HP: Hey I'm gonna be gone for most of the next three weeks, and so unable to respond until the end of that time. So don't feel ignored if I don't post for a while, and check back in a few weeks to see my responses.

"Alright, how about: Bush is expanding an already record deficit with the idea of social security, the war…"

There you go, now you're at least saying what you mean.

"And the working class doesn’t want private accounts, meaning there’s no need to change the system."

So the wants of the working class are all that should be taken into account here? What about the probable collapse of the entire Social Security system? (By, some say, 2042 or thereabouts.)

"How in hell are you arguing for the Bush policy if you don’t know anything about it?"

I'm not arguing for the specific Bush policy per se, since, as you point out, I am rather ignorant of its particulars, more for the philosophy of privatization and personal responsibility that underlie the policy. As I said earlier:

"First off, Bush's plan is a step in the right direction, I think we need to phase social security slowly into the hands of the private sector."

"Some can make good choices in the stock market"

So shouldn't those some be allowed to make those good choices?

"Security does not imply capitalist instability"

No, you are right. For something to be completely secure it must be also completely static and stagnant. And Capitalism is neither of these things. Communism, on the other hand... A good couple of quotes on the matter of security:

"In the end more than they wanted freedom, they wanted security. When the Athenians finally wanted not to give to society but for society to give to them, when the freedom they wished for was freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free." -Edward Gibbon

"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security." -Ben Franklin

"you speak of taking away a decision that isn’t parallel to the entire concept of social security"

How is taking away the decision of what to do with a portion of your own income not parallel to the idea of SS?

"The communist movement is at least existing on a large scale, something the objectivists have yet to boast of"

Ouch, that hurt right here man. What about the 200 million+ copies of Atlas Shrugged sold? Or it's ranking in a national survey as second in importance only to the bible? I'd say that's pretty large scale, but honestly, I don't care. What is popular is not necessarily what is right.

"Oh, an bourgeois suppression will of course take its toll on communists, sometimes for the worse."

Good.

"in socialism, while government exists, it is "withering away" "

Rooight, like it "withered away" in Russia and Cuba (I know, I KNOW, they're not Communist, you always say this, like it's some kind of excuse and not the condemnation of your philosophy it truly is: "No TRUE Communist society has ever existed." Ever wonder why?). The fact of the matter is, giving a government complete control over EVERYTHING, even for a short period of time, is a bad idea.

"in a successful socialist society, they wouldn’t be centralized"

Too bad there's never BEEN a successful socialist society. (That's almost an oxymoron by now).

"Learn the facts before you make the argument."

Learn to stop making pithy statements at the end of your posts.

Aducknamedjoe: "And you still don't get it, what I was trying to say is that I believe you meant to say ADDING TO the deficit, not "slurping from." Perhaps the slurping is occuring from our budget, or tax dollars, but not FROM the deficit, since that would make the deficit smaller, which is a good thing, and not larger."

Alright, how about: Bush is expanding an already record deficit with the idea of social security, the war…

"Explain to me again how giving people the voluntary choice to put their money in private accounts as opposed to leaving it in the SS system will cost anyone anything. Who would it cost anyways?"

Ask Cheney, who admitted the implementation of the system costing "trillions". Available government bonds and pre-determined stock options are a couple things that could amount to costing "trillions".

"So I was right. The key part here, is STOCK MARKET CHOICES. People should have the choice to get a higher return if they’re smart enough to understand the stock market."

People who don’t choose the stock market will still experience the lack of guaranteed funds. And the working class doesn’t want private accounts, meaning there’s no need to change the system.

"You need to do a better job of explaining all this. First off, what is the ‘payroll tax?’ And is the 4.6% the percent you can invest from your SS fund, or the expected return? Because earlier on I was talking about the return, and I think you misinterpreted me to mean the percent you can invest from your SS fund."

How in hell are you arguing for the Bush policy if you don’t know anything about it? Payroll tax, the amount of one’s taxes that go into the social security retirement fund. I am sorry about confusing the numbers, but 4.6% is the expected rate of return for private accounts; 4 percent is what you can invest in the payroll tax.

"What I want to know, is if the only money being lost from the system is the money that people may choose to invest into private accounts (which, if I’m reading you right, is 4.6%) how does that translate to across the board cuts of 46% of benefits?"

Four percent. And to compensate for the "trillions" that social security cost, guaranteed benefits will gradually decrease to a 46 percent loss. The White House admits this, and thus they indirectly admit to destabilizing retirement funds.

"That’s tantamount to saying that because people WON’T make bad decisions, we shouldn’t give them the freedom to make decisions at all."

Some can make good choices in the stock market, others will lose their money for retirement. Security does not imply capitalist instability – you speak of taking away a decision that isn’t parallel to the entire concept of social security.

"Nepal is a third world country, hence falling under my "or anyone outside the third world or Berkley" tag, same with Colombia, and the "intellects" in Berkley (hardly the "developed world" to me). But go ahead, keep knocking down straw men. By the way, the Marxists in Colombia sure have created a utopia for themselves huh?"

The communist movement is at least existing on a large scale, something the objectivists have yet to boast of. Oh, an bourgeois suppression will of course take its toll on communists, sometimes for the worse.

"If you hate government so much, why do you espouse a philosophy which has as one of its necessary, intermediary states, a society in which an all powerful governing body has direct control over all the property and means of production? Or did you never look up socialism in the dictionary? ‘Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.’"

The centralized social security system is what most resembles a communist society. While centralization is not wanted by communists, it is, in this case, the best alternative to the negatives effects of capitalism in a capitalist society. And, in socialism, while government exists, it is "withering away", as Engels put it. Goods would be owned collectively, and in a successful socialist society, they wouldn’t be centralized.

Learn the facts before you make the argument.

- Holocaustpulp

Sorry Spider, for using your story as a forum for our argument, if you want us to leave just let us know and we can continue our little debate elsewhere.

And sorry HP for my delay. Been busy.

HP:

"Slurping was meant as decreasing, as in slurping funds that already do not exist."

And you still don't get it, what I was trying to say is that I believe you meant to say ADDING TO the deficit, not "slurping from." Perhaps the slurping is occuring from our budget, or tax dollars, but not FROM the deficit, since that would make the deficit smaller, which is a good thing, and not larger.

“Compensation for the 4 TRILLION THAT BUSH'S SOCIAL SECURITY WILL COST”

Explain to me again how giving people the voluntary choice to put their money in private accounts as opposed to leaving it in the SS system will cost anyone anything. Who would it cost anyways?

“The expected return for investments in private accounts is 4%, but it can be higher or lower depending on stock market choices.”

So I was right. The key part here, is STOCK MARKET CHOICES. People should have the choice to get a higher return if they’re smart enough to understand the stock market.

“The 4.6%, according to the White House and articles from the Chicago Tribune and Washington Post, is the amount that can be invest in payroll social security tax. The percent of payroll tax is 6%, so one would at most invest 4.6% out of 6%.”

You need to do a better job of explaining all this. First off, what is the “payroll tax?” And is the 4.6% the percent you can invest from your SS fund, or the expected return? Because earlier on I was talking about the return, and I think you misinterpreted me to mean the percent you can invest from your SS fund.

“The guaranteed social security benefits may be cut up to 46% under the Bush plan, laying almost half of the retirement on the wavering stock market.”

What I want to know, is if the only money being lost from the system is the money that people may choose to invest into private accounts (which, if I’m reading you right, is 4.6%) how does that translate to across the board cuts of 46% of benefits?

“Voluntary, yes, but the smart person will not take the private accoutns, and thus there isn't a need for a change.”

That’s tantamount to saying that because people WON’T make bad decisions, we shouldn’t give them the freedom to make decisions at all.

“You tell the Maoists in Nepal no one cares about communism. You tell the Marxists in Colombia that communism is unknown. You tell everyone in developing countries, and intellects in the developed world, and the communist party members internationally, that communism is obsolete. Communism is much more likely than objectivism, definitely because it is more practical. “

Nepal is a third world country, hence falling under my “or anyone outside the third world or Berkley” tag, same with Colombia, and the “intellects” in Berkley (hardly the “developed world” to me). But go ahead, keep knocking down straw men. By the way, the Marxists in Colombia sure have created a utopia for themselves huh?

“Government causes strife, as does capitalism; communism is the panacea to these things.”

If you hate government so much, why do you espouse a philosophy which has as one of its necessary, intermediary states, a society in which an all powerful governing body has direct control over all the property and means of production? Or did you never look up socialism in the dictionary?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=socialism

“Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.”

Aducknamedjoe: You should definitely read my essay "Social Security, and Why Bush's Plan is Farce"; all of my points are adressed in there.

But I'll still address what you've said: "You could not be more obtuse. The key to arguing effectively is to actually make it clear WHAT you're saying. Compensate? For what? And if privatization is "slurping" trillions out of the deficit, wouldn't that be a good thing? (meaning, if money is being "slurped" out of the deficit, wouldn't the deficit me smaller? That's what not what I think you meant though...)"

Compensation for the 4 TRILLION THAT BUSH'S SOCIAL SECURITY WILL COST. The retirement age will be raised so that future presidents can sort out the mess that Bush may create - a 4 trillion deficit added on to the existing $400 billion deficit. Slurping was meant as decreasing, as in slurping funds that already do not exist. A lot good that is, huh.

"It was my understanding that the percent of return was only limited by the amount that private organizations and the stock market were willing to give out. Not by a government fiat saying, "You're only allowed to invest that extra money in these selected accounts, which only provide a 4.6% return." If I'm wrong point out your sources to me."

The expected return for investments in private accounts is 4%, but it can be higher or lower depending on stock market choices. The 4.6%, according to the White House and articles from the Chicago Tribune and Washington Post, is the amount that can be invest in payroll social security tax. The percent of payroll tax is 6%, so one would at most invest 4.6% out of 6%.

"What exactly do "traditional funds" entail? Actual money paid out to people through SS? Operating funds? And are they cut across the board? Because it was my understanding that that "cut" would only be the money directly allocated (voluntarily, mind you) into private accounts. If I'm wrong, show me your source."

Traditional funds are existing social security funds that currently pay off 3%, less than the Bush model that, with private accounts, proposes a pay off 4% from social security. The guaranteed social security benefits may be cut up to 46% under the Bush plan, laying almost half of the retirement on the wavering stock market. Again, read the news for this information.

"And this answers my assertion that turning a portion of your SS account over to the free market is voluntary how? All you've done is complain about how "Bush is making the economy worse" without actually addressing my point."

Those private accounts are pushed, heavily (like the idiotic idea of the War in Iraq) because social security faces a fabricated (i.e. nonexistent) crisis. Thus, while voluntary, the goal for Bush is to make social security increasingly private. Voluntary, yes, but the smart person will not take the private accoutns, and thus there isn't a need for a change. And the scenario that I mentioned, that's what will happen to you with private accounts, or at least most of America.

"First off, I'm not "technically" a Libertarian, I supported the war in Iraq, and I believe there is a legitimate place for government in Human society. Second, your communist ** doesn't fool enough in congress (or anyone outside the third world or Berkley) to convince them that being equal in poverty is better than being unequal in prosperity."

You tell the Maoists in Nepal no one cares about communism. You tell the Marxists in Colombia that communism is unknown. You tell everyone in developing countries, and intellects in the developed world, and the communist party members internationally, that communism is obsolete. Communism is much more likely than objectivism, definitely because it is more practical. Government causes strife, as does capitalism; communism is the panecea to these things.

HP:

"Three percent would compensate for the 4 trillion dollars that privatization would slurp up out an already record deficit."

You could not be more obtuse. The key to arguing effectively is to actually make it clear WHAT you're saying. Compensate? For what? And if privatization is "slurping" trillions out of the deficit, wouldn't that be a good thing? (meaning, if money is being "slurped" out of the deficit, wouldn't the deficit me smaller? That's what not what I think you meant though...)

"the social security plan would allow 4.6 percent investments in bonds, traditional retirement funds, and a private account, not 5 or 6 percent"

It was my understanding that the percent of return was only limited by the amount that private organizations and the stock market were willing to give out. Not by a government fiat saying, "You're only allowed to invest that extra money in these selected accounts, which only provide a 4.6% return." If I'm wrong point out your sources to me.

"Cheney and Bush are admitting that traditional funds will be cut up to fourty-six (not fourty-two) percent"

What exactly do "traditional funds" entail? Actual money paid out to people through SS? Operating funds? And are they cut across the board? Because it was my understanding that that "cut" would only be the money directly allocated (voluntarily, mind you) into private accounts. If I'm wrong, show me your source.

"Wait a minute, when you're sixty-five the retirement age will be somewhere around seventy to compensate for the four trillion, and Bush deficits will have left their mark and price indexing, a 1.8 rate economy, and a stupid social security program will have you living with a sibling."

And this answers my assertion that turning a portion of your SS account over to the free market is voluntary how? All you've done is complain about how "Bush is making the economy worse" without actually addressing my point.

"your libertarian ** doesn't fool enough in Congress to convince them that being poor when older is better"

First off, I'm not "technically" a Libertarian, I supported the war in Iraq, and I believe there is a legitimate place for government in Human society. Second, your communist ** doesn't fool enough in congress (or anyone outside the third world or Berkley) to convince them that being equal in poverty is better than being unequal in prosperity.

Aducknamedjoe: "Erm, that 3 and 1 percent tax you mention, it wouldn't be 3 or 1 percent OF that 4 percent now would it? But silly me, HP never makes mistakes..."

Three percent would compensate for the 4 trillion dollars that privatization would slurp up out an already record deficit. The one percent is already existing tax on social security. So yes, these taxes would pertain to the Bush social security. And the solutions for this problem are more risking and provide less help than the existing social security - discussed thoroughly in my essay on social security.

"Wow, I didn't it was POSSIBLE to pull so much ** out of one **! "Is bound" huh? Prove it. Show me how a bond, with 5 or 6 percent interest "is bound" to give me less return than a 3% social security fund."

First of all, the social security plan would allow 4.6 percent investments in bonds, traditional retirement funds, and a private account, not 5 or 6 percent. Because of the taxes on the four trillion trip, the proposed four percent earnings (higher than today's three percent) would amount to a loss, even with such methods as price indexing.

"They're not "lost" if they're going back into the pockets of those who paid them out. And where do you get this "42%" number anyway? The same place you pulled "is bound" out of?"

I get it from the Center for Buget Policy and Priorities. Hell, I even get it from the White House. Cheney and Bush are admitting that traditional funds will be cut up to fourty-six (not fourty-two) percent, slapping the already weary poor across the face.

"Also, through all of this, remember, the Bush idea of partial privatization is VOLUNTARY! You don't have to "risk" the free market with your social security money if you don't want to, just don't come crawling to me when I have a cool million dollars at the age of 65 and you don't."

Wait a minute, when you're sixty-five the retirement age will be somewhere around seventy to compensate for the four trillion, and Bush deficits will have left their mark and price indexing, a 1.8 rate economy, and a stupid social security program will have you living with a sibling.

Luckily, this is the less likely outcome - your libertarian ** doesn't fool enough in Congress to convince them that being poor when older is better.

Kirney Slate:

"Yes, seniors do need our aid"

"Need" is not a claim on my wealth. There is not a mouthful of food that you eat that isn't "needed" by someone somewhere. If we allow need to be the barometer of who gets material wealth, man's life on earth will become unliveable.

"Yes, we the people, we this government should provide for them in their retirement. It is a moral imparitive"

Tell me again how stealing my rightfully earned money is "moral?"

"So yes, perhaps it is taking your money "at the point of a gun", but that is what all taxes do, including the ones that provide for our military."

Does this somehow make it right? Just because it's practiced in other avenues?

"America is an advanced democrocy, we agree to pay for our seniors not because they were stupid when they were young, but because, for many, the hard-earned money of their youth was simply getting them through the day."

Actually, we're a contsitutional Republic, which is different than a Democracy in that there's a written constitution to make sure that the rights of the minority are not voted away by the majority. And the smallest and most persecuted minority on the planet is the individual.

And what is the "We agree" thing? I sure as hell didn't agree, this issue hasn't even been brought up for a vote in my lifetime so I've had no ability TO agree.

And prove to me that the money seniors made in their youth went only to day to day living, because I can prove to you, that with a lot of thrift, and short term sacrifices coupled with long range planning, those same seniors wouldn't be "needing" our help today.

"Becuase the Constitution gave us a charge to make laws the are for the public good. And helping the elderly certainly falls under the public good."

Actually, the Constitution gave CONGRESS the power to "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States." And I fail to see how infringing on property rights provides for the "general Welfare." (Especially since, if you want to go simply numbers, more people are paying into Social Security than recieving benifits from it, so if the general welfare is the welfare of the majority, eliminating the money they have to pay to SS would surely improve their welfare.)

"freedom from want, freedom from economic strife"

Government has no business providing these "freedoms" at the point of a gun, because in so doing it cuts back on other, more important freedoms, like the freedom to keep what you earn and do with it what you will.

"I do not understand how you can support Bush's plan for a four percent change when you don't believe that we should be giving money to seniors at all."

First off, Bush's plan is a step in the right direction, I think we need to phase social security slowly into the hands of the private sector.

Second, I NEVER said we shouldn't be giving money to seniors at all. I just said we should be free to do it at our own discretion, since it is, after all our own money we're talking about here. In fact, you re-read my post for yourself. What I SAID was:

"Yes, maybe it IS moral to help others and support those elderly which can't support themselves, but not at the point of a gun. Not under duress, the ends do NOT justify the means. End Social Security, SUPPORT PRIVATE CHARITIES."

Those last three words are the ones you missed, I think.

Aducknamedjoe:

Yes, seniors do need our aid. According to census data, in a study by the Center on Budget and Policy Priories, without Social Security 15.3 million seniors would be below the poverty line. With Social Security that number is reduced to 3.8 million.

Yes, we the people, we this government should provide for them in their retirement. It is a moral imparitive. Your claim is that this would be the equivilant of "the end's justify the means". However, Social Security is providing for the public good just as other government programs have--Head Start, Public Schools, the Federal Highway System. All of these things provide for the public good--these are the things we pay for.

So yes, perhaps it is taking your money "at the point of a gun", but that is what all taxes do, including the ones that provide for our military.

America is an advanced democrocy, we agree to pay for our seniors not because they were stupid when they were young, but because, for many, the hard-earned money of their youth was simply getting them through the day. You ask "why then should I give money to support old people I don't even know? What return do I get? And why do we need to help these seniors in the first place?" Becuase the Constitution gave us a charge to make laws the are for the public good. And helping the elderly certainly falls under the public good.

You ask what return you get. You get to live in the better America, one that provides freedom from want, freedom from economic strife for one of our most vulnerable groups.

Finally, you say that you "agree totally" with this essay. Yet you seem to be calling for an end to Social Security, not for a measure that will supposedly strengthen it. I do not understand how you can support Bush's plan for a four percent change when you don't believe that we should be giving money to seniors at all.

Thank you for your response, and I appologize for my spelling.

Lovely little essay, agree with you totally.

HP:

"First, let us deal with the matter at hand: social security. The proposed four percent of funds look good to the workers, it doesn't mean anything in the long run. That is, because the program will cost "trillions" (as Cheney announced), average tax on profits will cost about three percent. This paired with the inevitable tax of one percent amounts for a net gain of nothing, possibly even negative value when one considers stock risks."

Erm, that 3 and 1 percent tax you mention, it wouldn't be 3 or 1 percent OF that 4 percent now would it? But silly me, HP never makes mistakes...

"While privitization may be a good theoretical conception, failures in investments, even with the failesafe of bonds, is bound to unbalance funds to create a lost retirement fund."

Wow, I didn't it was POSSIBLE to pull so much ** out of one **! "Is bound" huh? Prove it. Show me how a bond, with 5 or 6 percent interest "is bound" to give me less return than a 3% social security fund.

"Under privitization, fourty-two percent of funds would be lost."

They're not "lost" if they're going back into the pockets of those who paid them out. And where do you get this "42%" number anyway? The same place you pulled "is bound" out of?

Also, through all of this, remember, the Bush idea of partial privatization is VOLUNTARY! You don't have to "risk" the free market with your social security money if you don't want to, just don't come crawling to me when I have a cool million dollars at the age of 65 and you don't.

Kirney Slate:

"Yes economic freedom is important, but it should not come at the expense of our seniors or of our impoverished."

Through your whole review you assume seniors NEED our aid. That because they need it, we should be forced, forced at the point of a gun (for that really is the final argument government has) to provide for them in their retirement, with no promise of receiving the same aid from our children and grandchildren. When I'm 65, that's about the time it is predicted Social Security will fail. Why then should I give money to support old people I don't even know? What return do I get? And why do we need to help these seniors in the first place? Why didn't they think enough to save money for retirement when they were younger? Why should I pay for their mistakes?

Yes, maybe it IS moral to help others and support those elderly which can't support themselves, but not at the point of a gun. Not under duress, the ends do NOT justify the means. End Social Security, support private charities.

While I appreciate and respect the desire for "freedom" both economic and social, I reject your argument against Social Security.

First of all you write that "social security was meant to help Americans by allowing them to save money for their retirement". Social Security is not a way for people to save money. Rather it is a support system for America's elderly. You do not set aside money in your payroll taxes--you pay directly for the benifits of retirees. In other words, a portion of the money you earn, goes directly to making the lives of senior citizens (one of America's most vulnerable groups) better. In this way, since the New Deal, Americans have made a committment to it's elderly. Each generation has paid to make the lives of it's parents and grandparents beter.

Next, by partially privatizing even four per cent of the Social Security budget, you are only hastening its demise. Since Social Security is the biggest non-military program in the federal budget, four per cent is quite a large amount. And if we move four percent of the budget away from current seniors, we are incurring huge costs that will have to be picked up by the govenment, further worsening our budget crisis, and placing yet another strain on the fragile American Dollar (bad economics according to virtually anyone).

As you point out, "Social Security is able to finance about 70 percent of benifits through 2078". This speaks to the resiliancy of Social Security. Even your estimate of bakrupcy in 2042 would show that Social Security can last a century without major change. And it could still pay out 70 per cent until 2078 for 36 more years. I would consider that a very impressive record for a program so "horribly run".

Also, I am unsure exactly what your point is. If Social Sec. is such an evil, why then are you so pleased with a four percent change? Why do you want to fix a program that is so awful? You write: "the longer the government waits to get rid of social security, the more expensive the problem is going to be to fix." The parital privitization proposed by President Bush is not going to "get rid" of Social Security, and according to him, it will help to save it. So is it a socialistic evil, or something worth fixing?

Finally, I would like to come back to the common misconseption that Social Security is like a retirement fund. It is not. It is a promise to our elderly that we will protect them. Not a way to inhibit economic freedom. Yes economic freedom is important, but it should not come at the expense of our seniors or of our impoverished.

Thank you for writing this essay, I'm sorry that your AP Government class is pathetic, and I hope that my longwinded and mis-spelled response is more fun for you. I have tried to keep a civil tone, and hope, at no point did I offend you--this wasn't intended as a "flame", just a response. Feel free to e-mail back your thoughts at pepuch@AOL.com.

I think social security should be unequivocally abolished. However, I don’t see how Bush’s plan is an unambiguous step in the right direction. It doesn’t really lessen the amount of money confiscated, it just gives taxpayers some superficial choice in how it’s allocated. And that’s if we assume corruption out of the picture, which is always a poor assumption to make, especially when we’re talking about a govt. boondoggle that was originally implemented as a kind of hidden, cynical tax increase.

”A country free of government regulation (coddling) is not an anarchic state”

Yes. Yes it is.

”It is natural for man to work for himself and reap all the resulting benefits. Altruism is neither natural nor necessary, for when man works for himself, he intrinsically benefits those around him due to the required relationship for success.”

If altruism is not natural, where does it come from? It’s obvious to me that humans naturally feel some degree of altruism, though I would consider altruism itself to be inherently selfish, just like everything else. The proper argument against social security is not that it’s altruistic and thus ‘bad’; the proper argument is that it's involuntary (adding, as a utilitarian side, that this means it will not be used to benefit those who pay into it because they have to pay into it regardless of whether or not it benefits them).

And I just have to say it: Will has no more credibility in political-economy than Krugman.

Up high!

I totally agree that its time to cut back on the socialism ole FDR put in place some sixty, seventy years ago when our nation was as weak as it had been for a while.

Unfortunately not all people do not see this blessing the same as we do.

I'm 17 so when I'm 67 and retiring I have a feeling that fifty years of 4 percent installments will leave me smiling.

Savage

As a fellow libertarian I agree 100% with you. I nodded to every word you said because it's true.

Where the group is the biggest concern, the indivisual is forgotten.

-Curtis

If you want to smash the benefit program that has aided the American elderly for decades, and can continually aid our elders for decades to come, then you are not only the troubled economist, but the troubled human. Not only do you present implausible arguments, but you also bash Marxism with a seeming sense of impunity and lack of detailed theoretical explanation.

Bad choice, because I'm a Marxist.

First, let us deal with the matter at hand: social security. The proposed four percent of funds look good to the workers, it doesn't mean anything in the long run. That is, because the program will cost "trillions" (as Cheney announced), average tax on profits will cost about three percent. This paired with the inevitable tax of one percent amounts for a net gain of nothing, possibly even negative value when one considers stock risks.

Thus, those in line to benefit from the privitization of social security are not the workers themselves, but rather the mutual fund industry and Wallstreet. While privitization may be a good theoretical conception, failures in investments, even with the failesafe of bonds, is bound to unbalance funds to create a lost retirement fund. This means an increased number of poor elders in our country such as in Britain and a widening rich-poor gap.

Sure, changes must be applied and implemented, but not a whole abandonment of the established system. By the "bankrupcy marker", social security will still be able to pay seventy percent of funds, more than today. Under privitization, fourty-two percent of funds would be lost. Huh. If private accounts were to work, the estimated rate of a slowing 1.8 percent of economic activity would send these accounts to total ruin. If we have another stock market lapse, which are more frequent than one should think, then the whole system would be in tatters.

If the economy grew a better rate than ever before, if people were smart investers, and if there was an inpending crisis, and not just some farce that can be fixed by riding of bogus tax cuts, then perhaps privitization would be a considerable measure. Until then, I'm going with the AARP - winners and losers aren't retirement terms.

And finally, Marxism. You claim it is natural human ideology to be universally independent, and thus capitalistic. However, with consciousness and morality, man can defy the primitive thinking of Darwinian capitalism and thus established absolute equality. Besides, "survival of the fittest" has been rendered obsolete by the economy, as it compensates for those exploited by the bourgeois and the "free market". Capitalism is the apparatus by which equal beings are marginalized, divided, slandered, and essentially enslaved. Capitalism progresses on the goals of the few who understand the outstanding personal gain that the exploitation in capitalism offers.

The state is something that should not exist. For this, you don't thrust the populace into the transition, but make it happen gradually.

You and the rest of the capitalist libertarians (and other capitalists for that matter) even use theory for your own means. This is why the Revolution lives on.