Please don’t even joke about that! I will grind my teeth and end up with a headache. I cannot remember in my lifetime a more infuriating lie.
Nonsense. You’re repeating myth.
- FICA is a tax. The money is not ‘earmarked’, it goes to general revenue. I’m pretty sure I’ve heard you specifically pound the desk about there being “no social security trust fund,” which is correct.
- The average SS recipient receives much more money than they paid in. So it’s already welfare, not pay-as-you-go.
- The wealthy recieve SS benefits. There’s no income qualifier, it doesn’t benefit only the poor.
- Per point one, if the government must ‘dip into’ the mythical SS fund to pay for gvt. expeditures, as seems likely to happen, and must do so because taxes on the wealthy were cut, then you’re arguably giving all those payroll taxes to the wealthy. You’ve just made a massive transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich, funded by payroll taxes.
Uh, IAS, the Cold War was begun in the 1940’s. President Harry Truman initated a policy of containment in reponse to Stalin’s expansionism.
squeegee, you’re on the right track, but I disagree with some of your conclusions.
There are two components here:
a. The “SS Trust Fund”
b. The Unfunded Liabilty.
The SS Trust Fund is a bookkeeping entitity. It’s the excess of money taken in over money taken out. The actual money is loaned to the Federal Government. So, SS Trust Fund does have assets – namely Fed Gov’t IOUs.
The Unfunded Liability is the amount a private insurance comnpany would need to have in reserve. It’s an enormous amount. If SS were a private company, SS would be regarded as bankrupt and shut down.
It’s not meaningful to compare welfare vs. pay as you go. SS is regarded as insurance. It also has elements of welfare, because the poor get back reatively more than the rich, i.e., relative to what they pay in. SS is also “pay as you go” because of the unfunded liability.
Nobody disputes this. Sam Stone’s point was that if we eliminate the payroll tax, then SS would be converted from* insurance with welfare elements* into pure welfare.
This is all balled up. Unfortunately, this sort of misinformation has been used for political purposes.
In fact the government has always borrowed the entire SS Trust Fund and spent it on gvt. expenditure. That’s the way SS was set up. The alternative would have been for SS to build up a large investment portfolio, like a private insurance company. That was never done. Most people think it would be a bad idea.
So, the remainder of point #4 is just way off target.
Oh please, when did you graduate high school? My junior year American history class went over Haymarket square, the Pullman strike, how the AFL-CIO developed and many other things for about a week. Our standard textbook approved by the great state of CA dedicated about two whole pages to it. Which is a lot.
So, unless you have a definitive cite that shows my anecdotal evidence to not be the norm, I’m going to have to say that you are talking out your ass. Just so we’re clear, I’m looking for hard numbers done by a reliable study.
Cite? Remember, we’re in Great Debates here…no throwing out mindless drivel without backing it up.
Why yes…this is sooooo different from the Democratic party. Ever listen to James Carville?
Cite? Again, I want primary sources. And no conspiracy tales. Hard evidence. It’s probably too much to ask for.
He’s not talking about the Cold War. He’s talking about the Cold Civil War, which I am assuming refers to the takeover of the party by far-right Reaganites and the religious right and the increasing marginalization of moderate conservatives.
jshore:
I agree that it’s a pain in the ass, but record keeping has become a little bit more sophisticated then it was in 1976. Records on real estate transfers have never been much of a problem. The main problem has been securitized assets. Now that those are computerized, calculating cost basis on securities, even those that have been on reinvestment for 50 years or more is just a matter of a few keystrokes.
The same problem that existed in 1976 doesn’t exist now. Even then, it was more of an excuse than an actual reason, as we are required to do equally onerous things every year when we file our taxes.
Conservatives and Liberals have different ideas. Niether ideology is one of change any more than the other. The only time one can claim justly that they are a party of change is when thier candidate is running against an incumbent.
**
Huh? When did it become the responsablility of the Republican party to “teach children much about the labor movement in America”? Well, if you would like to make a case for this go ahead. First you will need to prove that somehow children in America aren’t being taught about the labor movement. (which most certainly isn’t true). Then you need to somehow prove that Conservatives are somehow responsable for this. Good luck.
**
Yes. This country had never been closer to socialism than under Clinton. With Bush’s small tax cut, we took one baby step back. Would you like for the US to be socialist? Many liberals seem to argue for it, but not willing to actually say the dirty “S” word.
**
You need to go back to the civil rights movement to actually get some evidence of the “evil” of the Conservatives?
Well, how about Charlton Heston? He was marching for civil rights in the early 1960’s way before it was the fashionable thing to do. I don’t see him getting any credit for that now. I see him being constantly attacked and vilified by the Left for his pro-gun stance. He disagrees with the left on an issue and he is vilified for it.
**
Plenty of athiests, such as myself, vote Republican. Also, plenty of republicans aren’t “bitter cynics”. We just disagree with you.
**
Yep, here it is. Republicans = cynics = evil. It couldn’t be that we just have different ideas about how best to run the country. The political arena is a western and we are wearing the black hats. :rolleyes:
NO, NO, NO yourself. I specifically said she bought “property.” I did not specifiy that the property was her primary residence, nor did I even say there was a “house” on the property, precisely to avoid the complication of a homeowner’s rollover. My example stands.
:rolleyes:
I was trying to keep the numbers simple. Add three more zeroes onto all amounts if it makes you feel better. You said you did not understand the concept of “stepped up cost basis,” and I was trying to illustrate that concept for you.
Plus, as I noted at the bottom of my post, the actual taxes recieved by the government would depend on the size of Granny’s estate and your marginal income tax rate. If Granny’s total estate, including the property, is less than the exemption amount, then the estate pays no federal estate tax. If Granny’s estate is, say, $50 million, then the passing of that property will be taxed at the highest estate tax rate. If her estate size falls between the exemption amount and the cutoff for the highest rate, it will be taxed at a rate somewhere in between.
Debaser:
Not to mention 'ole Barry Goldwater, who arguably did more for civil rights than anybody but MLK.
Dewey:
This is why I don’t try to explain these things anymore. You can’t educate somebody against their will.
Nice driveby, whoever you are. You’ve contributed nothing to this thread but you stop in to spew this post at me?
First of all that link is junk. It’s a 7,600 word long article about Jerry Fallwell. It mentions the Heritage Foundation exactly once, as a sidenote.
Look, unlike some people on this board, I am not omnipotent. So, I don’t try to appear like I know everything. If I haven’t heard of something, like the Heritage Foundation, I say so. If you want to exploit this trait as a weakness, fine. I will continue to be intellectually honest, in the hopes that I actually learn something. To me it’s worth taking the occassional abuse from someone such as yourself.
**
Yes, that’s it. Because I haven’t heard of this foundation, and am actually foolish enough to admit it, I must not watch the news.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Disagree. It’s marketed as insurance, not run that way as such. An important distinction.
If anything, it’s welfare for the wealthy. Read my cite:
Who’s talking about eliminating it? My point was that if you cut federal taxes, mainly benefiting the wealthy, without also cutting payroll taxes, it’s regressive: you’re essentially funding your tax cut with the overage from collected SS taxes, since currently FICA takes in much more revenue than is needed to pay benefits.
Others have directed fine responses to the rest of your post, but let me add something on this point.
First of all, you’re referring to conservatism in the classical, Burkean sense of the word. Even in that sense, conservatism isn’t about preserving the state of the world as if in amber; it is about moderating the pace at which society changes. It is a preference for the true and tried over the over the untested and untried. And that position has intellectual merit: unchecked, radical attempts to quickly change society and/or human nature yields results like the French Revolution.
But in the modern sense, the classical definition does not hold quite so true. In many ways, it is the conservatives who are suggesting bold new solutions to difficult problems. Consider the school voucher movement: in this instance, it is the conservatives who are suggesting a new path, and the liberals who are stalwartly defending the status quo.
In which case, I think liberals are being idiots, but . . .
That is no news to me.
If you can’t tell by now, I’m a rather blunt member of the species known as “conservative” . . .
Well, goodness me! I seem to have provoked some indignation! And with such a bland and benign recitation of the obvious.
1966, as it happens. But in the meantime I have had many occasions to glance at history books as school materials. Further, I commend to you a book on the very subject of history textbooks, Lies My Teacher Told Me by James W. Loewen. You can find more out here: http://www.uvm.edu/~jloewen/liesmyteachertoldme/liesmyteacher.html
Boiled down, his theme is not the repression of history, but the neccesity of rendering history text books bland and inoffensive, when our history is anything but.
Well, if you have to, you have to. Happily, I do not suffer from such a compulsion. Have you considered therapy? Yoga? Chamomile tea?
You really have a problem with his “civility” thing, don’t you? Am I to believe that you contend that the Republicans don’t have such support? And that therefore I am required to prove it to you? With more respect than I am offered, I decline. That’s just plain silly.
Love the guy! He and Molly Ivins, top of my list of People with Brains Who Don’t Have Funny Accents. You have, in your ardor, omitted the cites referring to his Atwater-like ruthlessness. No doubt you will make haste to correct this.
Debaser
Well, your definition of “conservative” is at variance with mine own, and the public at large. That is your privilege, of course. I pass this over lightly, lest I be tempted to the apalling practice of posting a quote from a dictionary.
“Huh”, indeed. From whence do you draw the implication that I regard the Republicans as being so responsible?
Stunning.
Excellent! Just the ticket! No doubt you can offer cites in evidence of the Republican Party’s firm renunciation of such support. I suggest that a speech at Bob Jones University might provide an excellent forum for expounding such a principled stance. Or perhaps just quick call to the dismayingly bland Mr. Reed saying “Bugger off! We are too principled to accept the support and money of the likes of you!” In the immortal words of Buddy Holly: “That’ll be the day…”
Well, pardner, just glance around at the posse you’re riding with. 'Nuff sed, companero
Scylla
Who, you will recall, voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. State’s rights issue. I still retain some admiration for the man, but putting him forth as a major advocate of civil rights is, well, a bit of a stretch. LBJ, for all his failings, did far more.
Well, then, that’s all sorted out. Jolly good. Carry on.
Debaser: No, no, you’ve got different ideas.
Just really bad ones, but I’ll give you different.
FTR: If you don’t know what the Heritage foundation is, your tinfoil imprecations have zero merit. Here, I found a “site” for ya.
Scylla: Kindly point me to the cite from a reputable economist that supports your estate tax theory. I don’t find your terminology understandable; it couldn’t possibly be self-serving obfuscation, could it?
DCU: There you go again. Who’s defending the Democrats? James Carville is one man; pointing to him in an irrelevant point when you’re responding to a poster who accuses the Republicans of having the prevalent view of “no rules in a knife fight.” That means the majority of Republicans – James Carville is not the majority of Democrats, is he?
Somewhat obviously, you’ve retreated back to your traditional hand-waving time-wasters; as I said originally, assign the evil points, and you’ll find the Republicans smoke the Democrats in every category.
e.g. Demagoguery: puh-lease, the Democrats are worse? Put down the bong, counsellor – Who said these?
Your comparison of these culminating pinnacles of demagoguery with – well, anything else, really – is evidence of a horrible bias, and so the casual reader can rightly assume the rest of your cherry-picking comparisons are just as irrelevant.
Oh, and further proof of the Republican evil can be found in Scylla’s post count: 6666.
Obviously, three sixes just wasn’t getting the job done.
Ace:
No. It’s not. It’s basic to the concept. I don’t share Dewey’s charitable nature in explaining these things and doing your work for you. He’s done a fine job explaining the underlining concept.
You need to have a basic general understanding of the relevant concepts before you can debate intelligently on the subject.
You seem to think your opinion is worthwhile simply because it’s yours. It’s not.
For example, I may put forth the argument that Hamlet could have handled Othello’s problems quite well, and vice versa, and that therefore these two plays are not tragedies of circumstance, but character.
You may say that I’m wrong, but if you’re next question is “who’s Othello?” than we really don’t have much to debate, do we?
If your next statement is “oh You’re just trying to confuse the issue with all this talk about Denmark and Iagos and Moors and Nunneries,” well then you just be stupid.
In order to debate you would have to read the plays.
Go read them on your own, I’m not going to read them to you.
Similarly if you wish to debate the estate tax repeal YOU FIRST NEED TO FIND OUT WHAT IT IS!!!
elucidator:
One can be in favor of a concept and against a method for implementing it at the same time. I think that was Barry’s objection.
But he fought and was largely responsible for the integration of Blacks in the military back in the 1950s.
But soft, let us move on.