Uncivil Rights
A BLOG rife with wit, sarcasm, and the endless joy which comes from taunting the socialistic and unpatriotic liberal left. Logical thoughts and musings ONLY need reply...unless you're really, really funny. You have the Uncivil Right to be an IDIOT.
"Give me LIBERTY, or give me DEATH!"
Tuesday, December 21, 2004
Unbelievable! (Social Security)
I'm sorry. I have a problem. I like to read and listen to the left-wing redicals. Call me wierd, but it is so much fun. The illogical reasoning behind the arguments is mind boggling. I have read some pretty fantastic stuff, but this article takes the cake (so far). I'm not making this up. I couldn't; I'm no that insane. Here is the link. I'm also publishing it in its entirety with my own comments.
Pessimistic Conservatives Cannot Fix Social Security
by Fred Block
The Administration’s push for radical reform of Social Security rests on the idea that it is impossible to solve the system’s long term financing problems. In reality, this pessimism is simply a consequence of their deep hostility to public spending.
Just what do they mean by "public spending"?
Right-wingers endlessly repeat the mantra that when Social Security began, there were 42 people paying into the system for every person receiving benefits and that by 2040 that ratio will fall to 2 working people for every retiree. The logical conclusion is obvious: we can no longer guarantee retirees the level of benefits that they currently receive. The elderly will have to tighten their belts and rely more on their own private savings.
OH MY GOD! Conservatives believe people can take care of themselves!? WITHOUT GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION!? OUTRAGEOUS!
I must preface this next paragraph with this: someone actually believes this enough to write it down and publish it. I did not alter this in any way.
Think, however, of the deep pessimism that lies behind this argument. It is like saying that in 1900, there was one farmer or farm worker for every seven Americans, but because that ratio has fallen to one farmer for every 83 people, we should all tighten our belts and eat less food. Rising agricultural productivity has made it possible for fewer people to provide all the food that we need. In the same way, if we can grow our economy and increase productivity over the next forty years, each working person should have no difficulty producing enough extra wealth to provide support for half of a retired person.
Did everyone get what is being said? Since innovation allowed farmers to produce more, a growing economy means each person will earn more, and therefore, when there are 2 people paying for each retiree, they will be able to afford it because those workers are earning more. Now, I am not an economist by trade. Unfortunately, I was born with a logical, analytical mind and a lot of common sense, and it's telling me that this is the biggest bunch of BS since the socialist website claimed that under SOCIALISM, people would only work a year or two to fulfill their commitment to the state before they could retire to a life of leisure. I don;t know what you think, but I'm not buying it.
Providing economic security to the aged is just a question of how we divide the pie. Today, social security outlays represent 4.5% of our total economic output. If the economy grows strongly over the next forty years, we can support the elderly as generously as we do now with only 5% of the total pie even with further gains in life expectancy. In short, strong economic growth is the key to solving the long-term financing problems of Social Security.
Someone needs to teach this guy about relativity. As the economy grows, so does costs.
And there is a proven way to grow the economy over the next half century. It is to invest in education and basic research. If we invest in our young people–from early childhood through higher education–we can create a more skilled and productive labor force. And if we also invest more in long term research, we can create the new industries that will employ those highly skilled workers. This is precisely what other nations are doing in their efforts to surpass us as the world’s strongest economic power.
This is where he takes a sharp left turn into socialism/communism. I agree in upgrading the educational system. Unfortunately, the progressives/liberals/secularists have degraded the educational system by bringing students down to the lowest common denominator rather than stressing hardwork, success in the classroom, and trying to bring everyone up to the top.
Knowledge, skills and abilities are gained in the workplace. The educational system should give students a firm grasp of the basics. It seems as if he wants school to produce workers of particular jobs, which seems to be backed up by his government investment in research. I guess we also need to tell him we live in a free market society and that businesses are not owned by the government (that's communism).
Here’s the problem: the strand of conservatism that currently dominates the Republican Party doesn’t believe in increasing any kind of civilian government spending. They don’t want money going to the elderly and they don’t want spending for young people; all they want to do is reduce taxes and shrink government. As Grover Norquist, one of the most influential conservatives in Washington has said, “I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.”
Let's replace his word "problem" with "solution", and that should do it, good paragraph.
With this bizarre philosophy, conservatives have been systematically underinvesting in our future. While a growing body of research now shows that investing in quality early childhood education helps all children do better in school, conservatives have steadfastly resisted increasing spending for quality childcare. Fewer and fewer families are able to afford the $7000-9,000 per year per child cost of center-based care. Despite all of the President’s rhetoric about leaving no child behind, our public schools remain desperately underfunded. Especially in working class and poor neighborhoods, overcrowding, lack of decent equipment, and a continuing shortage of skilled teachers are the rule, not the exception.
Investment should be to the private sector not government. Again he is leaning on his socialistic/communistic ideals and philosophies. Educational spending is at an all-time high. The problem is with the system, not the amount of money. He may not want to hear this, but the unions are a problem that must be dealt with to start the transformation.
Most critically, the financial barriers to pursuit of higher education are rising relentlessly. Tuition costs at public universities have increased at more than 10% per year and the Republican Congress has already made it harder for students to qualify for Pell grants that could alleviate these costs. They have no plans to help more of our young people to afford a college education.
Why do students have to have a "free" ride to go to college. Get a job. Get two jobs. Get a loan. I did.
But the problem is even deeper; their “look ma, no hands” approach to the economy is keeping us from developing the industries of the future. In Japan and South Korea, government spending is helping to wire the entire nation for high-speed Internet connections, while our Internet capacity lags far behind. Other nations are spending billions on alternatives to fossil fuels, while we continue to rely on coal and oil. All this is assuring that the industries of the future will flourish overseas.
He is officially an idiot.
No wonder they are so pessimistic about our ability to support retirees forty years from now. Their anti-government and anti-tax policies are steering our economy towards long-term weakness. They are creating a future in which most people in the United States will be poorer because we are failing to develop 21st century skills and 21st century industries. Are these the people we should trust to fix Social Security?
Less government and less taxes will increase creativity and innovation. The free market will dictate what is developed and what sells in the future. Then again, communists hate the free market societies. Oh well.
I hope you enjoyed this as much as I did.
Pessimistic Conservatives Cannot Fix Social Security
by Fred Block
The Administration’s push for radical reform of Social Security rests on the idea that it is impossible to solve the system’s long term financing problems. In reality, this pessimism is simply a consequence of their deep hostility to public spending.
Just what do they mean by "public spending"?
Right-wingers endlessly repeat the mantra that when Social Security began, there were 42 people paying into the system for every person receiving benefits and that by 2040 that ratio will fall to 2 working people for every retiree. The logical conclusion is obvious: we can no longer guarantee retirees the level of benefits that they currently receive. The elderly will have to tighten their belts and rely more on their own private savings.
OH MY GOD! Conservatives believe people can take care of themselves!? WITHOUT GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION!? OUTRAGEOUS!
I must preface this next paragraph with this: someone actually believes this enough to write it down and publish it. I did not alter this in any way.
Think, however, of the deep pessimism that lies behind this argument. It is like saying that in 1900, there was one farmer or farm worker for every seven Americans, but because that ratio has fallen to one farmer for every 83 people, we should all tighten our belts and eat less food. Rising agricultural productivity has made it possible for fewer people to provide all the food that we need. In the same way, if we can grow our economy and increase productivity over the next forty years, each working person should have no difficulty producing enough extra wealth to provide support for half of a retired person.
Did everyone get what is being said? Since innovation allowed farmers to produce more, a growing economy means each person will earn more, and therefore, when there are 2 people paying for each retiree, they will be able to afford it because those workers are earning more. Now, I am not an economist by trade. Unfortunately, I was born with a logical, analytical mind and a lot of common sense, and it's telling me that this is the biggest bunch of BS since the socialist website claimed that under SOCIALISM, people would only work a year or two to fulfill their commitment to the state before they could retire to a life of leisure. I don;t know what you think, but I'm not buying it.
Providing economic security to the aged is just a question of how we divide the pie. Today, social security outlays represent 4.5% of our total economic output. If the economy grows strongly over the next forty years, we can support the elderly as generously as we do now with only 5% of the total pie even with further gains in life expectancy. In short, strong economic growth is the key to solving the long-term financing problems of Social Security.
Someone needs to teach this guy about relativity. As the economy grows, so does costs.
And there is a proven way to grow the economy over the next half century. It is to invest in education and basic research. If we invest in our young people–from early childhood through higher education–we can create a more skilled and productive labor force. And if we also invest more in long term research, we can create the new industries that will employ those highly skilled workers. This is precisely what other nations are doing in their efforts to surpass us as the world’s strongest economic power.
This is where he takes a sharp left turn into socialism/communism. I agree in upgrading the educational system. Unfortunately, the progressives/liberals/secularists have degraded the educational system by bringing students down to the lowest common denominator rather than stressing hardwork, success in the classroom, and trying to bring everyone up to the top.
Knowledge, skills and abilities are gained in the workplace. The educational system should give students a firm grasp of the basics. It seems as if he wants school to produce workers of particular jobs, which seems to be backed up by his government investment in research. I guess we also need to tell him we live in a free market society and that businesses are not owned by the government (that's communism).
Here’s the problem: the strand of conservatism that currently dominates the Republican Party doesn’t believe in increasing any kind of civilian government spending. They don’t want money going to the elderly and they don’t want spending for young people; all they want to do is reduce taxes and shrink government. As Grover Norquist, one of the most influential conservatives in Washington has said, “I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.”
Let's replace his word "problem" with "solution", and that should do it, good paragraph.
With this bizarre philosophy, conservatives have been systematically underinvesting in our future. While a growing body of research now shows that investing in quality early childhood education helps all children do better in school, conservatives have steadfastly resisted increasing spending for quality childcare. Fewer and fewer families are able to afford the $7000-9,000 per year per child cost of center-based care. Despite all of the President’s rhetoric about leaving no child behind, our public schools remain desperately underfunded. Especially in working class and poor neighborhoods, overcrowding, lack of decent equipment, and a continuing shortage of skilled teachers are the rule, not the exception.
Investment should be to the private sector not government. Again he is leaning on his socialistic/communistic ideals and philosophies. Educational spending is at an all-time high. The problem is with the system, not the amount of money. He may not want to hear this, but the unions are a problem that must be dealt with to start the transformation.
Most critically, the financial barriers to pursuit of higher education are rising relentlessly. Tuition costs at public universities have increased at more than 10% per year and the Republican Congress has already made it harder for students to qualify for Pell grants that could alleviate these costs. They have no plans to help more of our young people to afford a college education.
Why do students have to have a "free" ride to go to college. Get a job. Get two jobs. Get a loan. I did.
But the problem is even deeper; their “look ma, no hands” approach to the economy is keeping us from developing the industries of the future. In Japan and South Korea, government spending is helping to wire the entire nation for high-speed Internet connections, while our Internet capacity lags far behind. Other nations are spending billions on alternatives to fossil fuels, while we continue to rely on coal and oil. All this is assuring that the industries of the future will flourish overseas.
He is officially an idiot.
No wonder they are so pessimistic about our ability to support retirees forty years from now. Their anti-government and anti-tax policies are steering our economy towards long-term weakness. They are creating a future in which most people in the United States will be poorer because we are failing to develop 21st century skills and 21st century industries. Are these the people we should trust to fix Social Security?
Less government and less taxes will increase creativity and innovation. The free market will dictate what is developed and what sells in the future. Then again, communists hate the free market societies. Oh well.
I hope you enjoyed this as much as I did.
totalkaosdave, 6:48 PM
|
