[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Oklahoma murder suspecT confesses To ... killing neighbor - cooking her hearT --- invesTigaTors say

Biden Is No FDR

Jason Chaffetz: Biden-Harris' disastrous start – first month full of hypocrisy, scandal and incompetence

Biden is set to repeat Obama’s Mideast failures — and wipe out US influence

How the GOP can win back Congress

There Is No GOP Civil War

Biden rewards Iran’s bad behavior by begging it to make a deal

‘Never before’ has the leader of the free world [Biden] been ‘so cognitively compromised’

ATTorney Lin Wood Releases STaTemenT Before Supreme CourT Ruling ... on ElecTion Fraud Today --- UPDATED WITH NEW COMMENT

Biden and his assistant is too cruel a punishment with which to hit America.

TiTanic ... Genius Time Traveler goes back --- everyone saved !

Rush Limbaugh passed away this morning

Remember ... George Will --- Me neiTher.

Eating Biden’s Lunch

Biden Wrong to Consider Restricting Travel to Florida

The Real Reason ... Pelosi & McConnell Folded LasT NighT Leaks --- Lock Them Up

GOP Party

Seven turncoats: What motivated those Republicans to vote guilty?

Real life study: Masked schoolchildren are harmed physically, psychologically, behaviorally and suffer from 24 distinct health issues

Trump Celebrates Acquittal, Hints At Political Future

SNAKE - McConnell ... Uses Floor To BruTally Trash Trump --- Following Failed ImpeachmenT EfforT

BREAKING - Trump ... Releases StaTemenT --- Following ImpeachmenT AcquiTTal

BREAKING - SenaTe VoTes 57 - 43 ... To ACQUIT Donald Trump --- Here Are The SEVEN Republicans Who VoTed To ConvicT

SCHOOLBOY 'KILLERS' Thugs - 15 - 17 ... 'filmed Themselves gang raping woman - 36 - beaTing her To deaTh' --- 'in a park as oTher boys waTched'

Joe Biden Is a F#@ing Idiot!

ImpeachmenT blunder - AuThor of TweeT inTroduced aT Trial says iT was ... Calvary / prayer - crucificTion --- falsified - misinTerpreTed to caValry / horses - soldiers - invasion

Georgia's New Democrat Senator Is Under Investigation for Voter Registration Fraud

Tom MacDonald - "Fake Woke"

Five Vanities That Are Destroying America

Leftist Sicko Bruce Springsteen arrested for DWI in New Jersey…

Impeachment Trial Redux

“Wikipedia…Can .... PuT AnyThing They WanT OuT There To Ruin My IdenTiTy” --- Mike Lindell on Wikipedia’s ATTempts To Trash His Good Name

WhaT's wiTh smiTTen romney ... mormons / liberals have anoTher Holy SpiriT --- dead soul - empTy brain echo chamber !

HUGE DEVELOPMENT - Hand RecounT Finds Dominion VoTing Machines ... ShorTed EVERY REPUBLICAN in Windham - New Hampshire --- 300 VoTes!

Rep. Andy Biggs - Evidence seems To ... indicaTe Congress leadership knew of CapiTol rioT --- days before

FORMER CIA OFFICER - BRYAN DEAN WRIGHT - I’m A DemocraT ... But IT’s Time --- To Leave The ParTy

Google Competitor PRESEARCH.org Launches Decentralized Search Engine (How to rid your life of toxic tech)

Doctors Link Pfizer, Moderna Vaccines to Life-Threatening Blood Disorder

Time Magazine Gushingly Profiles The Successful ‘Conspiracy’ To Rig The 2020 Election

Massive brawl erupts among teenagers inside Illinois ... chimpoline park --- video shows

“Unmasked” Video Provides ... More InformaTion - Evidence --- Surrounding The 2020 ElecTion

this-impeachment-is-a-disgraceful-sham

Yale Grad STudenT ... ShoT Dead --- In GoaTville

Tom MacDonald - "Cancelled"

Marcy Kaptur’s warning

Biden's Big Disappointment. Jim Carafano on AMERICA First | Sebastian Gorka Radio

Last 15 Minutes of Lindell's Absolute Proof - Most Powerful Part of the Documentary.

TIFFANY DOVER - Another Vaccine Casualty

DR. WAKEFIELD WARNS : ”THIS IS NOT A VAX, IT IS IRREVERSIBLE GENETIC MODIFICATION”

Study: Long-Term Mask Use May Contribute To Advanced Stage Lung Cancer


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Cult Watch
See other Cult Watch Articles

Title: Here's Why Libertarians Are Mostly Men
Source: Mother Jones
URL Source: http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-dr ... hy-libertarians-are-mostly-men
Published: Jun 8, 2015
Author: Kevin Drum
Post Date: 2015-06-08 09:21:53 by Willie Green
Keywords: None
Views: 9759
Comments: 54

Jeet Heer investigates a burning question today: why are most libertarians men? He offers several plausible explanations, but I think he misses the real one, perhaps because it's pretty unflattering to libertarians.

So here's the quick answer: Hardcore libertarianism is a fantasy. It's a fantasy where the strongest and most self-reliant folks end up at the top of the heap, and a fair number of men share the fantasy that they are these folks. They believe they've been held back by rules and regulations designed to help the weak, and in a libertarian culture their talents would be obvious and they'd naturally rise to positions of power and influence.

Most of them are wrong, of course. In a truly libertarian culture, nearly all of them would be squashed like ants—mostly by the same people who are squashing them now. But the fantasy lives on regardless.

Few women share this fantasy. I don't know why, and I don't really want to play amateur sociologist and guess. Perhaps it's something as simple as the plain observation that in the more libertarian past, women were subjugated to men almost completely. Why would that seem like an appealing fantasy?

Anyway, this is obviously simplistic and unflattering, and libertarians are going to be offended by it. Sorry. But feel free to take some guesses in comments about why women don't take to libertarianism as strongly as men.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: Willie Green (#0)

Hardcore libertarianism is a fantasy.

It's a fantasy where the strongest and most self-reliant folks end up at the top of the heap, and a fair number of men share the fantasy that they are these folks.

They believe they've been held back by rules and regulations designed to help the weak, and in a libertarian culture their talents would be obvious and they'd naturally rise to positions of power and influence.

I think Mr. Drum is correct.

I think we could also restate his premise like this:

Conservatism is a fantasy.

It's a fantasy where the strongest and most self-reliant folks end up at the top of the heap, and a fair number of republicans share the fantasy that they are these folks.

They believe they've been held back by rules and regulations designed to help the 99%, and in a truely conservative culture their talents would be obvious and they'd naturally rise to positions of power and influence.

Most of them are wrong, of course.

"we are tartets from evil doers!!!" [ and ] U looked up birfer on the dcitionary. It isn't a movie.

Jameson  posted on  2015-06-08   9:36:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: Jameson (#1)

Leftism is a fantasy.

It's a fantasy where politicians can be trusted to help the weak, poor, and indigent.

They believe that politicians are selfless "public servants" who care more about "society" than their own lust for power and control over others.

This is wrong, of course.

cranko  posted on  2015-06-08   9:44:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: cranko (#2)

It's a fantasy where politicians can be trusted to help the weak, poor, and indigent.

So the GI Bill, TVA, Hoover Dam, SS were all failures?

Pericles  posted on  2015-06-08   10:05:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: cranko (#2)

"...It's a fantasy where politicians can be trusted..."

"...They believe that politicians are selfless "public servants" who care more about "society" than their own lust for power and control over others..."

I think we can agree that our culture has produced a disproportionate number of "politicians/lobbyists" who serve their "corporate/special interest" masters at the expense of the nation as a whole.

This certainly includes all political identities...

You might, however, be taking a fairly narrow view of what defines "leftism".

"we are tartets from evil doers!!!" [ and ] U looked up birfer on the dcitionary. It isn't a movie.

Jameson  posted on  2015-06-08   10:10:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: Pericles (#3)

TVA, Hoover Dam

Most of what passes for government today has nothing to do with infrastructure or public works.

The overwhelming function of government today is transferring money from the politically unconnected to the politically connected, including big business, unions, leftist pressure groups and government employees themselves.

Yes, taken as a whole it has failed the country.

cranko  posted on  2015-06-08   11:39:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: Pericles, cranko (#3)

It's a fantasy where politicians can be trusted to help the weak, poor, and indigent.

So the GI Bill, TVA, Hoover Dam, SS were all failures?

Neither of these government programs, save perhaps SS was designed or intended to help the weak, poor and indigent. And frankly none, save perhaps SS, do that today. Fortunately the GI Bill and Hoover Dam have some useful life in them. The SS is going broke and will not be around of much longer to help anyone. Further the Federal government of late is even fcking up the military, which in no way exists to help the weak, poor and indigent of the U.S. save for national catastrophes.

But I know a good uber liberal sych as yourself truly believes that no-one succeeds in life without the help of the government. After all you didn't build anything or achieving anything in your life without Big Brother having given it to you, right?

потому что Бог хочет это тот путь

SOSO  posted on  2015-06-08   11:44:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: Willie Green (#0)

Few women share this fantasy. I don't know why, and I don't really want to play amateur sociologist and guess.

Isn't that exactly what he about men? This author is totally full of sh*t.

потому что Бог хочет это тот путь

SOSO  posted on  2015-06-08   11:46:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: Willie Green (#0)

The word libertarian has dozens of subset definitions, much like the term conservative. Subsequently the label libertarian is meaningless.

Vinny  posted on  2015-06-08   11:53:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: SOSO (#7)

Isn't that exactly what he about men?

That's OK because he IS a man...
I wouldn't expect him to think like a woman unless he was a homo or a trannie.

Some people march to a different drummer - and some people POLKA.

Willie Green  posted on  2015-06-08   11:58:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: SOSO (#6)

"The SS is going broke and will not be around of much longer to help anyone."

"... the military, which in no way exists to help the weak, poor and indigent of the U.S..."

Social Security currently runs a surplus, as you know, and IMHO our next president and congress will follow in the footsteps of Ron Reagan and make the changes necessary to guarantee solvency far into the future.

As for your comment about the military, no one could disagree that the DOD's spending is out of control and frivolous, their treatment of veterans is unacceptable, and their management structure is dysfunctional. However, for a whole bunch of young Americans, the military is the option of last resort for any gainful employment.....

"we are tartets from evil doers!!!" [ and ] U looked up birfer on the dcitionary. It isn't a movie.

Jameson  posted on  2015-06-08   12:02:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: Willie Green (#9)

That's OK because he IS a man...

I wouldn't expect him to think like a woman unless he was a homo or a trannie.

Oh....OK...it didn't realize psychology was to be practiced by gender and segregated as such. Thanks for clearing that up.

As for this asshole writer, accepting on the surface that he is a man, where does he come off speaking for all men or any man other than himself?

потому что Бог хочет это тот путь

SOSO  posted on  2015-06-08   12:04:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: Willie Green (#0)

Anyway, this is obviously simplistic

Well,the author of this brain fart is obviously simple,why would we have expected anything else?

Seems to me that Kevin Drum is one of those weak mama's boys who grew up hearing they were special little snowflakes,and that the aggressive boys that pushed them around and got all the girls would get "their day one day and you will be in charge".

Typically dweebs like this wind up being government lawyers or other bureaucrats that hide behind government authority.

Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)

sneakypete  posted on  2015-06-08   12:05:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: Jameson (#1)

It's a fantasy where the strongest and most self-reliant folks end up at the top of the heap,

Oh,yeah,if there is one thing that history teaches us,it is that it is the weak and weak-willed that need help crossing the street and shopping that end up ruNning empires.

Good call!

ROFLMAO.

This wasn't even true in this country until the last 2 decades,and we are now ruled by a committee of Type A personalities that never show their faces,but use weak sister political front men like the Bush clan,the Kennedy's,the Clintons,the Gores,etc,etc,etc as a fence between them and the public. People they control through bribes and blackmail,like Dennis Hassert.

Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)

sneakypete  posted on  2015-06-08   12:10:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: cranko (#5)

Most of what passes for government today has nothing to do with infrastructure or public works.

Very true.

It mostly has to do with robbing the public to gain more wealth and power while using the power of government to protect themselves from repercussions.

The overwhelming function of government today is transferring money from the politically unconnected to the politically connected, including big business, unions, leftist pressure groups and government employees themselves.

And these are the middle men that make this possible.

Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)

sneakypete  posted on  2015-06-08   12:13:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: Jameson (#10)

Social Security currently runs a surplus, as you know,

No, I don't know. Please document this.

потому что Бог хочет это тот путь

SOSO  posted on  2015-06-08   12:13:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: SOSO (#15)

No, I don't know.

Now you do.

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/assets.html

Learning is fun!

"we are tartets from evil doers!!!" [ and ] U looked up birfer on the dcitionary. It isn't a movie.

Jameson  posted on  2015-06-08   12:26:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: SOSO (#11)

As for this asshole writer, accepting on the surface that he is a man, where does he come off speaking for all men or any man other than himself?

If it's any comfort to you, I agree that "fantasy" is probably the wrong word.
As a stubbornly pigheaded, hardcore old coot myself, I can't imagine ever "fantasizing" about being libertarian...

Perhaps it would have been more accurate for him to state that "libertarianism is a male pothead delusion."
THAT is something that I could completely agree with.

Some people march to a different drummer - and some people POLKA.

Willie Green  posted on  2015-06-08   12:33:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#18. To: Jameson (#1)

"Conservatism is a fantasy."

Conservatives are about facts and logic. Liberals are about feelings. Women fall into the later category.

Libertarians are about facts and logic but they ignore human nature. And that's what makes Libertarianism a fantasy.

misterwhite  posted on  2015-06-08   13:20:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: Jameson (#16)

Learning is fun!

Learning is supposed to be educational. Look at the charts very carefully. The best that can be said is that SS has been about breaking even over the last few years. The look at the trend. This might not be fun for you but it should be educational.

потому что Бог хочет это тот путь

SOSO  posted on  2015-06-08   13:26:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#20. To: SOSO (#19)

The best that can be said is that SS has been about breaking even over the last few years.

I don't agree with your premise that SS is insolvent, and I would further disagree that SS is about breaking even.

Asset reserves grew from about $47 billion at the end of December 1986 to about $2,789 billion ($2.8 trillion) by the end of December 2014.

Operations in calendar year 20141
[In billions]
Income $884.3
Outgo 859.2
Difference 25.0
$25 Billion in excess (in 2014) is significantly more than "about breaking even" it's about 3%

While we can agree that changes are in order, Social Security has been solvent and growing since 1935! .

"we are tartets from evil doers!!!" [ and ] U looked up birfer on the dcitionary. It isn't a movie.

Jameson  posted on  2015-06-08   13:53:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#21. To: misterwhite (#18)

Conservatives are about facts and logic

Like the "fact" that the earth is 6,000 years old?

cranko  posted on  2015-06-08   14:26:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#22. To: Willie Green (#0)

Libertarians Are Mostly Men...

Because women are MOSTLY whacko.

I only said 'Mostly', ladies....

Chuck_Wagon  posted on  2015-06-08   14:32:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#23. To: Jameson (#1)

They ["Conservatives"] believe they've been held back by rules and regulations designed to help the 99%...

To which "rules and regs" are you referring that supposedly "help the 99%"?

Liberator  posted on  2015-06-08   15:15:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#24. To: Liberator (#23)

I was making a general point for the sake of discussion, I really didn't have a list....

But, off the top of my head

OSHA

Clean Air & Water Regs

Minimum Wage

ACA

FMLA

ADA

FDA

Trade agreements

................

"we are tartets from evil doers!!!" [ and ] U looked up birfer on the dcitionary. It isn't a movie.

Jameson  posted on  2015-06-08   16:31:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#25. To: Jameson (#24)

Affirmative Action

Title IX

EEOC

Income Tax

Death Tax

Capital Gains Tax

All taxation that simply transfers wealth from the rich to the poor

misterwhite  posted on  2015-06-08   16:54:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#26. To: Jameson, SOSO (#16)

Now you do.

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/assets.html

Learning is fun!

According to:

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/mspd/2014/opdx122014.xls

and

www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4a3.html (Calender year 2014)

... the trust fund currently has $60,206 billion in non-loaned assets (as of CY14).

The rest of the funds are in in IOUs that the GrubberMint is using to fund their drunken spending binges.

Federal Old-Age And Survivors Insurance Trust Fund (in millions of $USD)
Prior Month OutstandingLoaned2,695,604
Current Month IssuedNew loans98,271
Current Month RedeemedPayments on loans
64,605
Current Month OutstandingNew balance
2,729,270
Total assets remaining Trust balance (2,789,476) - Loans (2,729,270)
60,206

.........

On that note:

Why do some people describe the "special issue" securities held by the trust funds as worthless IOUs? What is SSA's reaction to this criticism?
Money flowing into the trust funds is invested in U. S. Government securities. Because the government spends this borrowed cash, some people see the trust fund assets as an accumulation of securities that the government will be unable to make good on in the future. Without legislation to restore long-range solvency of the trust funds, redemption of long-term securities prior to maturity would be necessary.
Far from being "worthless IOUs," the investments held by the trust funds are backed by the full faith and credit of the U. S. Government. The government has always repaid Social Security, with interest. The special-issue securities are, therefore, just as safe as U.S. Savings Bonds or other financial instruments of the Federal government.
Many options are being considered to restore long-range trust fund solvency. These options are being considered now, well in advance of the year the funds are likely to be exhausted. It is thus likely that legislation will be enacted to restore long-term solvency, making it unlikely that the trust funds' securities will need to be redeemed on a large scale prior to maturity.

......

Of course, the Trustees for the fund claim that the program will be solvent until 2035, not including the fact that the nation carries debts far exceeding the ledger balance of the trust fund. As far as I can tell, if you owe $18 trillion in debt, of which $2.7 trillion is owed to the trust fund (that is out of the over $5 trillion owed in Government Account debt), it would be nigh impossible to pay off the SS fund or any other public fund.

TheFireBert  posted on  2015-06-08   19:05:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#27. To: Jameson (#20)

Asset reserves grew from about $47 billion at the end of December 1986 to about $2,789 billion ($2.8 trillion) by the end of December 2014.

Those numbers exist in a vacuum, away from US backed securities that are purchased against that fund to pay other spending and/or debts.

I suggest you branch out of your current mode of research and start reading between the lines.

TheFireBert  posted on  2015-06-08   19:08:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#28. To: TheFireBert (#26)

That post will make him disappear for at least a week or more until he thinks people have forgotten.

“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”

CZ82  posted on  2015-06-08   19:10:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#29. To: misterwhite (#25)

All taxation that simply transfers wealth from the rich to the poor

All taxation that simply transfers wealth from the rich and poor to a different set of wealthy entities.

The poor get a pittance, a fraction of what is collected. The rest gets dumped in to the US lobby/grant/giveaway feeding trough.

TheFireBert  posted on  2015-06-08   19:11:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#30. To: CZ82 (#28)

That post will make him disappear for at least a week or more until he thinks people have forgotten.

The bad part is, it was really easy to get those numbers, and the results.

I even used a calculator! Those apps come standard on the iDumb.

TheFireBert  posted on  2015-06-08   19:13:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#31. To: TheFireBert, Jameson (#26)

Of course, the Trustees for the fund claim that the program will be solvent until 2035, not including the fact that the nation carries debts far exceeding the ledger balance of the trust fund. As far as I can tell, if you owe $18 trillion in debt, of which $2.7 trillion is owed to the trust fund (that is out of the over $5 trillion owed in Government Account debt), it would be nigh impossible to pay off the SS fund or any other public fund.

On the positive side it doesn't have to be repaid all at once. Howver, a defualt on any U.S. Government full faith and credit debt will affect all of them.

потому что Бог хочет это тот путь

SOSO  posted on  2015-06-08   20:23:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#32. To: TheFireBert (#27)

I suggest you branch out of your current mode of research and start reading between the lines.

Yeah....whatever......

Bottom line - Social Security is not insolvent. Our congress, as pathetic as they are, will never let Social Security go broke.

My mode of research used the official Social Security Website, I'll trust them before I'll buy into a theory put forth by some character on a right-wing malcontent circle-jerk web chat room.

The sky is not falling!

"we are tartets from evil doers!!!" [ and ] U looked up birfer on the dcitionary. It isn't a movie.

Jameson  posted on  2015-06-08   21:12:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#33. To: SOSO (#31)

Howver, a defualt on any U.S. Government full faith and credit debt will affect all of them.

...However.....Default.....

Please give someone else your keys..

There will never be a default. Sorry.

"we are tartets from evil doers!!!" [ and ] U looked up birfer on the dcitionary. It isn't a movie.

Jameson  posted on  2015-06-08   21:28:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#34. To: Jameson (#33)

There will never be a default. Sorry.

And if you like your doctor you can keep you doctor. Never is a long time. Besides there are other actions that can be taking to avoid a technical default which de facto are a restructuring to avoid a technical default. IMO that is a distinction without much of a difference. Why do you think people younger than 40 believe that they will not see a penny in SS payments after having paid into the system for 10-20 years? Sorry but I would call that a default.

потому что Бог хочет это тот путь

SOSO  posted on  2015-06-08   21:34:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#35. To: SOSO (#34)

Why do you think people younger than 40 believe that they will not see a penny in SS payments after having paid into the system for 10-20 years?

Don't know, I know lots of people under 40, I can't think of one who shares your negative perspective.

But anyway, believe whatever you wish....

On the other hand....what are you willing to do to make sure that the next generation(s) have the same security and opportunities as the earlier generations?

"we are tartets from evil doers!!!" [ and ] U looked up birfer on the dcitionary. It isn't a movie.

Jameson  posted on  2015-06-08   21:48:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#36. To: Jameson (#35)

On the other hand....what are you willing to do to make sure that the next generation(s) have the same security and opportunities as the earlier generations?

I don't have to do anything. If the system is going bankrupt then it either needs to be fixed or phased out. In either case the question is what to do about (1) those that paid into the system all of their working life (about 40 or 50+ years) and are presently receiveing benefits (generally 62 and over), (2) those that are near retirement age (50-62 years old) and paid into the system for 30-40+ years), (3) those that are say between 35 and 50 years old and paid into the system for 20-30+ years), (4) those between 18-35 years old and paid into the system for less than 20 years, and, those at any age that never paid into the system.

I don't see a fix that would not require increasing the retirement age for people under 50 (perhaps 40), raising the rate, raising the income cap or a combination of all three.

On balance I probably would favor phasing out the sytem (1) leaving present retirees and recipients of SS as is, (2) maintaining the system only long enough to allow those near retirement age (e.g. - 55 and older) to continue on as is until retirement, and, (3) then paying off all others, in a lump sum of over time, that have contributed into the system a pro rata amount.

No solution will be perfect but there appears little reason to perpetuate the SS system as is or even at all.

потому что Бог хочет это тот путь

SOSO  posted on  2015-06-08   23:06:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#37. To: Jameson (#35)

Why do you think people younger than 40 believe that they will not see a penny in SS payments after having paid into the system for 10-20 years?

Don't know, I know lots of people under 40, I can't think of one who shares your negative perspective.

And none smoke pot either........righhhhhhhhhht.

"The news isn't all gloom and despair. Millennials don't have their collective heads in the sand on Social Security's insolvency. A recent Pew Research Center report found that 72 percent of Millennials don't expect Social Security to be their main source of retirement income, and 42 percent don't think they will get income from the entitlement at all."

потому что Бог хочет это тот путь

SOSO  posted on  2015-06-09   0:16:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#38. To: SOSO (#36)

increasing the retirement age for people under 50 (perhaps 40), raising the rate, raising the income cap or a combination of all three.

Exactly.

Really pretty simple.

"we are tartets from evil doers!!!" [ and ] U looked up birfer on the dcitionary. It isn't a movie.

Jameson  posted on  2015-06-09   4:30:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#39. To: SOSO, Jameson (#36)

I don't see a fix that would not require increasing the retirement age for people under 50 (perhaps 40), raising the rate, raising the income cap or a combination of all three.

Here's a solution that I came up with at least a dozen years ago:

Both major political parties perpetuate The Big Lie regarding Social Security. The Big Lie has existed since Social Security's inception. The debate over "privatization" is only the latest version of The Big Lie.
The Big Lie is that Social Security is some kind of retirement savings plan.
It is NOT.
Social Security is a socialist income redistribution scheme, nothing else.
Those who are working are taxed to provide a "safety net" for those who are less fortunate.
Originally, this meant retirees and surviving dependents.
Congress has, of course, complicated it far beyond this over the last 75 years.
But one fact remains: it is NOT a "savings plan", it is an income redistribution scheme.
A major facet of The Big Lie is that "we have to do something" so that Social Security remains solvent in the future.
Poppycock!
In today's age of modern computerization, the computation for operating an income redistribution scheme that remains perpetually solvent is quite simple:

Last month's total SS tax receipts = Next month's total SS tax disbursements

The only change necessary to the current system is that monthly payments to eligible recipients would be a variable amount, not fixed.

THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO NEED FOR A MULTI-TRILLION DOLLAR "TRUST" FUND!!! .. a one month "cushion" is all that is necessary. As our economy grows, those on SS automatically share in the prosperity... In leaner years, SS recipients have to tighten their belts, just like everybody else... but they still have a "safety net"
Congress should NEVER have been permitted to confiscate so much money from the American People in the name of The Big Lie. This fund is nothing but a slush fund that Congress raids to pay for other government expenditures. If private sector employers did the same thing with their companies' pension funds, they'd be placed in prison.

I used to post that rant all the time.
Needless to say, it'll never get traction in the real world.

Some people march to a different drummer - and some people POLKA.

Willie Green  posted on  2015-06-09   7:28:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#40. To: Willie Green (#39)

I used to post that rant all the time. Needless to say, it'll never get traction in the real world.

That is not surprising given that it is based on a fallacious premise and is no solution at all. You make the fatal assumption that SS is an entitlement. It is anything but to those that were forced to pay into it for 40-50+ years.

It would be much more preferable to phase the system out over the next 20 years or so.

потому что Бог хочет это тот путь

SOSO  posted on  2015-06-10   0:03:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#41. To: SOSO (#40)

That is not surprising given that it is based on a fallacious premise and is no solution at all. You make the fatal assumption that SS is an entitlement.

It IS an entitlement... literally.
Social Security is an entitlement in not only the literal but also the legal sense of the term.
Social Security is Title II of the Social Security Act. Medicare is Title XVIII — and other programs make up other titles of the Social Security law.
So that's where the root word "title" comes from.
Once you meet all the qualifications for Social Security benefits (having enough work credits, being the right age, etc.) then you are considered eligible for benefits. But when you actually file a claim for benefits and get approved, you are legally entitled to those benefits.
So that is what makes Social Security an entitlement program. And for that matter, any other government program for which you have to meet certain eligibility criteria and then sign an application and get approved for benefits is also an entitlement program.

You don't like entitlement programs... I understand that....
But you have to be frigging dumb as a rock to call it a fallacious premise or fatal assumption...
That's just a bunch of bovine excrement.

Some people march to a different drummer - and some people POLKA.

Willie Green  posted on  2015-06-10   7:45:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#42. To: Willie Green (#41)

It IS an entitlement... literally.

Social Security is an entitlement in not only the literal but also the legal sense of the term.

That is total BS. With rare exception the only way one can get SS benefits is if one paid into the system to begin with. Further the amount of the benefit is directly linked to how much the person paid in over the years. Still further there is a hurdle of 40 quarters of such payments for a person to be eligible to get anything back at all. This hardly describes an entitlement other than an entitlement to get back something of what you paid in IF AND ONLY IF you paid into the system for at least 40 quarters.

You are a total moron.

потому что Бог хочет это тот путь

SOSO  posted on  2015-06-10   12:27:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#43. To: SOSO (#42)

With rare exception the only way one can get SS benefits is if one paid into the system to begin with.

That's what I told you, stooge...
Do you lack reading comprehension or something?

Some people march to a different drummer - and some people POLKA.

Willie Green  posted on  2015-06-10   13:33:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#44. To: Willie Green (#43)

With rare exception the only way one can get SS benefits is if one paid into the system to begin with.

That's what I told you, stooge...

Do you lack reading comprehension or something?

Then how do you call SS an entitlement when 95+/-% of recipients have to had contributed into the system for at least the equivalent of 10 years. Do you want to eliminate SS payments to those that have not contributed into the system?

потому что Бог хочет это тот путь

SOSO  posted on  2015-06-10   14:03:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#45. To: SOSO (#44)

Do you want to eliminate SS payments to those that have not contributed into the system?

Lol, nice question.

Those are definitely democrats.

Dead Culture Watch  posted on  2015-06-10   15:30:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#46. To: Willie Green (#41)

And for that matter, any other government program for which you have to meet certain eligibility criteria and then sign an application and get approved for benefits is also an entitlement program.

So in your world voting is an entitlement program? As is joining the military, going to a public school, getting a passport, obtaining a patent and/or copyright, getting a driver's license, getting a government job, getting a marriage license, obtaining a Visa, etc., etc., etc.

Look up the definition of enttilement program. Almost all of the accepted definitions say it is a program in which the benefits are guarantted. Now, Flash, try and learn sometime about one of your deeply held myths about SS if you are mentally capable .

"Social Security benefits are not guaranteed,..........."

Further, here is what the SSA itself has to say about SS benefits."

"The fact that workers contribute to the Social Security program's funding through a dedicated payroll tax establishes a unique connection between those tax payments and future benefits. More so than general federal income taxes can be said to establish "rights" to certain government services. This is often expressed in the idea that Social Security benefits are "an earned right." This is true enough in a moral and political sense. But like all federal entitlement programs, Congress can change the rules regarding eligibility--and it has done so many times over the years. The rules can be made more generous, or they can be made more restrictive. Benefits which are granted at one time can be withdrawn, as for example with student benefits, which were substantially scaled-back in the 1983 Amendments."

Please explain how an "earned right" is an entitlement, especially an earned right that is not guaranteed.

потому что Бог хочет это тот путь

SOSO  posted on  2015-06-10   16:01:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#47. To: SOSO (#46)

This is often expressed in the idea that Social Security benefits are "an earned right." This is true enough in a moral and political sense. But like all federal entitlement programs, Congress can change the rules regarding eligibility--

Your own quote calls it an entitlement program, I HAVE A POTTY MOUTH!

Some people march to a different drummer - and some people POLKA.

Willie Green  posted on  2015-06-10   17:14:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#48. To: Willie Green (#47)

Your own quote calls it an entitlement program, fucktard.

Something that is earned is not an entitlement, asswipe.

потому что Бог хочет это тот путь

SOSO  posted on  2015-06-10   18:52:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#49. To: SOSO (#48) (Edited)

You're wasting your breath with people in denial.

We live in a phucked up world because of the people THEY voted for.

“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”

CZ82  posted on  2015-06-10   18:54:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#50. To: CZ82 (#49)

You're wasting your breath with people in denial.

Yes, you are correct.

потому что Бог хочет это тот путь

SOSO  posted on  2015-06-10   21:02:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#51. To: Willie Green, SOSO, Jameson (#39)

1) Last month's total SS tax receipts = Next month's total SS tax disbursements

2) This fund is nothing but a slush fund that Congress raids to pay for other government expenditures.

1... You pretty much summed up what the current scheme is now. The only thing that is missing is the fact that - next [month's] disbursements will incrementally outpace last [month's] receipts - as the GrubberMint continues to expand the payout categories and eligible persons to include more at the bottom of the wealth pile at increased expense of those at the middle of that pile (no need for Richie Rich to worry about petty things like "paying into SS" from his investment accounts).

2... That is also exactly what I was trying to explain to Jameson, and another reason why young people are now waking up to the fact that the GrubberMint has lied to them and will never be able to privatize the non-existent funds or pay back those trillions of dollars in intragovernmental debts.

TheFireBert  posted on  2015-06-11   18:42:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#52. To: TheFireBert, Willie Green, Jameson (#51)

2... That is also exactly what I was trying to explain to Jameson, and another reason why young people are now waking up to the fact that the GrubberMint has lied to them and will never be able to ...............pay back those trillions of dollars in intragovernmental debts.

Not so. The government will just slowly replace the debt owed to the SS fund by new debt, probably bonds but maybe shorter term notes. In other words, what the government has borrowed from SS will eventually show up as government debt on the books, not hidden as is presently the deliberate case.

"1... You pretty much summed up what the current scheme is now. The only thing that is missing is the fact that - next [month's] disbursements will incrementally outpace last [month's] receipts - as the GrubberMint continues to expand the payout categories and eligible persons to include more at the bottom of the wealth pile at increased expense of those at the middle of that pile (no need for Richie Rich to worry about petty things like "paying into SS" from his investment accounts)."

This is why SS should slowly be phased out. It indeed has turned into something more like a welfare entitlement program for those that have never paid into the system. For those that have paid into it, AS REQUIRED BY LAW, getting back their money, without interest, is hardly an entitlement. And I would remind that the money paid into a person's SS account includes BOTH what is deducted from the person's paycheck PLUS an equal amount paid by the person's employer (including himself if self-employed) in lieu of higher wages - presently the SS rate is over 15.3% of the average person' salary).

It is a myth that people receive more in SS payments than what was contributed by them and their employer, especially since the contributions do not accrue interest which would generally exceed the amount of the contributed amount over 40+ years of paying into the system.

If I had saved 15.3% of my salary since I started paying into the system in 1965, even at just a money market savings account rate of interest, I (and my estate) would have well over $1 million in savings instead of the monthly SS payments for which I have earned (which will cease upon my death) that will never come close to $1 million even if I live to be 100 years old. On balance, the government mandated itself one hell of a good deal at my expense, and for just about everyone who is LEGALLY required to pay into the system.

Medicare is a different thing altogether. We can discuss that separately.

потому что Бог хочет это тот путь

SOSO  posted on  2015-06-11   21:52:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#53. To: TheFireBert (#51)

That is also exactly what I was trying to explain to Jameson, and another reason why young people are now waking up to the fact that the GrubberMint has lied to them and will never be able to privatize the non-existent funds or pay back those trillions of dollars in intragovernmental debts.

"... will never be able to privatize the non-existent funds..."

Privatize? - Not sure who promised to "privatize" Social Security.....

But anyway, SS will never be privatized. fact

pay back those trillions of dollars in intragovernmental debts.

Pay back? Unnecessary...- restructure at current rates (very low) and kick the can down the road 30 years... most of the baby boomers will be dead, and the "trust fund" will be solid.

"we are tartets from evil doers!!!" [ and ] U looked up birfer on the dcitionary. It isn't a movie.

Jameson  posted on  2015-06-11   22:16:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#54. To: SOSO (#50)

You're wasting your breath with people in denial.

Yes, you are correct.

You would think that after a while they would figure out that everybody knows they are delusional!!

“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”

CZ82  posted on  2015-06-12   17:33:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com