Blogcritics: Comments on Hillary mania 2008 is ON!

Comment by Roy Smith

Wed, 9 Feb 2005 18:06:11 EST

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)".

Comment by Al Barger

Wed, 9 Feb 2005 16:09:36 EST

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.

Comment by Roy Smith

Wed, 9 Feb 2005 15:44:43 EST

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.

Comment by Al Barger

Wed, 9 Feb 2005 15:35:50 EST

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.

Comment by Roy Smith

Wed, 9 Feb 2005 15:21:18 EST

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.

Comment by Al Barger

Wed, 9 Feb 2005 15:12:43 EST

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.

Comment by Roy Smith

Wed, 9 Feb 2005 14:08:56 EST

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.

Comment by dietdoc

Mon, 7 Feb 2005 11:05:20 EST

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

Comment by Al Barger

Mon, 7 Feb 2005 01:52:18 EST

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.

Comment by RJ

Mon, 7 Feb 2005 01:16:50 EST

"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?

Comment by Dave Nalle

Sun, 6 Feb 2005 14:58:06 EST

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

Comment by Roy Smith

Sun, 6 Feb 2005 14:41:33 EST

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?

Comment by Dave Nalle

Sun, 6 Feb 2005 14:37:45 EST

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

Comment by Roy Smith

Sun, 6 Feb 2005 14:30:11 EST

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

Comment by Scott

Sun, 6 Feb 2005 14:24:35 EST

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).

Comment by Roy Smith

Sun, 6 Feb 2005 12:48:49 EST

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.

Comment by Roy Smith

Sun, 6 Feb 2005 11:00:45 EST

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?

Comment by Roy Smith

Sun, 6 Feb 2005 10:54:07 EST

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.

Comment by Mike Kole

Sun, 6 Feb 2005 09:03:51 EST

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.

Comment by RJ

Sun, 6 Feb 2005 00:31:35 EST

"who gets to pick what mutual funds are available to be invested in?" This is actually a VERY good question...

Comment by RJ

Sun, 6 Feb 2005 00:29:27 EST

"Even Colin Powell, a truly great African American" And a great American. And a great human being...

Comment by Al Barger

Sat, 5 Feb 2005 21:19:32 EST

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.

Comment by Dave Nalle

Sat, 5 Feb 2005 18:20:11 EST

>>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

Comment by Roy Smith

Sat, 5 Feb 2005 17:22:46 EST

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?

Comment by Roy Smith

Sat, 5 Feb 2005 17:12:13 EST

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.