Bush Isn’t Screwing Elderly. Elderly Are Screwing Us
Modern liberalism can not survive without victims. It’s always about the poor, the minorities, the women, the children, the old people, but when you get right down to it, its really just about government. If it were about any of those poor hopeless groups, libs in Tennessee would support doing away with the sales tax on food, rather than oppose the idea. They would have opposed the lottery, instead of supporting it. The would support school choice for inner city kids, instead of opposing it. Also, they would support ending or cutting taxes on capital gains and dividends, instead of opposing them.
But no, all of those things would promote liberty and empower the individual against government, and they can’t have that.
Sometimes, even when there aren’t any victims, libs create them in their head. Take this post from Archcrone about how Bush is supposedly screwing over the wealthiest demographic of Americans, that group we call the elderly.
If anybody is screwing anybody, it is the elderly screwing us. In spite of the fact that they are the wealthiest demographic, they still won’t give an inch on Social Security or Medicare cuts. They love to play that “poor old person” BS, but the truth is, as a group, they are far from poor.
They should be commended though for saving and creating wealth in their old age, but they ought to be ashamed of the way that they are living it up at the expense of their children and grandchildren.
I don’t think the term liberal is accurate anymore. These people aren’t liberals:
http://www.zombietime.com/hall_of_shame/
I am a Classic Liberal:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism
which today is a conservative.
The term liberal in today’s society is so broad as to be meaningless.
After 8 years of George Bush the fires of the 60’s have been reignited and some very crazy people have come out of the woodwork. Today Bill Clinton says we have to slow the economy down to deal with Global Warming.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/01/bill-we-just-ha.html
It is idiocy. But half of America is buying it. Why? Why would anyone fall for this fantasy?
Heads up, I am in Askimet.
There you go. Speaking of Askimet, I have 160 spam comments and trackbacks since 10:00 last night. Those folks are a trip.
[…] Dean with an interesting choice in political pinatas: In spite of the fact that they are the wealthiest demographic, they still […]
I think Glen is confusing average with median.
If you and eight of your friends are in the same room with Bill Gates, the average annual income is in the hundreds of millions of dollars, right?
Or maybe Glen just pines for ice floes in the Cumberland…
.
So you disagree with the figures in the USA Today article, which come from the govt? So you think that old people, for the most part, are freezing this winter, and eating soup for every meal. Some of their wealth might be in their homes, for sure. Reverse mortgage time maybe?
According to the USA Today story, the median net worth of people aged 50-59 (none of whom is eligible for social security yet) is $249,500. Considering that this probably includes a paid-for house, that’s not all that much. And when you factor in that half of them are under that figure, it makes more sense.
The younger generations have lower net worths, in large part because they’re taking on more debt than ever before. This isn’t really news, when you consider the run-up in home prices and in college tuition, coupled with the fact that a much greater percentage of Americans is going to college than ever before. And, of course, the irresponsible “gotta have it now” spending habits of people under 40 (encouraged at every step of the way by banks wanting to make money off loans).
Then you have to factor in the fact that medical costs are much higher for seniors than they are for younger generations.
But basically, the USA Today article (as with most USA Today articles) is crap. It simply doesn’t give enough information to be useful. It doesn’t tell us what the breakdown is within the over 55 demographic. In fact, it doesn’t list median net worth for the “over 55″ demographic as a whole anywhere, so we can’t even judge that. It’s simply impossible to make a value judgment based on the contents of that story.
Tgirsch, with social security in need of some type of reform in order to survive, do you not think it is a little bit wrong of the AARP and the Baby Boomers they represent, to ask that Generation X, and Y to shoulder all of the burden for the mess that they had no part in creating?
Regardless of whether wealth is tied up in homes or not, it is still wealth. The sympathy for old people thing is a little played out, don’t you think?
We are going to have to stop the ridiculous increases in benefits that are set to automatically kick in. The president got a lot of applause when he mentioned pork in his speech, but pork is nothing compared to entitlements.
GenX and GenY had a larger role in creating the mess than you might think. By standing by idly while our elected officials passed irresponsible tax cuts without matching spending cuts, and then letting them gut the social security trust fund without electoral consequences, we’ve very much made our own bed. (Had these things not happened, Social Security would be totally solvent for at least another 40 years. Even now, we’ve got close to ten years before we start to get into trouble.)
You might not have much “sympathy for old people,” but I don’t find much weight in the argument that because old people as a group have a higher net worth than any other group, we should renege on a social contract and take away benefits from all old people.
There are some minor reforms which could be made that could shore up social security without screwing over a couple of entire generations. These could include some combination of increasing the payroll tax cap, adjusting the retirement age, instituting means testing for benefits, and implementing Gore’s much-maligned “lock box” to prevent future trust fund raids.
If I were emperor for a day and charged with fixing social security, I’d institute an income-based means test for benefits and eliminate the payroll tax entirely, funding social security from the general fund. (Yes, that would mean raising marginal income tax rates.)
I don’t want to renege on a contract either. But they have been getting lots more added to that pie over the years, thanks to the lobbying of AARP and politicians who love to get themselves reelected. The future pie is going to be a lot less though. I am just saying we should take a look at these future increases.
What you said about tax cuts shows a fundamental difference that we will never iron out. For some reason, you guys seem to think that if the top tax rate had remained at 70%, as it was during the Carter years, that we would have still seen the same amount of growth over the last quarter century. It is really baffling, but you all seem to believe that. I could show you how tax cuts have grown the economy and thus increased receipts, but you still wouldn’t believe it. No sense in going down that road.
Your emperor for a day proposal would plummet this economy into a huge recession and you’d end up with a lot less revenue. We are going to have to cut benefits and raise the age. The average life span has increased tremendously since the program first began.
Knowing that social security is nothing but a Ponzi scheme, apparently the feds are just counting on illegal immigration to add more folks to the bottom of the pyramid. Whatever. I personally would love to opt out now and just let the government keep everything they have confiscated from me. Of course, I don’t have that choice though, not in our ever increasing socialist society.
The contract we signed with the elderly is a pyramid scheme.
Christopher Buckley has a solution.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/19/books/19masl.html?pagewanted=all
For some reason, you guys seem to think that if the top tax rate had remained at 70%, as it was during the Carter years, that we would have still seen the same amount of growth over the last quarter century.
I call straw man. I’ve never argued any such thing. If we were too far on one side of the Laffer curve in the late 70’s, we’re too far on the other side now. And as Kevin’s post points out, Reagan actually raised taxes several times. The net effect of his tax changes was not to reduce the overall size of the tax burden, but to shift more of that burden onto the middle class.
Personally, I think a return to a Clinton-era tax structure, with the top bracket just under 40%, would be about right. And that tax structure didn’t seem to inhibit growth terribly.
I could show you how tax cuts have grown the economy and thus increased receipts, but you still wouldn’t believe it. No sense in going down that road.
No, you couldn’t. If you could, you’d be able to look at a graph like this one and easily identify the tax cuts (which purportedly spur the economy) and the tax increases (which purportedly depress the economy). And, as I’ve blogged about before, the “increased receipts” only actually happen if you ignore inflation. Once you correct for that, the “gains” disappear.
Your emperor for a day proposal would plummet this economy into a huge recession and you’d end up with a lot less revenue.
Unless I raised taxes up to the 70% level you’re talking about, no, it wouldn’t. There’s simply no evidence to support that. I also think you have an overly simplistic view of how taxation and government spending impact the economy. You seem to be of the “taxes and spending always bad” opinion, and it’s nowhere near that simple.
We are going to have to cut benefits and raise the age. The average life span has increased tremendously since the program first began.
While I’m not ideologically opposed to either, this gets you into a difficult pickle, because the average life span hasn’t increased evenly across all segments of the American population. Minorities, for example, have a significantly shorter average life span than Caucasians. As for slowing the growth of benefits, I’m open to suggestion on that.
Knowing that social security is nothing but a Ponzi scheme
That canard again? If social security is a “Ponzi scheme,” where are the “abnormally high” short-term returns, and who’s getting them? It’s true that today’s workers support today’s retirees, and that this will essentially always be true, but I still fail to see how this qualifies it as a Ponzi scheme. Today’s workers support almost all operations of government, irrespective of who benefits from them.
Sarcastro:
If it’s a pyramid scheme, who’s at the top of the pyramid?
Tgirsch, it is definitely a pyramid/ponzi scheme. In the beginning, there were more people paying in than at the top. Now things are about to be different. Now it is turning into an upside down pyramid. Gotta love that FDR.
Tgirsch, I apologize for the “straw man”. It seems like you respect the fact that taxes do have some effect on growth and at a certain point, they are not good. A return to Clinton tax rates would mean only a small increase. However, you do understand though, that you can’t do that right now? You would need to wait until the economy is humming along and lots of growth is projected. If you did it now, it would definitely be bad. Based on what you are saying though, we are not as far apart as I thought. The last round of tax cuts were effective though and necessary.
I can’t budge though on capital gains taxes, dividend taxes, and the death tax.
Your opinion though of only raising taxes to Clinton era rates, and the mere mention of the Laffer Curve proves that Reagan really was a transformative figure. He not only affected the thinking of Republicans and Reagan Democrats, but he also helped change some ideas of regular Democrats.
Do you give credit to Reagan for the bipartisan commission he put together to buy social security some extra time, and would you support something like that now?
The idea of an “upside-down pyramid” is directly contradictory to what a pyramid scheme is: In a pyramid scheme, the many pay the few, with a geometric increase in profit with each level of the pyramid that’s traversed. Sorry, but that analogy simply doesn’t work.
However, you do understand though, that you can’t do that right now?
Why not? Clinton raised taxes on the heels of a recession, and the sky didn’t fall. Whether or not the impact would be bad would depend on which taxes you increased, and by how much. And, in fact, one of the most effective ways that a government can combat a slowing economy is by increasing spending, particularly on things like infrastructure projects that create jobs and have a ripple effect throughout the economy. Even tax cuts themselves are more effective when they’re targeted rather than blanket cuts.
I can’t budge though on capital gains taxes, dividend taxes, and the death tax.
I would leave long-term capital gains taxes alone, but dramatically increase the short-term capital gains tax. I would also close the private equity loophole. Dividends should be taxed the same as regular income. And the estate and gift taxes should remain, with minor reforms as necessary. (Contrary to GOP scare tactics, nobody has ever provided an example of anyone actually losing the family farm because of the estate tax.) The hub-bub over the estate tax is one that really surprises me, considering how infinitesimally small a portion of the population would ever have to pay it.
[Interesting side note on the estate tax: I’ve seen several wealthy people talk about the estate tax, and noticed a pattern anecdotally. Those who made their own fortunes (e.g., Gates, Buffett) tend to support the estate tax, whereas those who inherited their fortunes tend to oppose it. I think that’s instructive.]
Do you give credit to Reagan for the bipartisan commission he put together to buy social security some extra time, and would you support something like that now?
I honestly don’t know enough about what Reagan did there to comment one way or the other. But I’d be in favor of a truly bipartisan commission, yes.
The problems with social security this time will be a lot harder to solve, though, because so much of the money that’s set aside for that purpose is in the form of T-notes, and the only way to honor those will be to raise taxes for the general fund. To default on them would mean defaulting on a lot more than just social security, and you’re talking about full-fledged financial catastrophe.
I’m tired. We could go on and on, but I will never change your mind and you will never change mine. We do agree on some things though. I enjoyed the discussion.
The major theme of this post, to begin with though, was that seniors have it better now than they ever have. They are not as demagoguable as they once were. Yes I made that word up. Sorry.
Everybody has it pretty good these days. Even the so called poor. The idea that we are in the Great Depression is a farce. But it is a farce that needs to be told so that people can accept the argument for more government in their lives.
I have to tell you, and this probably won’t surprise you. FDR did more harm to this republic than Bin Laden ever could. If we are to eventually collapse, it will be due to entitlements and people voting themselves benefits.
In any event. Good night. Until next time.
We could go on and on, but I will never change your mind
You will if you make persuasive arguments.
seniors have it better now than they ever have
I don’t think anyone disputes this. But it’s a long way to go to get from “they have it better now than they ever have” to “they’re screwing us.” And it’s not hard to make the argument that they have it better now than they ever have in part precisely because of social security, which would make that program a smashing success, no?
The idea that we are in the Great Depression is a farce.
Again, who said anything like this? Nobody’s arguing this.
FDR did more harm to this republic than Bin Laden ever could.
You complain about demagoguery, and then you come up with that?!
If we are to eventually collapse, it will be due to entitlements and people voting themselves benefits.
If we are to eventually collapse, it will be because fiscally irresponsible Republicans, starting with Reagan, convinced the voting public that they could have their cake (entitlements) and eat it too (tax cuts), and ran up huge deficits and debts in the process. Not that “tax-and-spend” Democrats have been saintly in this regard, either, but the “borrow-and-spend” GOP has been far worse.
Every modern president has increased the national debt, but by how much is telling. Under the Carter administration, the national debt increased by 9.3% per year. Under the Reagan administration, it nearly tripled, increasing by a whopping 14.1% per year. Under Bush 40. 11.5% per year; during the Clinton administration, 3.5% per year, the lowest in the modern era. Under Bush 43 so far, the national debt has increased by 7.6% per year.
Clearly, this rate of debt growth cannot be sustained. But ending entitlements isn’t the answer. True fiscal responsibility is the answer, and that means balancing the budget by making tax revenues match outlays. Short of scuttling most of the federal government (which you seem to support), that means raising taxes.
(You could also save a lot of entitlement expense without reducing benefits by stripping the corporate protectionist provisions from Medicare, but that’s another discussion.)