting the government in charge of your retirement money was a tremendously bad idea. It pays a pretty paltry benefit for anyone to try to live on, and far less than most people should be getting for the amount of money they've "invested" in the system. On top of which, they've absolutely squandered every nickel they've been trusted with that hasn't directly gone out in current benefits. Thus, they won't be able to pay even the full current half-assed benefits after about 2018 or so.

I'd like for people to get some actual security by getting to keep their own money in their own accounts, which really would have backing. 99% of people would be FAR better off with the government completely out of their finances.

The main problem, of course, is that some percentage of people will absolutely not save a nickel, and count of the government safety net to bail them out. I'm not necessarily in favor of government involvement, but for this one main reason I can at least understand why reasonable people might favor some way of FORCING people to save for their retirement.

Interesting view of the future of the Democratic Party, at least through the eyes of one farily articulate commetator can be found at:

This is a long read, but it makes some interesting observations.

2005: The Splintering of the Democratic Party

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1335116/posts

Cheers,

Ron

A modest social security proposal:

Why not change the law requiring the Social Security Administration to invest the trust fund in treasury bonds so that they can invest it in anything (including the stock market)?

We can maintain solvency of the trust fund and not raise taxes (after all the stock market provides better returns, right?) and maintain guaranteed benefits (because we aren't changing the way the system works, just where the money is invested) at the same time.

Oh, and if the trust fund really has been pillaged, Congress can arrange to repay it. That is probably roughly equivalent to the "transition costs" to establish personalized, privatized accounts.

I look forward to comments on this plan.

In the first place Roy, how exactly is Congress going to arrange to repay the TRILLIONS of dollars they've looted from the supposed "trust" fund?

Further, after most of a century of destroying people's retirement savings, why in the world would you trust them to start doing right now?

Plus, do you REALLY want to have the government's big fat thumb on the scales, deciding what companies to invest in? You're just BEGGING to have well-connected dirtbags getting the feds to drop bazillions of dollars into their companies based on politics rather than market economics.

There's a basic underlying problem to government being involved in business. Government is not business. It is politics. It does not have the market discipline of being required to make profits.

If the government screws the pooch, they can just raise taxes. They can screw up as bad as they like, with generally little or no consequences.

Al Barger writes: In the first place Roy, how exactly is Congress going to arrange to repay the TRILLIONS of dollars they've looted from the supposed "trust" fund?

The same way that they are going to pay the TRILLIONS of dollars in "transition costs".

Al Barger writes: Further, after most of a century of destroying people's retirement savings, why in the world would you trust them to start doing right now?

My grandparents and parents are all retired and I don't recall them ever complaining about having their retirement savings destroyed. Whose retirement savings are you referring to?

Al Barger writes: Plus, do you REALLY want to have the government's big fat thumb on the scales, deciding what companies to invest in? You're just BEGGING to have well-connected dirtbags getting the feds to drop bazillions of dollars into their companies based on politics rather than market economics.

Indeed. And a restricted selection of government approved mutual funds for our "Personal Savings Accounts" makes this better how? Government still would be picking who gets invested in.

Roy, here's a point of agreement: a restricted selection of government approved mutual funds for our "Personal Savings Accounts" makes this better how? Government still would be picking who gets invested in.

Straight up right there. I'm highly skeptical of anything where the government makes business investment decisions.

Your parents and grandparents SHOULD have been raising holy hell over the destruction of their investments. They're given a minimal amount of benefits to pacify them, rather than what they should have gotten for a lifetime of savings. On top of which, they get NOTHING to pass on to YOU.

On top of which, they only get their current paltry returns at the expense of the current regime taking those benefits out of OUR hides.

In short, the system has been set up and run as the ultimate all time champion ponzi/pyramid scheme, and we're getting down now to the generations that are being left holding the empty bag.

Of course, the liberal position is to simply deny that the bag is empty.

Al Barger writes: On top of which, they get NOTHING to pass on to YOU.

Why should this matter? I can work for my own prosperity and retirement.

Also, what do you do with the person who lives a very long time and runs out of funds in their PSA?

At the risk of being called a socialist, I don't think that the right of rich folks to pass a huge inheritance onto their children is something worth fighting too hard for. Unless, of course, the goal is to establish our own home grown hereditary American aristocracy. Getting rid of the inheritance tax was a bad idea, too. (Yes, the minimum needed to be raised, but that is a different story.)

Government should stay out of business and should not unduly inhibit wealth creation (I like capitalism). However, inherited wealth doesn't do anything whatsoever to benefit society.

It's not just rich folks getting to pass an inheritance on to their children, but in fact primarily poor folks who are getting screwed, and being left with nothing to pass on to let their heirs start to get a toehold in the system.

Also, this statement is misguided: "inherited wealth doesn't do anything whatsoever to benefit society." It's not about whatever you think you might do with other people's money to "help" society. I would question your assertion that inherited wealth doesn't help society, but that's not the point. It's not YOUR place to decide how to dispose of OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY.

Eliminating the inheritance tax shifted a greater portion of the tax burden to those with lower income. Government has to be paid for somehow, and putting the greatest part of the tax burden on those least able to afford it does not make sense.

Poor folks that need a toe-hold in the system would be a lot better served with proper funding for education and decent health care than the vague possibility of receiving an inheritance. Of course, providing those things would necessitate more government spending, thus are not valid ideas in the right-wing view of "less government is always better (except for the military)".