> On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 00:50:17 -0800, Lowell C. Savage > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Travis Pahl, wrote, in part: > > > How about you look at this one first... > > > > > > http://reformed-theology.org/html/issue11/dont_blame_liberals.htm > > > > Uhm. Besides the fact that most Dems these days are socialists rather > than > > liberals.... Most people call Pataki and Guiliani "liberal" or > "moderate" > > Republicans. > > They were also the stars of the convention. They along with Arnold > are always mentioned as the future of the party. Does that say > something to you?
Yes. The MSM is engaging in lots of wishful thinking. > > I'd have trouble voting for either one of them. And yes, > > Reagan made a promise to Brady that he'd support something Brady thought > > would help. Reagan was a man of his word. Just like W. I don't always > > like the promises they make, but I admire them for keeping them. > > This sounds like just more excuses. And what about nixons quotes in > there? Oh yeah, forgot about Mr. Wage and Price controls.... > > > > You're right there. If they don't get it under control, they're going > to > > get clobbered one way or another. > > I am 99% sure they will not get it under control. Sheesh, Travis! You sound like you're not only not a "half-full" kind of guy, you sound like a "99% empty" kind of guy! :-) > > If the same sort of thing happens again (with the parties in opposite > > places) then the Democrat party will become the natural home for > > libertarians. > > I doubt it because the relative difference between the two will not > increase and the mean will stay far away from anything libertarians > will feel confortable with. Plus you still have the anti gun stance, > anti drug stance, etc... to deal with in the D party. I think they're about to make the same kind compromise on guns that Republicans made on abortion after Roe v. Wade. (Which compromise the Roe effect is making less necessary.) They also seem to have a certain builtin tendency toward attracting the doper crowd--they might start playing to it since they're losing the morals crowd anyway. > > On the other hand, if the Dems retreat to their socialist base, then the > LP > > could have an opening. The Green Party would get swallowed up by the > Dems > > desperate for any sort of electoral victory (or be pilloried for > spoiling > > Dem politician's chances ala Nader in 2000). The Reps would become the > > centrist party, the LP would become a home for people unable to stomach > what > > the Reps had become but absolutely horrified by the Dems. > > That is what it should be now. Yet many libertarians are for some > reason still able to stomach record increases in federal government > spending, presidents that support AW bans, 60% increases over 3 years > in unconstitutional federal departments, interventionist foriegn > policies, etc...) > > > You could then > > see coalitions between Reps and LPs on economic issues (where the LPs > supply > > votes that the Reps lose to some of their dissenters on those issues) > and > > coalitions between Dems and LPs (and possibly Rep dissenters) on social > > issues. Sometimes that would work for freedom, and sometimes the Dems > and > > Rep dissenters will work the opposite coalition to pass laws restricting > > freedom. > > I really do not see enough difference on any issues that would keep > the R's and D;s as seperate parties. The only thing I could see > keeping them apart is neither team wanting to give up its team colors. > :) > > > The other thing is that Bush looks to be pushing some major structural > > reforms through which might have a much greater effect on government > > spending than any education bill or even bloated Pentagon budget. One > of > > the things that has made some pro-freedom progress possible on the > economic > > front has been the democratization of investing in this country. > > If you are refering to his SS program, although pushed by Cato, I > think it is a bad plan that will result in too much government > interference in the market. > > > Reagan's IRAs weren't much when they got started. But they are probably > the > > main reason that we now aren't demanding ever more government spending > on > > retirement. We now have a majority of voters who invest in stocks and > > bonds--either directly or indirectly. That has changed the culture of > this > > country so that people have a better understanding of economics and are > more > > willing to take risks with the market. If it took the "Reagan deficits" > to > > get that, they were worthwhile. > > it did not take deficits to implement such a program if it were > accompanied by spending cuts. Unfortunately the republican party has > not cut spending in my lifetime. > > > Bush is proposing to push that kind of investment into Social Security > and > > health insurance. In other words, some of the money you pay into Social > > Security goes into an IRA-type investment in return for a reduced (or > no) > > payout from SS when you retire. > > Which means that current retirees are drawing from less money, and > government regulations on what you can invest will eventually play a > giant role in stock prices and will give great power to the > government. just imagine the first time the market goes down and > people complain about their SS accounts being low. You mean like when the market tanked in 2000 and 2001 and people watched their IRA, 401ks, etc. go with it? We got through that and the party of nanny-state government lost and the party of investment won. > Then congress > passes a law restricitng people from investing in 'risky' stocks. Who > defines risky? Then the environmentalists start lobbying congress to > not let people invest in natural resource extraction companies because > they lead to drilling in the artic and strip mining in the rckies. > Then religious conservatives start passing moral decency provisions > into the regulation book. No more investing in companies that prmote > pornography and the gay lifestyle. Evenetually more and more > companies are cut off from an ever increasing share of invested money. > It is not direct control of the economy, but the government WILL see > that it CAN control the economy indirectly by allowing and disallowing > certain comapnies access to this large pool of money. central > planning works bad enough when they control directly. When they try > to control indirectly it will be even worse. Yes. That's a danger. But Congress could do some of that now with IRAs and 401ks. If it did, the outcry would be overwhelming. Instead, people are pushing institutional pension funds (like Calpers or University retirement systems) and creating and promoting "Socially Conscious" funds. You start telling someone what he can and can't invest in and there better be a darn good reason for doing so or he's likely to turn around and whack you. A more likely danger is in the "insurance" aspect of it. Bush is proposing that the government "guarantee" a certain return. You could get into the same sort of deal as we got into with the S&Ls where people took risks knowing that the government would cover them. The political pressure to allow risky investments that would be covered by government "insurance" could be VERY tough to beat. But I think the way around that is to say that after you've accumulated a certain amount, you can take whatever risks you want outside the government insurance shield. > > I can already hear the objections from the libertarian crowd. "Well, > what's > > the moral basis for making me pay into my health insurance or retirement > if > > I don't want to?" Sigh. Same one there is now--none. But you aren't > going > > to get elected saying that in more than about 2 or three congressional > > districts (Ron Paul represents one). So you can go for all or nothing > and > > get nothing. > > Or you can continue to educate people and build that 3 to 30. then 30 > to 100. then 300, etc... Right. You can try to get elected in those other two districts. Then carry your education process to more districts--without having any results to show because you haven't enough clout in Congress. In other words, you get nothing. > > Or you can go for something that's an improvement on the current > situation. > > I do not see his solution as fixing. I see it as prolonging something > that does not work. If there are X amount of benifits to be paid to > the current and soon to be retirees and they do not have X, then taxes > will have to pay the remainder. If you take the taxes that go to SS > and say that some now go into a seperate account that the individual > 'owns' then there is even less in the governments expected revenues > that can go to pay that X amount. That X amount will still be paid, > but will now come from either general income taxes or debt and > interest. Either way I have to pay the same amount. In Bushs plan, I > also have to invest in a certain acount that the government has > control over. If you're close to retirement, I understand you thinking this way. But consider this: currently, SS is in surplus and that's going to last for about another 10-15 years. That just means it loans money to the "general fund" and maybe gets piddling interest. I'm 42. Under the current system, my SS "contributions" are likely to come back to me with less than a 1% return. If I get to put half those "contributions" into an IRA-type vehicle, by the time I retire at 69, I may get a larger SS "benefit" even if the government only kicks in a quarter of it. For younger people, the math works even better. Such a deal for the government. It get half the contribution and only has to make a quarter of the payout. So, short-term, you are correct. There's a transition cost that will have to be paid. However, the long-term benefit is that as more people under the new plan retire, the fact that the government has to pay out less will more than make up for the earlier cost. This is similar to the financials we see in companies that switch from defined benefit to defined contribution programs. Old companies are getting creamed by their obligations to retirees under defined-benefit programs and way too many of them have gone under because of them. I don't want that to happen to the US government. Meanwhile, companies that have gone to defined contribution programs (401k, etc.) have not only gotten themselves out of a terrible deal, their employees usually get a better deal as well. > > Then, once you get the improvement going and people find out that it > > actually DOES work better than the previous system, you can try to > persuade > > them that giving people even MORE freedom would work even better. > > All the luck in the world to you. But there are two types of people > in this world. old people that have paid into SS and expect money > rightfully so, and young people that want nothing to do with SS. Wait > long enough and the young will end it all at once. Put in Bushs plan > and you are not going to convince anyone at all that SS is bad that > does not already think so. but you will get plenty of converts to the > new system, and we will be stuck with it for the rest of our lives. > And of course as I point out above, the lure of power that the SS fund > (now a collective of individual accounts) will again be too attractive > to congress and they will start messing with it. This time instead of > taking our money, they will tell us where we have to invest it to > achieve their political goals. I would much rather wait until enough > young people vote and the whole thing will be thrown out at once. Well, I will agree with you on one thing. If Bush doesn't succeed, then SS WILL get tipped over by the young, one way or another. Although I'm not sure there will be enough young to tip it over through the vote. After all, the baby boom generation was also the Roe v. Wade generation when it grew up. > > Bush is proposing to turn government from a HOLDER of retirement and > medical > > insurance funds into a REGULATOR of the companies that hold those funds. > > Yes, he's still going to have a lot of requirements to satisfy the > nervous > > ninny nellies that people won't take that money and go do something > "stupid" > > with it. > > And he may very well show great caution in these regulations. Just as > he has shown great caution in enforcing the patriot act. But both are > too tempting for future politicians and will be abused. And have you seen this kind of abuse take place in the other countries that have gone to this sort of system? Like Chile, or Britain? I agree that it will be a tempting target--until a few politicians lose their jobs. Like I said above, you start placing limits on what I can invest my IRA in, you're playing with fire. > > And if you want to look only at those requirements and claim that > > "there's not a dime's worth of difference" between Bush's proposal and > the > > current system, then you can help keep the current system in place until > it > > falls apart. > > Which is exactly what I want. I want the current system to fall > apart. Or to be more exact, i want it to be voted to peices, which is > what will happen in about 10-15 years. Be careful what you ask for. You just might get it. Somehow, visions of people with wheelbarrels full of money comes to mind, here. And the aftermath would only get worse. > > But if you go along with Bush's proposal, you may be surprised > > at how quickly people using the new system start requesting even more > > freedom than they've just been given! Darn that'd be a terrible problem > to > > have--popular demand for more freedom! :-) > > Like the huge demand to end rent control in NYC? (something other > cities did all at once decades ago) or the big demand to end > government schools in the states with vouchers? Like the demand to increase the availability, deductibility, and flexibility of IRAs, 401ks, Keoghs, etc. Every year, it seems that you get to deduct more and you get more options for things like buying a house or getting an education or paying medical expenses or something else. > Somehow I think they may ask for a larger amount to be allowed to be > invested in their SS acount, but I think if anything it will lead to > more support for government in its new form than if we did nothing > and waited for the current 35 and younger crowd to vote it away > altogher which I am positive would happen if we did no stupid half ass > plan that Cato and Bush have come up with. There's a word describing people who count on the "youth vote." Loser. Besides, I think you're underestimating the libertarian tendencies of this country's youth. They've been indoctrinated by our socialist schools and more and more of them grew up in the only type of household that is reproducing above replacement levels--socially conservative. They'll vote for government solutions to the problem. I think the only way the SS system is going to get tipped over by the youth is if they find ways to earn money without paying the tax--or worse, violently revolt (Logan's Run might become prophetic.) > > And if that happens, we may look back from 15-20 years in the future and > > wonder what all the fuss about the budget deficits was about. > > I am more expecting my kids to ask me when I am older what people were > thinking when the kept raising the debt limit when they knew they > could barely afford to pay the interest already. Like I said, a "glass 99% empty" kind of guy. :-) Lowell C. Savage It's the freedom, stupid! Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly. _______________________________________________ Libnw mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
