American Politics issues that 80% of smart people/dopers can agree upon ?

[Rashak Mani]

So every once in a while we get these discussions where obviously both sides are entrenched in their views and have "solid" cases. Iraq though indefensible to me... seems quite a good proposition to some... tax cuts, abortion, etc...

So I wonder... is there a common ground ? Some issues or facts that most smart people can agree upon especially regarding US politics and Bush ? I picked 80% as a good majority (out of my head)... and dopers as smart reference and only sample we have here. :D

I'll propose a few I think most "smart" or dopers would agree for starters:


- Afghanistan was a legitimate invasion (not discussing if it was well done or not, or legal)

- Bush's international diplomacy was very lacking (even if you think he shouldn't have gone to the UN or whatever... the diplomacy was shoddy)

- The Middle East needs modernization

Some more ?

[gfloyd]

De-segregation was a good idea? We probably shouldn't invade Canada?

Seriously, I've been shocked on both sides of many issues with people I normally consider intelligent. I wouldn't even hazard a guess to what 50 % of the people on the board or IRL think.

[robertliguori]

The War on Drugs sucks, and should be either re-vamped completely or outright done away with.

Actual money and effort should be put into eliminating electoral fraud.

[Evil Captor]

Privatizing Social Security is a bad idea. (This one SEEMS partisan, but support for privatization is weak even among Republicans.)

[Uncommon Sense]

Privatizing Social Security is a bad idea. (This one SEEMS partisan, but support for privatization is weak even among Republicans.)
Privatising is probably the wrong word. I think you're looking more for the term 'Partial Self Direction'. No one is talking about privatising the entire system, are they? I think the pundits suggest some of the withholdings be re-directed.

[msmith537]

The War on Drugs sucks, and should be either re-vamped completely or outright done away with.

Are we still at war with drugs?

[Evil Captor]

Privatising is probably the wrong word. I think you're looking more for the term 'Partial Self Direction'. No one is talking about privatising the entire system, are they? I think the pundits suggest some of the withholdings be re-directed.

Even the partial self direction -- lovely bit of Orwellian doublespeak, that -- is an attack on the system, as it attempts to get funds needed out of Social Security. Whatever you call it, people will see it for what it is, and it will go over like a lead balloon, especially among those OLDER Americans -- and they vote.

[Revtim]

I think over 80 percent of the posters here support gay marriage, although perhaps not the legal path to get there.

[ElvisL1ves]

Are we still at war with drugs?Yep, and I don't remember the victory parade for the War on Poverty, either. The Fight Against Ignorance is eternal.

[msmith537]

I think over 80 percent of the posters here support gay marriage, although perhaps not the legal path to get there.

Why shouldn't gays have the right to be as miserable as hetero couples?

[Martin Hyde]

Privatizing Social Security is a bad idea. (This one SEEMS partisan, but support for privatization is weak even among Republicans.)

Pet peeve of mine but Social Security is overused as a term. No one is talking about privatizing social security. The Social Security Administration provides a *wide* range of welfare services, retirement income is only one of like 20 services the SSA provides.

Some people are talking about privatizing pay-ins on the retirement income scheme that exists within the SSA, not the entire SSA itself.

I know that even politicians don't make this distinction but it just always struck me as counter-educational because it's typecast the SSA as a one trick pony in a lot of people's minds.

[BrainGlutton]

- The Middle East needs modernization

I would agree, but a lot of people who live there would violently disagree, no matter how you're defining "modernization." And a lot of American Muslims would feel exactly the same way about it -- even if they have no interest in moving back to the ME.

Here's one: Can we all agree that the rising inequality of wealth in American society is a problem? A very bad thing in and of itself, regardless of what causes it or of what might or might not reverse it? If you don't agree with that, s stated, please tell us why.

[John Mace]

I like this idea, and have toyed with it myself. It will be interesting to assemble a list of things that almost all of us can agree on. Here are a couple off the top of my head:

Creationsim should not be taught in science classes in public schools.

Gay couples should be afforded some sort of civil recognition.



From the OP:

Bush's international diplomacy was very lacking (even if you think he shouldn't have gone to the UN or whatever... the diplomacy was shoddy)

that's way to sujebjective to warrant agreement. "Very lacking"? I don't know what that means. You'll never get any group of people to agree that any given administration had the proper amount of diplomacy going.

[Kimstu]

We do not have a good, effective strategy---other than unilateral military aggression---for international humanitarian intervention in nations suffering under brutal regimes.

Of course, there is great disagreement as to whether unilateral military aggression is in fact a good or effective strategy in such cases, with some conservative hawks saying yes and most liberals and other conservatives saying no. But I think we can pretty much agree that the existing alternatives are inadequate.

[Brutus]

We do not have a good, effective strategy---other than unilateral military aggression---for international humanitarian intervention in nations suffering under brutal regimes.

Of course, there is great disagreement as to whether unilateral military aggression is in fact a good or effective strategy in such cases, with some conservative hawks saying yes and most liberals and other conservatives saying no. But I think we can pretty much agree that the existing alternatives are inadequate.

Agreed.

[Kimstu]

Ye gods, it's the apocalypse. ;) What an irenic (yes, I spelled that right) thread you've got going here, Rashak Mani! Makes a nice change.

[John Mace]

We do not have a good, effective strategy---other than unilateral military aggression---for international humanitarian intervention in nations suffering under brutal regimes..

How is this an American political issue? This isn't something we can solve ourselves, it being "international" per your description.

[BrainGlutton]

How is this an American political issue? This isn't something we can solve ourselves, it being "international" per your description.

But it's still something for which the U.S. government needs to have a policy, and a better one than we've been using up to now.

[Kimstu]

Um, well, it seemed as much an "American" issue to me (in the sense of being something that a lot of Americans have political opinions on) as the OP's examples of "Afghanistan was a legitimate invasion" and "the Middle East needs modernization." Aren't those also "international" issues? Is this debate restricted to political issues that Americans can solve by ourselves? If so, I missed that, sorry.

[John Mace]

Um, well, it seemed as much an "American" issue to me (in the sense of being something that a lot of Americans have political opinions on) as the OP's examples of "Afghanistan was a legitimate invasion" and "the Middle East needs modernization." Aren't those also "international" issues? Is this debate restricted to political issues that Americans can solve by ourselves? If so, I missed that, sorry.

I'm not trying to police this thread, so throw out anything that you think makes sense. Afghanistan was not just some random humanitarian crisis that needed to be solved, but something directly affecting the US. The situation in the Sudan is an example of what I though you were proposing. There isn't a reason why the US, as opposed to the E..U. or the U.N. needs to tackle it or other situations like it.

[Brutus]

How is this an American political issue? This isn't something we can solve ourselves, it being "international" per your description.

Well, it sort of is, in my view.

Rather than going to other countries for troops (which are great, when available without excessive strings attached, but...), a radical restructing of our armed forces (army, mostly), would all us more flexibility in taking down and 'occupying' countries on our own.

The idea isn't my own, but I can't remember where I read it originally. Dunnigan, maybe? But a thumbnail sketch: you begin by stripping out all/most of the least used portions of the military: air defense (reduce, not eliminate), nuclear forces (reduce even further), and source as many civilian stateside jobs as possible to civilians. Take the savings, and roll them into Stryker brigades and special forces. Stryker brigades are medium unitsthat have a much higher proportion of engineers and civil affair troops, the sort you want when rebuilding/policing a country, and cost less to deploy than do heavy mechanized brigades.

You can't get rid of the mechs, but you want to use those as little as possible. Leave them for the job at which they excel: Knocking them down. The mediums can go in and set them up after.

Basically: Start planning now for making occupations more efficient and effective. Sure, we can occupy with our current force structure, but it can never hurt to be more efficient. It would give us more flexibility in dealing with issues like, say, Iran.

(Probably not what Kimtsu had in mind, but anyday I can trigger the Apocalypse is a good one!)

[Brutus]

P.S. We are doing the above right now, but the author was arguing for an accelerated rate of restructuring, and going even further in civilian outsourcing than we are currently doing.

[BrainGlutton]

(Probably not what Kimtsu had in mind . . .

:dubious: No, I think not. Kimstu was complaining that "We do not have a good, effective strategy---other than unilateral military aggression---for international humanitarian intervention in nations suffering under brutal regimes." Got any ideas to contribute on that?

[Kimstu]

Brutus: a radical restructing of our armed forces (army, mostly), would all us more flexibility in taking down and 'occupying' countries on our own.

Which is precisely the option of "unilateral military aggression" that I wasn't suggesting as a candidate for this thread. You're right that this is much more a strictly American policy question, but it is definitely not one that we can agree upon, so quit hijacking my suggested topic, 'mkay? ;)

What I was talking about was alternatives to that option, which as John notes is not a specifically American political issue. (Still seems to me at least as legitimate an issue for this thread as "the Middle East needs modernization", but what do I know.)

[John Mace]

Still seems to me at least as legitimate an issue for this thread as "the Middle East needs modernization"

Can't argue with that!

Perhaps we shouild propose: Brazil, or South America, needs modernization. Is the average standard of living in the Middle East significanly worse than the average standard of living in South America?

[Zoe]

Educational reform is desperately needed including higher standards for teachers entering the teaching profession and higher standards for students receiving high school diplomas.


Our country is badly in need of judicial and prison reform.

[BrainGlutton]

Our country is badly in need of judicial and prison reform.

That's too vague for us to agree to or even debate. What kind of reform?

[Demorian]

Perhaps we shouild propose: Brazil, or South America, needs modernization. Is the average standard of living in the Middle East significanly worse than the average standard of living in South America?
Brazil seems to be one of the few countries that is doing quite well modernizing itself, as well as gaining international standing due to a variety of things. Hopefully, they will use this for the good of stabilizing the governments of the surrounding South American nations.

I'm frankly more concerned about Africa and ME/Central Asia than elsewhere. ME/CA have very shallow economies reliant on one (sometimes 2) industries that are largely owned and operated by foreign investors. Africa is even worse off.

Then you have China and India, which we need to drastically redefine our relations with, because both are growing rapidly in population and industry (Brazil is the third in this trio, but I already talked about it). These countries are going to be the next to explore space and formulate deeper nuclear strategies while "going global." India is the larger threat, with a large Muslim population and ties to Iran against Pakistan, which is tied to Bush, which makes for a nice nuclear standoff.

Basically, I think we can all agree that US foreign policy needs to shift from "we are the superpower and you will live with that" to a bit more of a humble position at the table when dealing with other countries, and especially in making friends in the developing world. We've thus far been working AGAINST these goals with the Bush Admin, but that is not a topic for this thread.

[Brutus]

:dubious: No, I think not. Kimstu was complaining that "We do not have a good, effective strategy---other than unilateral military aggression---for international humanitarian intervention in nations suffering under brutal regimes." Got any ideas to contribute on that?

Sure. Get the UNSC to agree to agressively intervene. BWAHAHAHAHAHAH! I will then gladly donate the monkeys that will fly out of my ass when that happens.

First, drop the 'unilateral' bit. We have not acted 'unilateraly' since perhaps Panama or Grenada. Second, I misread Kimstu's post.

[John Mace]

Basically, I think we can all agree that US foreign policy needs to shift from "we are the superpower and you will live with that" to a bit more of a humble position at the table when dealing with other countries, and especially in making friends in the developing world. We've thus far been working AGAINST these goals with the Bush Admin, but that is not a topic for this thread.

What you're saying is that basically you think everyone can agree with the left's position on foreign policy. What we're trying to discover here, are things that BOTH sides can agree on. I'm not necessarily saying I disagree with your statement, but it's pretty naive to think that our friends here on the right will agree with you.

[Kimstu]

Man, the irenic nature of this thread is starting to crack a little round the edges, huh? It's interesting to come up with statements that we all pretty much agree on, but it's just so tempting to start debating the side issues that we don't. :)

[BrainGlutton]

First, drop the 'unilateral' bit. We have not acted 'unilateraly' since perhaps Panama or Grenada.

:p

[F. U. Shakespeare]

Higher standards for students (especially high school grads) is what we need to work towards, but it's important not to lose sight of the fact that we are aiming toward universal education.

Subsequently, any gloomy comparisons of test results from 1910 (when most 'problem students' were steered into trades and jobs by their early teens) are from a different playing field. (The same demographics apply to teachers: grade school teachers do not need to understand differential equations, Latin and queueing theory).

I completely agree that our judicial and prison system are in need of reform, but I'm not sure that's defined enough for 80% to say we agree.

Here's one I ain't seen yet: we (USA) need an to put together an adequate vocational educational system.

Educational reform is desperately needed including higher standards for teachers entering the teaching profession and higher standards for students receiving high school diplomas.


Our country is badly in need of judicial and prison reform.

[Civil Guy]

Some issues or facts that most smart people can agree upon especially regarding US politics and Bush ?

Perhaps... I suspect that 80% of us have got this inner working that defines "smart" as anyone who's wise enough to agree with us, and "unbelievably gullible" (or worse) as anyone who's not.

I'd stick to basics, like "ignorance is bad." Anyone disagree?

[BrainGlutton]

Here's one I ain't seen yet: we (USA) need an to put together an adequate vocational educational system.

Why? What are we missing by not having one? There's no shortage of skilled labor in America, is there?

[Age Quod Agis]

We do not have a good, effective strategy---other than unilateral military aggression---for international humanitarian intervention in nations suffering under brutal regimes.I, personally, agree with this statement. But I'm not sure about whether we can say we've got a consensus on the issue because it seems that historically the first 2 things that have been tried have been sanctions against the brutal regime and humanitarian aid to the needy (See e.g. Iraq, South Africa, the Balkans).

My (hopeful) additions --

In times of peace and prosperity, the government should not run a budget deficit.

Improving an individual's education is one way to reduce the chances that that individual will turn to crime.

Both sides of American politics need to dial back the partisanship.

The prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib was terrible, and the government and military should take steps to ensure it never happens again.

[Demorian]

What you're saying is that basically you think everyone can agree with the left's position on foreign policy. What we're trying to discover here, are things that BOTH sides can agree on. I'm not necessarily saying I disagree with your statement, but it's pretty naive to think that our friends here on the right will agree with you.
I don't consider anyone who thinks the past 4 years have been good foreign policy to be of sound mind, and thus irrelevant to this topic.

[John Mace]

I don't consider anyone who thinks the past 4 years have been good foreign policy to be of sound mind, and thus irrelevant to this topic.

Man are we lucky to have you around to make this decision for everyone. :rolleyes:

[Demorian]

Man are we lucky to have you around to make this decision for everyone.
Yep, I bet.

[Futile Gesture]

- The Middle East needs modernization Define 'modernization'.

One of the problems of American politics and international affairs is it has a hard time differentiating between 'making good use of modern technology and social developments' and 'being modern, just like America'. Whether they are one and the same thing is very much a matter of opinion, even among "smart people"

And is it universally accepted by "most smart people" that everything modern is naturally an improvement?

[Rashak Mani]

Ye gods, it's the apocalypse. ;) What an irenic (yes, I spelled that right) thread you've got going here, Rashak Mani! Makes a nice change.
Dam thee for making me look up in the dictionary ! :p Though my intention is to really find what is (if at all) the common ground. Ok some issues we can "play" with:

- Education. I think a good majority can see that US education needs some boosting/help. I bet we will disagree on how to do so.

- South America might not be doing well economically... but we certainly are more modern in culture, technology and education as regards Middle Eastern countries. Arabs do graduate engineers of course... but that is not the only aspect that counts. So by "modernization" of the Middle East I don't mean wholesale reform... or the fucked up Bush doctrines... but certainly more political and cultural changes. Any region that is responsible for so much terrorism must be in need of change... even if IMO the US is to blame for the upsurge in the past years.

-I'd stick to basics, like "ignorance is bad." Anyone disagree?
Well it depends... ignorance of what the "right" position is hardly counts as a "common ground". Some politicians actually love ignorance.

Now your probably talking about having a well informed and educated population ? Then I'd agree that the alternative is bad.

This one I'm not surprised anyone responded too:
Can we all agree that the rising inequality of wealth in American society is a problem? A very bad thing in and of itself, regardless of what causes it or of what might or might not reverse it? If you don't agree with that, s stated, please tell us why.
I've seen many a comment around the internet on how freedom to chose, win and to lose defines America... and that helping the "losers" will only create dependence. That the poor are poor because they didn't suceed. So I don't think you'll see high agreement on this issue...

- Well back to the "foreign policy" comments... does anyone think Bush did a great job of it ? Good Job ? I doubt even his backers would claim so... but then probably no president will ever get enough right for both sides ?

[John Mace]

Here's one: Can we all agree that the rising inequality of wealth in American society is a problem? A very bad thing in and of itself, regardless of what causes it or of what might or might not reverse it? If you don't agree with that, s stated, please tell us why.

Don't know how I missed that one...

Short answer: No. As for reasons, there are quite a few, but let's just start out by saying that being poor isn't hereditary. There are plenty of people who start out poor and who become well off, even wealthy. If we lived in a society with a rigid caste system, I'd agree with you. But we don't.

[Kimstu]

JM: If we lived in a society with a rigid caste system, I'd agree with you.

Well, does that mean that we can agree that increasing economic stratification---that is, declining economic mobility, where it becomes harder for people to move up from the level they started at---is a problem? As BusinessWeek has reported (http://www.bearcave.com/misl/misl_other/businessweek.html), recent studies indicate that nowadays "the notion of America being a highly mobile society isn't as true as it used to be [...] Some 49 % of families who started the1970 s in poverty were still stuck there at the end of that decade, the Boston Fed study found. During the1990 s, the figure had jumped to 53 %, even after accounting for two-earner families."

In other words, although we don't currently have a rigid caste system, we're apparently moving closer to rigid economic stratification, where it's significantly more difficult to get out of the class that you're born in. Of course, if we were all in the same class---in other words, if we had very low inequality---that wouldn't really matter. But as BG points out, the opposite is true: inequality is large and growing.

So can we agree that the combination of increasing economic inequality and decreasing economic mobility is a problem? (I'm not asking us to agree on exactly how bad the problem currently is in practical terms, but are we agreed that in the abstract, such a combination is bad for a society?)

[Rashak Mani]

In other words, although we don't currently have a rigid caste system, we're apparently moving closer to rigid economic stratification, where it's significantly more difficult to get out of the class that you're born in.
So can we agree that the combination of increasing economic inequality and decreasing economic mobility is a problem?
I agree that its a problem... but I don't think a majority would. Its too ingrained in the American mythos that opportunity is equal for everyone... or something like that. A "caste" system is obviously unfair and easily perceived... a rigged system where mostly those with education and contacts get ahead is hard to be perceived as unfair.

American crime rates seem to me the most direct result of this inequality...

[Bone]

Privatizing Social Security is a bad idea.
Can we all agree that the rising inequality of wealth in American society is a problem?
Educational reform is desperately needed including higher standards for teachers entering the teaching profession and higher standards for students receiving high school diplomas.
I think we can all agree that US foreign policy needs to shift from "we are the superpower and you will live with that" to a bit more of a humble position at the table when dealing with other countries, and especially in making friends in the developing world.

I disagree with the above quoted statements, strongly.

Anything that moves social security funding away from the hands of government, I’d be in favor of, privatization of portions of contributions is a start.

Wealth inequality is a joke. A communist I am not.

Standards in education assumes that each child needs the same type of treatment, standards in teachers assumes that the same type of teacher is needed for each situation. Anything that increases the grasp of govt in any arena, I am against.

We are the only superpower. Everything is a cost/benefit, if one day it is more beneficial to work with others, then we should do so. If it is not, then we should not. Forget about any sense of humbleness.

[Kimstu]

Geez Bone, why are you so scared of government? I'm the first to admit that governments make lots of mistakes, but so do businesses and private individuals and all other decision-making entities. I really think that this sort of kneejerk anti-government reaction isn't a useful guide to policy.

[Demorian]

Geez Bone, why are you so scared of government?
Because government is bad, but companies are good, like any libertarian knows. :rolleyes:

We are the only superpower.
Keep telling yourself that. It won't be true pretty soon.

[catsix]

Evil Captor said:
Privatizing Social Security is a bad idea. (This one SEEMS partisan, but support for privatization is weak even among Republicans.)

I think it's a great idea because it would allow me to funnel my money into a position were it will grow better and be more useful in the long run. Others would have the same opportunity.

[Bone]

Geez Bone, why are you so scared of government? I'm the first to admit that governments make lots of mistakes, but so do businesses and private individuals and all other decision-making entities. I really think that this sort of kneejerk anti-government reaction isn't a useful guide to policy.

It's not kneejerk, it's well thought out. Government is the only entity that can legally coerce me into doing something. I can think of no other entity that can and does inflict so much force onto a person as does organized government.

The thread was asking for things we could all (most) agree on. Maybe I'm in the 20%, but I don't think so.

[BrainGlutton]

Wealth inequality is a joke. A communist I am not.

Bone, you don't need to be a "communist" to recognize that massive wealth inequality is a substantive social problem, in the same way that drug addiction and illiteracy are social problems.

[Kimstu]

catsix: I think it's a great idea because it would allow me to funnel my money into a position were it will grow better and be more useful in the long run.

If you were lucky. If, on the other hand, you became disabled and lost your earning power well before retirement, or if a market downturn severely diminished your savings shortly before you needed to start drawing them out, or if you made some poor choices and your investments did poorly... then it might not seem like such a great idea.

Social Security privatization is very appealing to the same American sparkling optimism that makes casino owners so wealthy.

[Kimstu]

Bone: Government is the only entity that can legally coerce me into doing something.

So what? Why is that supposed to be scary?

[ninetypercent]

The War On Drugs. If you support it, you aren't smart, or even "smart".

Cosby's opinions concerning the black community of America.

Election Fraud, of course.

Fundamentalist Christians are dangerous and deluded.

I've seen, on this board, a lot of support for gun ownership, too.

[Brutus]

Fundamentalist Christians are dangerous and deluded.


80% of Dopers would agree with that, maybe. Heck, probably. 80% of 'smart people'? Not a chance. Most people aren't that bigoted.

[XT]

Hm....political issues that 80% of us can agree on?? Not happening, unless we speak VERY broadly IMO. I'd say that you could probably get 80% (or even higher) on this board to agree that the scientific method is superior to faith, that evolution is both a theory and a fact, that critical thinking is key in evaluating anything, and that extraordinary claims need extraordinary proofs to back em up. Out side of that though....hm.

Well, I think, as others have said, that gay marriage or at least the legal equivelent is only fair...though of course there is a wide range of disagreements on when and how this should happen.

Legalized abortion (or maintaining the legal right for a woman to have an abortion in the US) is also something I think would have a fairly high percentage of folks agreeing with, though again with lots of caviots (like partial birth, states vs federal enforcement, etc). Here I think many would personally disagree with abortion, but would agree with the right of a woman to choose..within variable limits. THATS where the contention would be.

I think the majority on THIS board would agree that Bush hasn't been one of the stellar presidents we've had. Some would put him at the very bottom, others perhaps in the middle somewhere. I don't think there are many who would put him in the top 10, say.

Hm...how about, broadly speaking, that nuclear energy is a good alternative to using fosil fuels and should be something more heavily looked into developing in the future?

I can't really think of anything else broad enough to get a high percentage of agreements. I'm trying to think back on the various threads I've been in and where people who are usually opposites came together...but it happens so rarely that I can't think of anything else atm. :)

-XT

[BrainGlutton]

Election Fraud, of course.

No, you won't get 80% agreement on that. Everybody agrees "election fraud" is a bad thing -- but the liberals are talking about voter intimidation and dishonest ballot-counting, while the conservatives are talking about legally ineligible voters sneaking into the polls.

[BrainGlutton]

Hm...how about, broadly speaking, that nuclear energy is a good alternative to using fosil fuels and should be something more heavily looked into developing in the future?

I could get behind that! Maybe nuclear waste is bad for the environment, but it's a lot easier to contain than smokestack/tailpipe emissions. And I think the industry's technology has advanced to the point where we don't need to fear any more Three Mile Islands or Chernobyls. France gets most of its electricity from nuclear plants, and have you ever heard of a meltdown there?

[ninetypercent]

No, you won't get 80% agreement on that. Everybody agrees "election fraud" is a bad thing -- but the liberals are talking about voter intimidation and dishonest ballot-counting, while the conservatives are talking about legally ineligible voters sneaking into the polls.

They aren't arguing over the legal definition of election fraud, just the possibility of it. Besides, their sentiments change depending on whether or not their team is the winner. I expect that from anyone who feels compelled to defend their chosen label that intensely.

[Age Quod Agis]

Bone, you don't need to be a "communist" to recognize that massive wealth inequality is a substantive social problem, in the same way that drug addiction and illiteracy are social problems.I don't mean to speak for Bone, but I think he was being facetious with the "communist" stuff. But you're playing right into that argument by talking about "wealth inequality," as though it's somehow inequitable for some people to be richer than others.

But I, for one, don't see any problem with large discrepancies in wealth. If there are systemic problems keeping people from climbing the socioeconomic ladder, then those might need to be addressed. But the mere fact that slightly less than 50% of families that began the 90s in poverty managed to get out of poverty by the end of the decade, in and of itself, doesn't mean that there are problems in the American system that must be corrected.

[Age Quod Agis]

Social Security privatization is very appealing to the same American sparkling optimism that makes casino owners so wealthy.Show me a casino with an average payout of 109% (like the S&P 500 over the last 50 years), and I'll show you where I'll be spending my next few weekends.

So I think that there's going to be some disagreement on this issue. Especially on a board with a significant minority of people who trend libertarian.

[BrainGlutton]

I But the mere fact that slightly less than 50% of families that began the 90s in poverty managed to get out of poverty by the end of the decade, in and of itself, doesn't mean that there are problems in the American system that must be corrected.

No, no, of course it doesn't. But the facts that the top 1% of Americans own as much wealth as the bottom 95%; the top 60% own 500 times as much as the bottom 40%; and the bottom 40% own less than one fifth of one percent of the nation's wealth -- these facts, in and of themselves, do mean that there are problems in the American system that must be corrected. See http://www.worldrevolution.org/Projects/Features/Inequality/USInequality.htm; http://www.inequality.org/facts.html.

[fruitbat]

I fully support Bush (never thought I would be typing that) on the partial privatization of Social Security. Count me against the 80%. The perception that gambling and investing are equivalent is grounded in ignorance. If you want to make an argument against the idea you will have to come up with a better analogy than playing roulette.

[iamthewalrus(:3=]

I fully support Bush (never thought I would be typing that) on the partial privatization of Social Security. Count me against the 80%. The perception that gambling and investing are equivalent is grounded in ignorance. If you want to make an argument against the idea you will have to come up with a better analogy than playing roulette.
Me too, and I imagine that the younger a poster is, the more likely he is to support it. I don't think you're making your 80% on this one.

[Demorian]

No, you won't get 80% agreement on that. Everybody agrees "election fraud" is a bad thing -- but the liberals are talking about voter intimidation and dishonest ballot-counting, while the conservatives are talking about legally ineligible voters sneaking into the polls.
... and any people who happen to be removed along with them...

[Bone]

Bone: Government is the only entity that can legally coerce me into doing something.

So what? Why is that supposed to be scary?

It's not supposed to be anything, it is what it is. I for one think that coercion and force should be minimized as much as possible. If you feel otherwise, then we will disagree on much.

But the facts that the top 1% of Americans own as much wealth as the bottom 95%; the top 60% own 500 times as much as the bottom 40%; and the bottom 40% own less than one fifth of one percent of the nation's wealth -- these facts, in and of themselves, do mean that there are problems in the American system that must be corrected.
I do not see these as problems of the American system, anymore than I see the fact that some people are more gifted athletes than I am.

See, I truly do not believe that 80% of the people at the SDMB would agree with your original proposition, that wealth inequality is a problem. I am one such example. Now I just need to find another 19%.

[Age Quod Agis]

No, no, of course it doesn't. But the facts that the top 1% of Americans own as much wealth as the bottom 95%; the top 60% own 500 times as much as the bottom 40%; and the bottom 40% own less than one fifth of one percent of the nation's wealth -- these facts, in and of themselves, do mean that there are problems in the American system that must be corrected.It appears that I've not been clear. My argument is that even if the vast majority of wealth is owned by a few individuals, I don't see how it matters. So, so what? What does it hurt?

It may seem terribly unfair (to use an example from one of your cites) that Kobe Bryant makes $13.5 million per year, while a random hotel bellman makes "only" $11,000. But Kobe Bryant is one of the best athletes in the world, he's handsome, he's well-spoken, he's at least reasonably intelligent, and the guy does things on the basketball floor that can suck the air out of an arena. The random hotel bellman probably doesn't have much of an education, and he performs a job that almost any physically able person can perform. I'd be willing to bet that Kobe can be a hotel bellman, but I'd be willing to bet that the hotel bellman can't post a triple double in an NBA playoff game.

And keep in mind that (if I remember correctly) Kobe came from a modest upbringing. So he kind of proves the point I was making. It's not just about whether some people have assloads more money than others. It's about whether or not the cream can rise to the top. And Kobe's a good example showing that it can.

[catsix]

I think a really preferable solution would be to be able to opt-in or opt-out of specific parts of Social Security and go private in those areas.

Maybe opt-in, and pay the portion of the tax that is associated with say, the disability part of Social Security, but do my own retirement investing.

Because I honestly don't see how the system as it stands can continue to survive. There's no money being invested, there's money being shuffled around. Payments made today go into the general fund and are spent immediately, and as larger and larger numbers of people reach retirement ages, as people live longer, and as the cost of living continues to rise, there'll have to be an ever increasing number of people paying those people.

I'd love to see an a la carte system for Social Security programs.

[John Mace]

Well, does that mean that we can agree that increasing economic stratification---that is, declining economic mobility, where it becomes harder for people to move up from the level they started at---is a problem?

Depends on the cause, which I doubt we know. The article you referenced postulated that it was an educational gap, which certainly makes sense. Anyway, it looks like BG started a thread on this subject, so it's probably better to take the debate over there.

[Demorian]

I think a really preferable solution would be to be able to opt-in or opt-out of specific parts of Social Security and go private in those areas.
The problem with that is that is that it leaves the people who need the social security needing to fund the social security... if you think about that for long enough, it doesn't turn out very well. Unless you're rich.

[wnorthr]

WRT economic stratification; I don't think it will matter much if the country maintains a solid middle class. I don't think it's as hard for poor people to accept that they'll probably never own a bently as it is to accept that they'll never own a car with less than 150,000 miles on it or their own home.
I think fixing education will go a long way to solidifying a middle class and thus resolving the economic disparity problem.

I have two of my own:
1. We need to talk about race in the U. S. without discussions becoming explosive or it will get much worse before it gets better.
2. The bureaucracy of the government has gotten too big and bloated and needs to be made more efficient.

[Kimstu]

fruitbat: The perception that gambling and investing are equivalent is grounded in ignorance.

Oh, for heaven's sake, what a silly strawman. I wasn't trying to argue that gambling and investing are equivalent. I was merely pointing out that exposing what is supposed to be a secure provision for retirement to the insecurities of individual earning potential and investment requires a lot of optimism that no serious bad stuff is ever going to happen to you or your money.

Face it, bad luck and bad judgement do affect a lot of people's ability to accumulate savings---although everybody with a grain of sense realizes perfectly well that the amount of risk involved is less than that in casino gambling. If you want to create a social security system out of individual investment, you'll have to come up with a way to guard against the inevitable bad consequences for what will be, at best, a significant minority of participants.

catsix: Because I honestly don't see how the [Social Security] system as it stands can continue to survive.

The "Social-Security-crisis" propagandists have done their work well: there are a lot of credulous people out there thinking that Social Security simply can't manage to survive, usually on the basis of gross factual distortions or misinformation. As it happens, though, there's also a great deal of discussion going on right now about sensible ways to keep the system afloat without dismantling it or introducing major structural changes such as privatization. You can check out the current thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=297201) on the topic, or you can explore collections of published articles such as this one (http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=9000).

Bone: I for one think that coercion and force should be minimized as much as possible.

Well, government-free anarchies tend not to minimize coercion and force very well. Of course, if they don't have any laws, then at least they don't have any legal coercion, which must be a great comfort to all the people getting robbed and murdered: "Hey, at least I don't have some darn government taxing me under the pretext of legality!"

[catsix]

Demorian said:
The problem with that is that is that it leaves the people who need the social security needing to fund the social security... if you think about that for long enough, it doesn't turn out very well. Unless you're rich.

It really doesn't, since the Social Security funds that come in are put into the general fund, and the benefits are paid out of the general fund anyway.

So if, say, I opted-in on the Disability but not on the retirement part, those dollars will be available to pay current benefits. Dollars in the future, should I get disabled, would be paid for by other taxpayers.

[John Mace]

But no financial adviser I know of would instruct someone to put ALL of their retirement savings into T-bills. Surely there is some happy medium between "put it all in T-bills" and "put it all in Google stock". It seems sensible to allow people some level of flexibility to expand the earnings potential of their retirement savings. The more well off get to do this in 401(k)s, but it's the folks at the bottom who have to depend more on SS.

Perhaps a good solution would be some sort of mandatory 401(k) that replaces SS and is phased in over a very long period of time, allowing SS to diminish (maybe disapear in a genertion or two) without forcing the older folks out of the current system.

[Kimstu]

Okay kids, if you really want to continue debating SS privatization, why not take it to the thread I linked to above? Lots of information there and room for more.

[catsix]

The "Social-Security-crisis" propagandists have done their work well:

Not propoganda, actual logical mathematics. If more people are receiving benefits, and none of the money put into the 'system' is ever invested, merely shuffled from someone currently paying taxes to someone currently not paying taxes, we can't continue to have this system forever.

If more people are receiving benefits, more will have to be paying into the 'system'. It's a redistribution scheme, not an investment plan, and because of that, it will eventually suffer the problems of all other redistribution schemes. Social Security is currently using the money I pay them to send checks to other people. None of that money is in any way being invested for my retirement. That cost would have to be placed on the shoulders of someone else's kid in another fifty years. People live longer and longer, costs of living increase, more and more will be receiving the checks, which means more and more will have to supply the government with money to send out.

This can't last forever, and it certainly won't provide as well for me in retirement (if it does at all) as I can by smart investing of my own money.

[Kimstu]

catsix: If more people are receiving benefits, and none of the money put into the 'system' is ever invested, merely shuffled from someone currently paying taxes to someone currently not paying taxes, we can't continue to have this system forever.

And it's not going to go on forever with an ever-higher percentage of people receiving rather than providing benefits. As I discussed in the linked thread, if you could be arsed to look at it, even the most vocal privatization advocates, who are the most pessimistic about the future of SS as currently structured, predict that the worker-to-retiree (or payer-to-recipient in your terms) ratio is going to plateau at 2:1 in another few decades. (From 1960 to the present that ratio has already dropped from 5:1 to 3:1, and the present ratio is still generating a significant surplus.)

[BrainGlutton]

I have two of my own:
1. We need to talk about race in the U. S. without discussions becoming explosive or it will get much worse before it gets better.
2. The bureaucracy of the government has gotten too big and bloated and needs to be made more efficient.

1. is hard to dispute -- except that a lot of people seem to think race relations will get better only if we don't talk about them at all, because there is no way to keep the discussions from becoming explosive.

As for 2. -- you won't get 80% agreement on that. Yes, everybody who has to deal personally with a bureaucy will think it's too bloated and inefficient. But as soon as we start talking about how to correct that, you'll find some people want to trim a given bureaucracy to make it more efficient and effective, while others want to trim it in order to hobble it and prevent it from doing what it's supposed to do. (Sometimes the former group might work side-by-side with the latter for some time before catching on that they're not aiming at the same thing at all.)

Anyway, what countries have more efficient bureaucracies than America's? Do any examples come to mind?

[catsix]

Kimstu said:
And it's not going to go on forever with an ever-higher percentage of people receiving rather than providing benefits.

Oh hopefully not. It's already a burden that's costing me far more than it'll be worth to me in fifty years.

As I discussed in the linked thread, if you could be arsed to look at it, even the most vocal privatization advocates, who are the most pessimistic about the future of SS as currently structured, predict that the worker-to-retiree (or payer-to-recipient in your terms) ratio is going to plateau at 2:1 in another few decades.

Plateau? For how long? How large a percentage of their income will they be paying to give me money, all the while hoping that they can use the rest of their income to plan for their own retirements because a Social Security retirement is just not going to be enough money?

With a maximum benefit that's currently under $2,000/month, how the hell would I afford to live relying solely on social security in the future? I couldn't possibly live on that amount of money now, and I doubt I could live on its equivalent in the future.

I want to be able to plan for my own retirement so that I don't have to.

[Triskadecamus]

Here's one:

Things that eighty percent of Americans agree about don't become political issues.

(See, divide folks into smart and stupid subcategories their explanations of why the hold their opinions will be very different. The actual proportions of what they support, and what they find unacceptable are pretty much the same.)

Being warm in winter is nice.

Children should be cared for by responsible adults, if possible their parents.

Eating when you are hungry is a good plan.

No one disagrees.

Folks are starving. Folks are abusing and even killing children. Some people are dying of exposure in their own homes.

No one has an answer that eighty percent of the smart people will agree on.

Politics is not about what the things we all agree on, it's about the things that about half of us think are worth raising hell about. But first you have to raise hell about it alone, and count heads among the folks who are registered to vote to see if you have a chance.

Tris
----------------------------------
"It was a woman drove me to drink and I didn't even have the decency to thank her." ~ W.C. Fields ~

[Kimstu]

catsix: Plateau [of the projected 2:1 worker-retiree ratio]? For how long?

Indefinitely, according even to these pessimistic privatization advocates. If you want the details, why not go check them out at the linked Social Security thread that I've mentioned about three or four times now?

catsix: With a maximum benefit that's currently under $2,000/month, how the hell would I afford to live relying solely on social security in the future?

Nobody recommends, nor have they ever recommended, that anybody should plan to rely solely on Social Security benefits for a comfortable retirement. I'm rather shocked that you don't seem to know even that most fundamental fact about Social Security. It is not intended to be a complete pension plan: rather, it's a basic social insurance program that raises the economic floor for retirees to keep them out of absolute destitution and extreme poverty. No worker with any sense believes that they shouldn't also have some personal retirement savings to make their retirement comfortable.

What's more, the average worker would not obtain a comfortable retirement by diverting SS payroll taxes to private investment as proposed in current privatization plans, either. As this analysis (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_01/005401.php) shows, even if Social Security were left absolutely unchanged and went into full-blown "crisis" as predicted by the most pessimistic forecasters, it would still provide benefits GREATER than those projected from a "partially-privatized" plan, INCLUDING the returns on the private investment accounts.

The idea of private investment of retirement savings is immediately appealing to that vein of sparkling optimism I was talking about before: "Hey! Since stocks often provide a high return on investment, I'll probably make more money!" However, nobody but an idiot would conclude that a privatization plan must be a good idea without taking a close look at the actual numbers projected to result from it.

I urge anybody who wants to be really informed about the realities of the issue, rather than just tossing around generalizations like "Too few workers can't support too many retirees!" and "I can get bigger benefits if I control my own money!" to check out the current GD thread that I've mentioned here several times, Is there a fix for Social Security? (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=297201)

[Rashak Mani]

Anyway, what countries have more efficient bureaucracies than America's? Do any examples come to mind?
To me it would seem that the US govt is hugely bloated... but then the US has more money to spend compared to others. I don't think there exists a "efficiency" parameter for bureaucracies.

In the end I think the black hole of the US tax payer dollars is always the defense budget. All the pork barrel proposals are directed through it. Reforming the bureaucracy is nice... but will yield minimal savings compared to trimming the defense waste and avoiding bad spending that always happens there.

[Psycho Pirate]

Kimstu, if the best you can do is post slash pieces from biased sources, and post a link on this board drowning in liberal group-think, you aren't going to get 80% of anybody to agree with you.

Here's (http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200501140807.asp) an article with a different viewpoint from the "loyal opposition". I'll be honest enough to admit it is biased to the right, but it makes some interesting points.

[wnorthr]

I don't disagree that defense spending is often wasteful but to a large extent it has to be to get what we want/need. The govt. is in the process now of splitting up a contract for rocket boosters between 2 companies so that they have more than one contractor building these things. This is hugely wasteful but it fulfills the percieved need. Thirty dollar screws and nuts will sold because the govt. wants $29 of paperwork to prove that the $1 screw meets specifications.
When I refer to bloat what I see is six people doing a job that one person could do because you can't fire the incompetents. I think that defense has as much of that as any other part of the government.
I also agree that there's no other government out there that is a paradigm for efficiency. I think that profit is the factor. Make a government that has to turn a profit and your on your way to efficient government.

I've got another one: The tax code should be junked and we should write a new one.

[BrainGlutton]

To me it would seem that the US govt is hugely bloated... but then the US has more money to spend compared to others. I don't think there exists a "efficiency" parameter for bureaucracies.

What? Whyever not? If there isn't an "efficiency parameter" for bureaucracies there should be. Allowing for some variations in social and political circumstances, a given kind of agency does pretty much the same thing whatever country it's serving. It should be possible to calculate whether OSHA is more or less efficient than its counterparts in France or Britain or Japan, by comparing the ratio of caseload to costs and personnel, etc. -- and by comparing results on the ground.

[Kimstu]

PP: Here's an article with a different viewpoint from the "loyal opposition". I'll be honest enough to admit it is biased to the right, but it makes some interesting points.

All your right-wing National Review article does is point out that Democrats have long been aware that Social Security is predicted to have a partial funding shortfall some decades in the future, which AFAIK nobody is trying to deny.

It does not necessarily follow that the projected shortfall needs major restructuring or benefit-slashing in order to fix it. Nor does it follow that the proposed privatization plans will actually produce better results than what we've got now.

I stand by my statement that if you want to make an informed assessment of the issue, you need to get into the actual numbers of the economic predictions and the details of the proposed modifications. Not just keep passing around propaganda yabbering vague generalizations like "Social Security is in crisis" or "Private investment accounts make more money."

And I keep linking to the above-mentioned Social Security thread because, as I said, we ought to move this discussion there rather than continuing to hijack RM's thread about bipartisan agreement, which we obviously haven't got on this issue.

[catsix]

Kimstu said:
Nobody recommends, nor have they ever recommended, that anybody should plan to rely solely on Social Security benefits for a comfortable retirement. I'm rather shocked that you don't seem to know even that most fundamental fact about Social Security. It is not intended to be a complete pension plan: rather, it's a basic social insurance program that raises the economic floor for retirees to keep them out of absolute destitution and extreme poverty. No worker with any sense believes that they shouldn't also have some personal retirement savings to make their retirement comfortable.

But I believe I can do a lot better if I take whatever amount of money is currently going toward SS retirement benefits and privately invest it elsewhere. The more money I can do that with, the better off I will be in retirement, especially since that is very likely another forty or fifty years away.

What is so wrong with me wanting the best possible retirement I can get?

[Frankenstein Monster]

I don't think there exists a "efficiency" parameter for bureaucracies.
There is. Although it does not quite measure what people stereotypically think of as bureaucratic efficiency.

http://sociology.berkeley.edu/faculty/evans/bur&grow.html


I also agree that there's no other government out there that is a paradigm for efficiency. I think that profit is the factor. Make a government that has to turn a profit and your on your way to efficient government.
I disagree. Profit motive is not good for government agencies. It can lead to their cutting curners on their core mission. USPTO anyone?

I know one thing that will force government bureaucracies to be more efficient and effective. A giant budget crisis! And I know at least one country where this has been proven to work. :)

[Frankenstein Monster]

Link to Peter Evan's full article (http://sociology.berkeley.edu/Faculty_HTML/evans/evans_pdf/bur&grow.pdf) (2.7 Mb PDF file)

Really interesting article. Link found on his web page (http://sociology.berkeley.edu/faculty/evans/index.html#articles&chapters).

[Kimstu]

catsix: But I believe I can do a lot better if I take whatever amount of money is currently going toward SS retirement benefits and privately invest it elsewhere.

If you can't support this "belief" with specific quantitative evidence and explain what the forecasting assumptions are on which you based your calculations, there's absolutely no reason why anybody, including you yourself, should take it seriously as a basis for evaluating government policy choices.

(Remember that your calculations also have to take into account transition costs for handling the temporary double expense of paying benefits to current retirees while diverting current payments to individual accounts for future retirees. And we've already mentioned the necessity to retain disability and survivor benefits for those who aren't lucky enough to make it to retirement.)

A lot of people believe a lot of things about themselves that aren't supported by the facts. For example, most people believe that they are better-than-average drivers, although of course that can't possibly be true for more than half of all drivers. Many people believe that they make good investment decisions, although it has been repeatedly noted (http://slate.msn.com/id/2099695/) that the average individual investor drastically underperforms the market:

Over the last 20 years, the stock market has averaged a 12 percent annual return. But according to a study by Dalbar Financial, individual mutual fund investors earned only about 4 percent. A survey by Vanguard finds participants in its 401(k) plans earn only about one-half the average—6 percent a year. It is almost impossible to believe, and unpleasant to contemplate, but practically all individual investors are below average. [...]

Since 1964 Nebraska offered state employees the chance to manage their 401(k)-type plan. Extensive employee education and training seminars were given, and everyone expected outstanding investment returns. But when the state audited the program in 2000, the results were incredibly discouraging—employees were making bad investment after bad investment. So in 2003, Nebraska eliminated employee choice from its 401(k) plan.

Pension funds directed by trustees achieve results that are about 50 percent better than those achieved by individual investors—even though trustees are not professional money managers.

I certainly don't mean to harsh on your laudable wish to save money for your own retirement, and you should definitely be doing that with part of your disposable income, which you probably are already. But before you assume that it would necessarily be better for you---not to mention for American workers as a group---to support shifting your SS payroll taxes into a personal investment account, it's only common sense to recommend that you actually do the math.

[catsix]

Well, 401-K is not the only option for investing money. There are a lot of ways to make money make money, and it's certainly possible to invest money in various areas, allow it to grow a bit, and then sock some of that away where it will remain for retirement.

It's also not like I'm saying that I believe I can make every investment decision by myself. I shop around for a good financial advisor with a good track record, and let them give me lots of input.

I still disagree with mandatory payments into SS retirement. If you want to participate, that's fine. But I don't, and I shouldn't be forced to.