This is the most important piece I have read since the election of Nov.2 All of the post election analysis never touched on this theme. Red state/blue state voters can readily be separated by this philosophy of liberty taught in schools as well as homes and families. The so called "solid south" has ethnic roots which mostly did not arrive on the immigration boats, neither the mid west. No the immigrants who arrived here to follow the dream of americas freedoms mostly built the cities, and factories and taught this lesson of democracy in their homes. During my travels throught this country on business trips (before I retired) I was always amazed at how these lessons of my youth were not prevelant in the south or west.Growing up in blues state america was an entirely different experience, Hey I don't know what to do about this difference but I can tell you its exactly what has divided the country. Go straight down the political divide of ideas and you will find it to follow those ethnic immigrant lessons. The rooted children and grand children of ethnic immigrants vs (you fill in the blanks)
I think that is the message the democrats really haven't gotten, its not religion, its not moral values its a disconnect with the values of the founding fathers.
Vote for Dean.
Now on to other topics: The Administration is setting up voting points across the US so that Iraqis living in the US can vote on Jan. 30. Wouldn't it be wonderful if the Administration could set up voting places where Black Americans could vote during our elections?
Amen, Mary.
That speech, "The Great American Restoration", is what switched me from "Dean seems like the best of the bunch" to "I want this man to be my president".
I sent a long email to Franke-Ruta after that article was published, thanking her for "getting it".
I copied that Winthrop quote into more than a hundred letters to voters across the country.
Dean sees the threat to America inherent in the steady destruction of our democracy. If he cannot lead the country, at least he can lead the party in its fight to preserve our Democratic traditions.
Posted by Bill Rehm at January 14, 2005 06:42 AMAmen, Mary.
That speech, "The Great American Restoration", is what switched me from "Dean seems like the best of the bunch" to "I want this man to be my president".
I sent a long email to Franke-Ruta after that article was published, thanking her for "getting it".
I copied that Winthrop quote into more than a hundred letters to voters across the country.
Dean sees the threat to America inherent in the steady destruction of our democracy. If he cannot lead the country, at least he can lead the party in its fight to preserve our Democratic traditions.
Posted by Bill Rehm at January 14, 2005 06:47 AMBrad DeLong has an excellent piece today talking about the Republican canard that when the incoming revenues no longer cover the outgoing benefits in Social Security (around 2018), the system will be in crisis. Muckdog, you need to read this because it is clear you have been drinking too much kool-aid to believe that America won't honor its debts on the borrowed SS trust funds.
Yesterday a note from historian David Kaiser crossed my desk that points out that things are worse than Max suspects. Not only does Wayne Allard support policies that are craven, reactionary, Leninist, oligarchical, and expropriationist, it is also the case that Wayne Allard's very words are a gross and unconstitutional violation of his oath of office as a senator. As Kaiser writes, section four of the Fourteenth Amendment begins:
Posted by Mary at January 14, 2005 07:50 AM"The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned."
If the [Social Security] Trust Fund should ever have trouble collecting on that asset... some citizens' organization should file suit under this provision to... reaffirm the validity of the Federal Government's obligation to the [Social Security] Trust Fund.
The Republican Party has been taken over by people who hate democracy
If this is true, why are the Republicans the party that is cutting income taxes, cutting capital gains and dividend taxes, promoting personal savings, proposing returning social security back to the people so that you can CHOOSE how to invest your money, and proposing tax reform?
Why are the Democrats for taking more of your tax dollars and restricting your choices and financial freedoms?
Seems like the Democrats hate democracy, and prefer a larger government roll in controlling peoples' lives. Why else would they support higher taxes?
Posted by muckdog at January 14, 2005 08:27 AMLife is more than money.
Posted by Matt Davis at January 14, 2005 08:34 AMbelieve it or not, muck, there are freedoms other than ownership.
Posted by benjoya at January 14, 2005 08:35 AMnot to be partisan about it, but here are four freedoms:
freedom of speech and expression
freedom of every person to worship God in his own way
freedom from want
freedom from fear
Now that I think of it, Dean is like both Roosevelts (the D and the R).
Posted by benjoya at January 14, 2005 08:45 AMIf this is true, why are the Republicans the party that is cutting income taxes, cutting capital gains and dividend taxes, promoting personal savings, proposing returning social security back to the people so that you can CHOOSE how to invest your money, and proposing tax reform?
This is not democracy. Democracy is working with others to find solutions to our political common problems.
My "freedom" wish list:
I would like the freedom to go to a grocery store and know what country the beef I'm buying originates from.
I would like the freedom to go to a regular store and know that the people who made the clothes I'm going to purchase were paid a decent wage and weren't children forced into labor.
I would like to be free from worry about what I'd do if my health takes a big dive and I can no longer work.
Freedom to not worry about how I'll fund my retirement if I live that long.
Freedom to eat fish and not worry about mercury, drink water without worry, breath air and not think I'm sucking in carcinigens.
Freedom to write here and not think someone is monitoring this for "unpatriotism."
Yeah, it's more than just money.
If this is true, why are the Republicans the party that is cutting income taxes, cutting capital gains and dividend taxes, promoting personal savings, proposing returning social security back to the people so that you can CHOOSE how to invest your money, and proposing tax reform?
I'm surprised that you post an economic question for this forum! Good for you.
The principle on which this economic theory rests is one of the oldest in world history. It's known as pillaging, and, depending on the outcome, can also be referred to as plundering or looting.
Thank you for asking!
Posted by phidipides at January 14, 2005 09:04 AMmuck, Why do you and your party enjoy preying on the elderly and the most vulnerable in our society (cutting benefits)for a quick self gain when longterm our country is passing on an enormous amount of "finacial freedom" in the form of billions of dollars of debt over to those younger members of our society in order to pay for those "freedoms"? Why do you and your party enjoy longterm financial raping and pillaging of our country and society for a quick financial hit? Muck mark my words....in the long term you will be a serf in the ownerserf society.
If this plan is so good for Merkans, why is the Preznit and Rightwing Corporate leaders and RNC spending close to 100 million dollars to fund this propaganda? ....Iraq had wmd muck, remember?
Financial freedom=RNC Luntz focus group talking point of the day.
Bet that financial freedom will be like those 100+ innocent Iraqi's that US brought freedom to also.
Posted by emal at January 14, 2005 09:06 AM....so that's why I will never vote Republican!
Posted by Sharon at January 14, 2005 09:10 AMI hate it when that happens...my recent note was to go after the 2nd recent
(I hope this one works)
..I don't type fast enough....
Muck
None of what you said pertains to the issue of the Social security Insurance Act of 1935. You address yourself to the democratic capitalist society of the US.
Having a government program which is paid into by employer and worker for every american does not seem to have much to do with our economic system. Have you mistakenly believed Social Security is a welfare program? cutting txes is not something done only by republicans just as raising them is bi-partisan. eg. Raising taxes Jack Kennedy, George H.Bush. SS is an Insuarance program that has had wide historical success. You are repeating the misinformation you receive daily from the propaganda machine. You should examine the merits of SS and its safety net as a base for all retirements plans. You, nor no american is limited to saving for retirement because of Social Security, indeed social security is an incentive for you to invest in the free market with less caution. Save, save save, the US has a very low savings rate Social Security as it is today should encourage you to invest and save. We don't need another Las Vegs and Atlantic City for our pension funds. Read the financial Times article regarding Englands privitizing of their pension fund, its a disaster. Don't be a parrot for the right wing machine and vote against your own best inrestst and that of the nation, wall streeters just got huge bonusus just think what they will get with "phase out security, phase in take a chance".
Muckdog, explain these to me:
Why does the idiot son of George Bushes own cadre, the Social Security Board of Trustees, say it's solvent through 2042...and even at that time, we only need to dip into the reserves built up from overages accruing now?
Why does the trustee's own report only get to this conclusion by calculating 40 years of negative income growth, negative real wage growth for the same period, and no population growth?
Why does the Congressional Budget Office, a Congressional Legislative Agency (read that as republi-con Congressional agency) say we don't dip into reserves until 2052?
Posted by phidipides at January 14, 2005 10:27 AMSocialism is a lousy economic system. Everyone is broke. Even seniors. It doesn't work. You just can't have the US population walking to their mailboxes everyday, waiting for the benefit checks to show up. They need to be out there working and producing.
Capitalism has it's faults, but it's the best economic system out there. It's the "freedom of choice" economic system.
Posted by muckdog at January 14, 2005 10:30 AMsocial security is socialism. everyone except for bush, most of the GOP, and the financial services industry, seems to like it.
Oh, and Joe Lieberman, Big Surprise.
Posted by benjoya at January 14, 2005 11:10 AMJust like republican Muck, only seeing black and white, when in reality government is based on many grays. To the far right is free market capitalism only where each individual is in self ownership but there is no structure for the mass of people to live under, to the far left is communism, where everything is owned by the structure of the people (government, as in by the people). Of course the wingnuts love to point to communism as the extreme on the left personified by communist Russia (which is very different then real communism) but they fail to point out that the far right leads us to something like the gilded age, where everyone was in control of their own property, but lived horrible lives because of the unfair distribution of it, and misuse of it by the ruling class to become even more powerful. Of course the true answer lies somewhere in-between (I like to think something close to what western Europe has), but then again the "black and whiters" would never get that.
P.S. Of course this is not new news, but for some reason the wingnuts just don't get it
Posted by chris65203 at January 14, 2005 12:50 PMmuck
maybe I can simplify this for you. If you purchase an annuity, pay for as promised in the contract, then at the end of the payment & contract period,receive the amount promised for the payment (during your WORKING YEARS) twice said working years this my dear is not socialisum. I suspect you are baiting the readers with your assumed obtuse statements. Are you just repeting the mantra till everyone gets sick and goes away and you appear to win? what exactly would you win?
chris; They don't get it because they think aand have faith that they are going to be in that top class with all the wealth. Of course in reality
most of them will be at that bottom 'serf' level.
But, the noise machane will never tell them that and the word of the noise nmachane is indisputable.
Actually, I don't like annuities. They're expensive. They're restrictive on how you can take your money out. Etc. They're a great deal for the insurance company. And usually the guy sellin' you one, gets a big fat commission out of it.
Forget it. But if I did have one, I'd transfer it (via a 1035 exchange) over to Vanguard. At least they're less expensive.
Anyways, I know you folks here like to think of the world outside of the money aspect, while I constantly make comments regarding how money works and stress that much of our (the US) ability to provide aid to the needy here and around the world is due to our economic growth.
I'll continue to stress that economic growth is what makes the United States a superpower.
Posted by muckdog at January 14, 2005 01:15 PMrlprather, I'm in total agreement.
Posted by chris65203 at January 14, 2005 01:21 PMI'll continue to stress that economic growth is what makes the United States a superpower.
But Bushco's foolish policies that encourage borrowing as far as the eye can see, deficit spending, Enron style budgeting gimmicks, and the looting of the highly Successful Social Security Trust Fund does NOT support your earlier statement...and many truly conservative republicans agree with that and have said as much.
Emal, sounds like you need a Bush 2005 Inauguration cap. I posted a link earlier, but since then I found another one with a big W on it.
Posted by muckdog at January 14, 2005 03:33 PMbuy the cap, and buy some somma, right Muck.
Posted by chris65203 at January 14, 2005 03:35 PMmuck, so does this mean your buying them for all the regulars at the site and just want to know which one I like better. Well I like this hat better than the other one because this one will be easier for me spray paint that big red circle with the red bar across it that means stop or warning/danger over the W.
Posted by emal at January 14, 2005 04:21 PMNot a word from our SCLM. Good for the families.
Wednesday , six Air National Guard men
were returned to Louisiana--DEAD. The families demanded a public
ceremony and the Defense Dept. said NO. Well, the Louisiana Air Guard
Command said the families could have what they wanted. The press
witnessed all six flag draped coffins removed from the plane and loaded
into six waiting hearses.
Muckdog,
Why would a regulated capitalist economy be mutually exclusive to positive economic growth? The reason our markets have been favored historically is they are well regulated. For those less risk averse, there are equity markets around the globe that promise great advantage to the savvy investor. But just try getting your money out when things turn a little sour or their currency fails.
Social Security has been a social insurance program intended to provide a basis for guaranteed benefits. As it freed up States from having to administer cumbersome pensions, reduced poverty among seniors, and provided a portion of retirement funds for the general public, it helped fuel the economic growth enabling the U.S. to ascend to a status of a lofty economic superpower.
Together, U.S. citizens manage to own a lot of debt. We also own a common asset such as Social Security that provides a common benefit. Should the dollar weaken, interest rates rise, and inflation erode assets, we will have money panics just like we did at the close of the 19th century. The only difference is that this time, without a self-reliant, agrarian-based population, their will be starvation and destitution. And make no mistake, if the U.S. fails in its obligations we will create panic worldwide. With today's inter-reliance of markets and trade, it would not take long for our problems to spillover. Where will you park your assets then, Muckdog?
What if trillions get siphoned off an overheated market in the future and growth does not equate to what is necessary to regain solvency under the projected scenarios? What if the U.S. is still operating in the red when it comes time to redeem Treasuries issued today to cover surpluses spent in the General Fund? Do we simply look around for more financing from our neighbors? What terms are we going to be able to get then? What about all the extra witholding I have been paying since I joined the workforce in 1983? I have been paying in slightly more than need be so the system would remain solvent. Am I going to be repaid in worthless Treasury notes? And why do I have to accept any risk for the SSA portion of my retirement? I have pursued aggressive growth with 401K funds and I have risk on investments. But risk is risk. Why can't Social Security be a benchmark, risk-free asset that I can rely on should the Dow head back to 40, where it was in 1932. Given the Republican's recent history of fiscal responsibilty, it could happen.
Posted by obelus at January 14, 2005 05:54 PMAnyways, I know you folks here like to think of the world outside of the money aspect, while I constantly make comments regarding how money works and stress that much of our (the US) ability to provide aid to the needy here and around the world is due to our economic growth.
I'll continue to stress that economic growth is what makes the United States a superpower.
This is true. But I haven't yet figured out how it is that the Social Security system has hindered America from becoming a superpower. That's a head-scratcher.
Posted by Bailey at January 14, 2005 07:04 PMIt's the "freedom of choice" economic system.
Then why do corporations get $843 billion dollars in "Special Income Tax Provisions" --also known as CORPORATE WELFARE-- each year?
And as for business competitiveness, the rankings in 2003 were (2002 ranking after each name)
1. Finland 2
2. United States 1
3. Sweden 6
4. Denmark 8
5. Germany 4
6. United Kingdom 3
7. Switzerland 5
8. Singapore 9
9. Netherlands 7
10. France 15
God damn socialists!
As for growth growth competitiveness:
1. Finland 1
2. United States 2
3. Sweden 3
4. Denmark 4
5. Taiwan 6
6. Singapore 7
7. Switzerland 5
8. Iceland 12
9. Norway 8
10. Australia 10
God damn socialists! Probably competitive only becuase they aren't worried about their health care, education, and retirement. Take that away, and we would really kick their asses, wouldn't we?
Posted by phidipides at January 14, 2005 09:47 PMForget it. But if I did have one...over to Vanguard.
And as we have learned from previous posts, you don't have investments. You also believe the market is the economy, and any number of other childish beliefs. You also don't know Vanguard, or the Vanguard 500 Index, Vanguard Total Stock Market Index, Vanguard Windsor II, Vanguard Magellan, Vanguard Total Bond Market Index or Vanguard Primecap. Taking "Vanguard" on your advice could lead to destitution.
while I constantly make comments regarding how money works and stress
At the same level of a junior high student.
Posted by phidipides at January 14, 2005 10:06 PMPhidip, shouldn't you be playing Halo 2 with your school chums?
Obelus makes articulate points; although, if he thinks the social security tax is pro-growth, I'd score that a wrong answer on the final exam. And, we do have a regulated capitalist system. Anyways, nobody is talking about privatizing 100% of the social security system. Just a small portion. The growth of that small portion, compounding over the years, will negate the coming Social Security deficit.
Right now, the projected Social Security deficit is $10-12 billion. If we privatize a small portion, the cost is around $1-2 trillion. It's like the old phrase "spend a nickel to save a dollar."
Posted by muckdog at January 14, 2005 11:21 PM(correction in bold)
Right now, the projected Social Security deficit is $10-12 billion. If we privatize a small portion, the cost is around $1-2 trillion. It's like the old phrase "spend a nickel to save a dollar."
Posted by muckdog at January 14, 2005 11:24 PM(correction in bold)
Right now, the projected Social Security deficit is $10-12 trillion. If we privatize a small portion, the cost is around $1-2 trillion. It's like the old phrase "spend a nickel to save a dollar."
Posted by muckdog at January 14, 2005 11:25 PMAfter 75 years if Juniors tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans are made permanent the cost of those tax cuts is 11.6 trillion.
Easier fix...just rollback the tax cuts to the level they were and that never helped the large majority of the people in order to protect a Successful insurance program that currently is running at a huge surplus.
I say the save a nickel analogy is bogus, especially when the Bushies are stealing thousands of dollars out of the Trust Fund now to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy and Perpetual Wars!
Posted by emal at January 15, 2005 07:37 AMmuckdog...where are you getting that 2-3 trillion dollar start up cost...hmmmmm????????? Enron accounting gimmicks again?
I say better idea since you are so hot for this idiotic idea, lets take your current pension fund and borrow oodles of money from it now to pay for those Wars and your own tax cut... Then let's propose cutting your pension benefit by 1/3rd. Still like the idea. Well for many, many people this is their reality.
Posted by at January 15, 2005 07:44 AMPhidip, shouldn't you be playing Halo 2 with your school chums?
No. It gets in the way of playing with LISREL with my colleagues.
Right now, the projected Social Security deficit is $10-12 trillion.
Since you don't have a thought in your head, you must sleep very well at night! The only thing that could be worse than the idiot son screwing up social security would be if you lived in a state with WPO or WEP and have a state job. Ask those people how they like having SS fucked with.
Posted by phidipides at January 15, 2005 08:10 AM