Thursday - February 24, 2005

Social Security/Retirement Plans News and Commentaries

Larry Kudlow slams the President for acting very George H.W. Bush by saying, “watch my lips, no new taxes” and then says increasing the payroll cap on social security is on the table.

Leftists and mommy government types think this is the solution:  raise the caps so that more money can flow in.

What they don’t realize is that it is a hell of an increased tax not only on people but the employers as they must match those contributions, too.  Raising taxes does not solve ANY problem.  It just increases government bureaucracy and in this case, the legal obligation of the government. 

The problem is that the leftists in this country only want to go half way--they want to increase the cap but say nothing of the obligation that SS must cut even higher checks to those who contribute more.

But before we get too excited about government legal obligations, you would do well to read this little snippet:

In Flemming v. Nestor, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1960 that we don’t have a legal right to a dime in Social Security benefits. Payroll taxes, said the court, are just that – taxes, not “contributions” to an assured or fail-safe program of defined benefits.

In the eyes of the law, Social Security retirement checks are no different from the subsidy checks that farmers get for not growing wheat. Either set of payouts can be reduced or eliminated by a vote in Congress.

Simply stated, Social Security is a legislated and changeable entitlement, like food stamps, and not a contract.

Where’d this little bomb come from?  Here.

This next one goes back about 2 weeks but I saved it because it is now pertinent to the subject.

It comes from the WSJ’s Pete Du Pont who reminds us of this:

“Sen. Hillary Clinton telling a California audience last summer that taxes must rise because “We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.”

Even better is what the left REALLY thinks when we read Noam Chomsky’s comments against SS privatization:

“putting people in charge of their own assets breaks down the solidarity that comes from doing something together, and diminishes the sense that people have responsibility for each other.”

That basically sums up the attitude of the Democraps:  socialism and group think are better than individual responsibility.  Government and social collectivism are the only solutions.  No independent thought or action are allowed.  1984, anyone?!?!

Mr. Du Pont does an excellent job here exposing the left for what it is and the article is worth reading in order to understand why he ends it this way:

And that is why today’s very liberal Democratic Party is so vehemently arguing against personal ownership of Social Security market accounts. The government’s Social Security system is socialism’s last redoubt, and must be preserved at all costs.

The left is constantly trumpeting the “transition costs” of privatizing SS as their main argument against it.

Hey, look, even I thought there would be costs associated with this.  But this article which quotes noted economists, to include the one who recently won a Nobel Prize for economics, who say it is all so much bullshit.  Nothing but semantics.  Read it here.

Walter Williams, another noted economist, exposes the hypocrisy of the left as it concerns social security when he details for us the efforts of noted Dummycraps who opposed President Clinton’s plan to force almost 5 million currently exempt employees into SS.  Their argument?

They warned of the adverse impact on employees in terms of lower rates of return and lost flexibility.

Yet why is it that now the President is Republican that they can’t support privatization---which is exactly what those 5 million currently have?

Governor Ah-Nold is giving them hell in California. I almost shit when I read that California’s contributions to retirement plans has gone from $160 million in 2000 to $2.6 BILLION!!!! this year!!  (that is a 16 fold increase!)

You gotta love this:

At CalSTRS, four of the governor’s own appointees voted against his plan, which led Schwarzenegger to retaliate by firing them, a move his critics dubbed the “Thursday afternoon massacre.”

And here are some ideas from 7 investment gurus about where we should put that SS privatization money.  Some of these guys think anything would be fair game but on this I disagree.

Social Security is meant to be something that would keep people from being totally broke in old age.  As such, any investment plan should be limited to 5 index funds (S&P, Midcap; World, Total Stock Market, Bonds) a balanced fund and cash instruments (CDs, money markets, etc.)

Expenses are infinitesimally small and potential for defrauding investors low.

Now go forth and privatize!!!!!!!!!

Posted by Ranting Right Wing Howler     on 02/24/2005 at 06:33 AM   
Filed Under: • Social-Security •  
• Comments (5) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

DISCLAIMER

THE SERVICES AND MATERIALS ON THIS WEBSITE ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE HOSTS OF THIS SITE EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ANY AND ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF SATISFACTORY QUALITY, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, WITH RESPECT TO THE SERVICE OR ANY MATERIALS.

Not that very many people ever read this far down, but this blog was the creation of Allan Kelly and his friend Vilmar. Vilmar moved on to his own blog some time ago, and Allan ran this place alone until his sudden and unexpected death partway through 2006. We all miss him. A lot. Even though he is gone this site will always still be more than a little bit his. We who are left to carry on the BMEWS tradition owe him a great debt of gratitude, and we hope to be able to pay that back by following his last advice to us all:

1. Keep a firm grasp of Right and Wrong
2. Stay involved with government on every level and don't let those bastards get away with a thing
3. Use every legal means to defend yourself in the event of real internal trouble, and, most importantly:
4. Keep talking to each other, whether here or elsewhere

It's been a long strange trip without you Skipper, but thanks for pointing us in the right direction and giving us a swift kick in the behind to get us going. Keep lookin' down on us, will ya? Thanks.

THE INFORMATION AND OTHER CONTENTS OF THIS WEBSITE ARE DESIGNED TO COMPLY WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. THIS WEBSITE SHALL BE GOVERNED BY AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND ALL PARTIES IRREVOCABLY SUBMIT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE AMERICAN COURTS. IF ANYTHING ON THIS WEBSITE IS CONSTRUED AS BEING CONTRARY TO THE LAWS APPLICABLE IN ANY OTHER COUNTRY, THEN THIS WEBSITE IS NOT INTENDED TO BE ACCESSED BY PERSONS FROM THAT COUNTRY AND ANY PERSONS WHO ARE SUBJECT TO SUCH LAWS SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO USE OUR SERVICES UNLESS THEY CAN SATISFY US THAT SUCH USE WOULD BE LAWFUL.

Copyright © 2004-2015 Domain Owner