History has proven that the alternatives are much
worse. Doesn't anybody remember that we were NOT a
Superpower economically OR militarily and that our
standard of living did not become one of the highest
in the world until AFTER The New Deal? Yes, that is
right, we were just one of many on the world stage
until after we had a government that worked to make a
difference in people's lives and funded it with taxes
(thank you FDR).

A lot of people believe that cutting taxes sounds
soooo good even if it means starving the inefficient
government into downsizing. In fact, that is exactly
what the neo-cons in power have been doing the last
four years which is why we have such huge deficits
today. The problem is that most people do not
understand what this actually entails.

Consider this:

We could get rid of every single government
program/expenditure with the exception of Defense,
Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid and it would
make only a very, very small difference to the deficit
spending we are engaging in now. In other words, if
you want to "starve" the gov't, that means you must
cut or get rid of one, some or all of those four
programs I listed. Did all of you know that?

Also, Social Security privatization sounds real good
too doesn't it? Until you realize that a huge
numbers of today’s retired people would have become
destitute and forced to sell all of their investments
and property in the last market crash had it been
privatized the way they want to do it now.

What's more, it is estimated by the CBO that the Bush
plan will add at least $2 Trillion more to the $5
Trillion expected deficit in order to "switch over"
Social Security while still giving the current group
of retirees their full benefits. How are we ever going
to pay for the debt if we just keep cutting taxes? Do
you realize how much growth it would take to cover
that debt with these tax policies? Lets just say that
the entire history of the world does not shine a good
light on "growing our way out of it" like this -- not
at this debt level or with these tax policies.

It is important to note that Social Security would be
just fine with a few minor tweaks if the Republicans
had not pilfered it to such an extent. I love it how
they raided the Social Security Trust Fund then cry
that it is insolvent and does not work....well yeah,
Duh! If they just pay back what they took, it would be
solvent and work just fine without the vulnerability
of the market (Clinton was going to do this with the
surplus, but Bush had other priorities).

Also, the "consumption tax" and "flat tax" sound real
good too until you realize that it will significantly
raise taxes on the poorest Americans (by as much as a
200% to 400%) while giving the richest an even bigger
tax cut. Did all of you know that? Under that system, do you
think the number of people living in poverty would go
up or down?

Many people think there is this magic bullet called
"tax cuts" that is going to solve all of our problems.
Yet, so far these tax cuts have made things worse.
They have not spurred the economy, but actually
hampered the natural growth cycle that should be far
stronger by now (we have yet to create one NEW job).
This is another example of the "magical thinking" of
our new neo-con society.

And, it is this irresponsibility financially that it
causing the Dollar to fall on the world market because
the world is having less and less confidence in
American leaders to be responsible monetarily and
militarily. The Bush concepts both economically and
militarily have never worked anywhere in the history
of the world before. But, we don't care about history,
I guess. Unfortunately the rest of the world does care
about history and they are losing confidence in us at
all levels ...hence the dollar continues to fall...

Like I said, I am in the highest tax bracket. I give
to many charities. I have a good life. I do not
complain about my taxes. I want to live in a good
society that educates our children both rich and poor
and provides opportunity to even the least among us
and keeps our water, food, borders and streets safe,
and provides infrastructure that helps all of us work
more efficiently and get around better, and makes sure
old people are not left to die on the streets, and
makes sure the most powerful cannot exploit the least
powerful, that expects people to be honest and fair in
the way they trade goods and services with each other.

We are all dealt a different set of cards. Some, like
Bush, get dealt the "rich kid" set. Others get dealt a
poor set. I got the middle-class set and had some
breaks along the way. Wouldn't a good society try to
lift up those who got dealt the "poor kid" set?
Wouldn't that make us a better society overall and a
better place to live? Someone has to pay for all this
stuff and I do not mind giving back some of my good
fortune in order to do so.

I wish Republicans would stop being so selfish. Rich
people and upper middle class in this country have a
better life that 99.99999% of all people on the
entire planet and they still complain about taxes.
Their beloved, it's-my-money-not-the-governments,
"taxes" were still far lower than most of the world even
under Clinton, yet they still complained. As if we should
be ashamed to ask them to help out those less fortunate.
Maybe that is why Jesus said that it is almost impossible
for Rich people to get into heaven...

Well, I am not ashamed to suggest that the fortunate
should help the less fortunate -- I believe it is the
right thing to do, I believe it is what Jesus would do
AND I believe it simply works better economically (as
proven by Bill Clinton and FDR).

If that makes me a Liberal, so be it. I am certain of
this: it does not make me evil or a terrorist like Ann
Coulter has said. To the contrary and I will not be
brow-beaten and intimidated by her and the rest of the
neo-con crowd into supporting (or tacitly supporting
by my silence) what I believe in my heart of hearts is
just plain wrong.

A parting question to consider: Since (crime almost
always goes up when poverty goes up, who is going to
pay the $25,000 annually it takes to incarcerate each
prisoner after the government gets starved?

Chew on that for a while...

First is the aspect of the National Debt which currently stands at $8.8 TRILLION dollars. With the 2004 deficit now standing at close to $550 billion, this is not the debt itself. It isn't even the annual interest payment, which in 2004 amounted to some $430 billion. Assuming we continue to allow the Bush administration to dismantle the very fabric of this country, this will lead to at least a $10 TRILLION dollar deficit as the Bush legacy.
This particular drain on our economy makes the Iraq boondoggle look like some minor pork doled out by government to special interests.

Also, the current annual cost for incarcerating a single prisoner is $41,000 at the Federal level, and a ridiculous $58,000 per prisoner in California (due in part to the sweetheart deal between Ca. and the Prison guard unions).

Talk about the cost to society. According to the International Centre for Prison Studies at King's College London, the U.S. currently has the largest documented prison population in the world, both in absolute and proportional terms. We've got roughly 2.03 million people behind bars. (701 per 100,000)

2 MILLION PRISONERS @ $41,000 APIECE. Annually.
That amounts to a stunning $82,000,000,000 (thats 82 BILLION)
annually to house feed clothe and doctor convicted criminals.

You're forgetting a small historical event known as World War II. That had much, much more to do with the US becoming an economic and military superpower than the New Deal ever did.

Regarding the claim of 200-400% increases on the poor under a consumption tax, where did you get those numbers? Can they be backed up with any data?

RLTW

-- Modified on 1/4/2005 8:35:48 AM

it was WWII that ended the great depression, yes my poor liberal friends, not the Great Deal, but the "Military Industrial Complex" you bitch about all the time.

Also, your numbers regarding the Consumption tax are totally wrong.

You bitch about the Privitazation but fail to mention that the government you LOVE SO MUCH has already pilfered all the money in the fund and that is one of the main reason why it is in such bad shape. YOUR SOLUTIUON, Let's give them more!!!

If you trust the government just go down to the IRS and write them a check, but don't plan on what I should do with MY MONEY!!

While WWII did have an impact on the economy, it was FDR and the New Deal that forever changed America into a economic and military superpower.  If all it takes is a war to improve the economy, why didn't we become a superpower after WWI?  Or why isn't the Iraq War helping the economy now(although I guess it is for the fatcats at Halliburton)?  The truth is, is that FDR and his social programs lifted us out of the Great Depression.  Coincidently, the Great Depression followed an ecomonic period that the current neo-cons are trying to duplicate - a greater seperation between rich and poor, and the elimination of the "welfare state" (note: this term denotes a country that provides social services to its citizens such as social security, etc., not "welfare" as in food stamps etc.).  We are in a economic climate that was prevelant in the 20's by relying on the stock market to be the navigator of the economy - the "invisible hand".  Gee, how did that work out for folks in 1929?????  Or in 2000????

Anyway, kudos to 1truepatriot for the excellent original post.  Very insightful with a sense of "moral values" (meaning, responsibilty to your fellow man instead of worrying about gay marraige) that this country needs.

If all the posts here were as well written and rational as that (other than the Bush=rich kid cheap shot - take that back!), this board would be better.  To me, this shows how most of us want the same thing but often differ in (1) our fact base fueled by biased media in both directions and (2) our philosophy as to the best means to an end.

So, here are my rebuttals/questions.

REBUTTALS
1. I believe the New Deal was brave and wonderful.  But, as another poster pointed out, it wasn't what made us a (the) superpower.  What made us a superpower was a great combination of culture, resources, economic model and world evolution.  Our momentum started far earlier than the 1930's and continued well past the post-New Deal era.

2. Deficit spending.  I've heard economists (and CFOs) argue for decades on the deficit spending.  Both sides are smart and probably right.  Let me ask you something - wasn't the New Deal deficit spending?

3. The dollar is weak primarily due to very low interest rates here.  Yes, the deficit exacerbates the situation, but "military irresponsibility" has little to do with the situation unless an investor in convinced that the war will drag down the economy in the long term, which few do.  Remember too - the FX exchange rates dont really correlate with with economic health (more so for 3rd world countries but not the 1st world)

QUESTIONS
1. Isn't the European VAT tax a more complex version of the flat tax concept?  I know that Europeans also pay income tax so how do those compare with the flat tax proposal?  I'd also heard that the flat tax impact all depends on the level of tax and what's covered?  What assumptions have you used above?

2. What do you really mean when you say the republicans "stole" from social security?  I've heard this several times and never have heard the specifics.  Everything I've read says that if there is a problem there, its just all about the age curve - more old people means more payouts which requires higher taxes or lower future benefits (neither of which are feasible politically - hence the stalemate).  Same story with Medicare.

3. Speaking of Social Security privatization, I thought the proposals let people invest their own money how they want.  Nobody ever said that near retirees would have all their proceeds invested in the stock market.  To the contrary, any intellegient person nearing retirement would have their money in liquid, low risk investments.  But, younger people could invest in equity markets which (I'll bet you my retirement) will recover by the time the average 45 year old retires.

I can't really answer most of your points, and I don't dispute what you say, but I will throw out a couple things:

I have family members and family friends who were well aware of the New Deal, and they generally did not think highly of what was done. Several people spoke of Roosevelt with the same venom as others on this board have addressed the current administration. I suspect that time tends to lessent the impact of any presidency, and GW will be no exception.

As to the assertions about a flat tax--I've heard this crap before. I suspect there are strong arguments going both ways, but in the end, nobody has offered any evidence to validate either viewpoint. We do have some ways to look for comparisons-state sales taxes. What is the impact on the economy, as well as the various "classes" of consumers hen a state raises/lowers it's tax rate. The state sales tax is an excellent micros-example of a VAT. A flat income tax, (i.e. 10% of your Gross Income) is pretty easy to evaluate. Many of the flat tax proposals I've heard about exempt the first $XXX dollars of income and often only allow examptions for housing and certain family expenses.

As to social security, this is the biggest joke of all time. It's not the Republicans or the Democrats who "steal", it's the congress. They use the surplus in the Social Security Trust Fund as a type of equity line of credit for the budget. It doesn't matter who is in power, if there's money in the fund, they'll "borrow" it.

Your post is nothin but a bunch of shop worn DNC hogwash!  Ha haHa HA ha.

We hafta fix ssi cause it's nothing but a ponzi scheme right now.  I'm sick and tired of paying taxes up to my eyeballs.  Why can't we let the people in their twenties and thirties put a little bit more into a tax free investment for their old age. What do you crazy crackhead lefties got against that??? huh? Answer that! huh-   Are you afraid someone might actually succeed.  OH GOD- HEAVEN FORBID!!!!

And another thing- we gotta cut taxes so we can GROW OURSELVES OUTA THIS MESS!  i HAVE A BRILLIANT IDEA.wE SHOULD cut capital gains taxes to 10% period.  Short-term and long-term--- just cut it to 10% for a couple years before eliminating capital gains taxes altogether.

Also, if we just cut corp taxes by 1 little percent and cut personal taxes by one little % and somehow just took a couple little baby steps toward simplifying taxes---WOW WOW WOW!!!!!!!! wE would have the biggest economic boom you have ever seen.

And another thing, I think we should make those jerks in prison work and pay for some of the cost of incarcerating them in the big house be it state or fed.
If they knew they had to work in prison, maybe they wouldn't commit any crimes.

Please note that I did not claim that WWII was the only reason the US became a Superpower. I stated that WWII, which includes  events precipitated by the war, played a much greater part than FDR's New Deal. Along with alot of other factors as noted in Answer's post.

BTW, your post would be more convincing without the silly Halliburton and NeoCon remarks.

RLTW

Jeez this is getting annoying, just when I thought things were getting civil.  

How could you possibly assert that the "prevelant" (sic) climate in the 20's was relying on the stock market to be the navigator of the economy?  Where the hell to you get this crap from?

Anyone with a 9th grade civics test knows that perhaps the greatest single precipitating event of the Great Depression was, in fact, the substantial increases in trade barriers that threw the first real global economy into a tailspin.  And, if you're thinking "what's the difference between erecting trade barriers and stopping outsourcing?", you're smarter than I gave you credit for.

Are you actually dissing Adam Smith, the father of modern capitalism?

GOP we seem to agree on policy but I think you are way oversimplifying things.  Little illustrations like if we "only cut 1%" are just the kind of misleading anecdote that both parties abuse (Quick: what's 1% of $100Billion?).  Eliminating capital gains taxes altogether would create incredible unintended tax loopholes much less destroy the concept of corporate bonds or stock dividends.  "Privatizing" social security doesn't mean raising 401-k thresholds - it just lets you control your funds.

LOL, I do think that being a prisoner should be alot worse than being on the friggin street!

and educations for GI returning from WWII. Those were New Deal style programs that powered the nation forward.

GOPGeezer, with all due respect, you clearly either do not know what a Ponzi scheme is and/or you do not know how Social Security works.

A Ponzi scheme is when someone defrauds investors by telling them thier money is being put into an "investment" when it is really being used to line the pockets of the guy running the scheme.

Social Security is NOT, NEVER HAS BEEN, AND NEVER WAS MEANT TO BE AN INVESTMENT. It was purposely kept separate from the stock market presisely because of what people had just experienced with the stock market crash that led to the great depression. It was purposely designed to simply be younger people who are working helping to take care of older people who are retired (as well as those who are disabled, etc.). The money that gets taken out of yours and my check goes to todays retired people with a little extra that goes into a "trust fund" that is suppose to cover us baby boomers when we retire.

Now you may not know this, but it is an EXTREMELY efficient system -- only 1% of the $$ paid in goes to overhead. This is far more efficient than private investment firms which can eat upto 15% to 30% of the $$ paid in just in overhead, fees, etc (not to mention the risk of the investment itself and we have seen recently what can happen to that)

Now, the problem we are facing in Social Security is a minor problem and it is not even due to be a "problem" until 2023 in the worst case scenario. Even then it will not be that big of a problem that could not be tweaked and fixed.

The next thing is the "grow ourselves out of this mess" myth you guys keep repeating. Wasn't the last tax cut suppose to grow the economy and create jobs? Didn't work.

Why do they need more money from me than I can ever hope to recoup?

It's one of the biggest WASTES in the government.

well, I'm not sure why my previous post was considered "uncivil", unless it was the slight attempt at humor about Halliburton making money off the current war.  Clearly, thats not the case, and I greatly apologize to any Halliburton fans out there.

Second, maybe calling my post "crap" marks a bit of uncivility on your end.  While I don't have the time or energy to teach you about economics in the 20's, YOU are wrong that the "single greatest event" causing the depression was global trade barriers.  It was in fact caused by many things, such as inflated stock values because people could purchase it on margin which drove up the prices and devalued the stock.  The government failed to get involved, so clearly in this instance, laissez-faire economics didn't work.  So, if you think that trade barriers were the main reason for the depression, then maybe you should trade in your 9th grade civics book for a text written for college students.

well, you are wrong that the war had a greater impact than the new deal.  sorry, but its true.

I'm truly also about the shot at Halliburton, if that offends you.  Do you work for them?

Finally, "neo-con" means neo, or new conservative - ones that are emulating conservatives of the past.  It is purely a descriptive phrase.  If neo-cons are offended about being neo-cons, maybe they should change their politics....

If you consider taking care of old people and the disabled a waste, you are right. With all of your "good intentions" and your "privatized" social security, you will likely end up with about 35%  of old people living in complete destitute. But hey, why should they cramp your style, right? It's all about YOU, isn't it?

BTW, you are not "recouping" anything in Social Security. Again, it is not an INVESTEMENT on purpose to keep it safe from the vulnarability of the market. Why is that so hard to understand?

Now, if you live to be 90, you will likely get paid more in retirement than what you paid in -- it all depends on your current income level and how long you live. If you had a very high income when you were working AND you live to be 90 you likely will not get paid back what you put in.

Why should I be offended by partisan demagoguery?

RLTW

And, I might add that the willfull and purposeful denial of reality and history that the neocons (and many on this board egange in)is getting us in trouble again -- not just economically, but on the world stage as well. My god, just look what has happened to American prestige and respect around the globe.

The US had the highest standards of living in the world long before FDR's corrupt old deal in 1933.  Why do you think the Irish and Germans were emigrating to the US in the late 19th century?  British sailors esconce to American service as early as the early 19th century (and part of the reason why the US got involved in the War of 1812).  Why do you think the Italians, Chinese and Japanese were flocking to the US in the early 20th century?  Higher living standards and lower taxes (that produces higher living standards).  There's nothing new about FDR's "New Deal."  German Chacellor Otto von Bismarck instituted a socialist system of having the rich to take care of the poor as early as the 1870's, but obviously the Germans preferred the American low tax alternative better, and emigrated to the US en masse.

The US had the most powerful land army in the world as early as the 1860's, also the most numerous ironclads (the capital ship of the day).  The US voluntarily gave up military build-up for a quarter century after the Civil War.  However, by the 20th century, the USN was once again one of the pre-eminent powers of the world.  The US Expeditionary Force turned the tide of WWI in 1918, a decade and half before the "New Deal."  The US acquired the largest battleship fleet (symbol of national military prowess at the time) at the Washington Conference of 1921, more than a decade before the "New Deal."

What the "New Deal" did accomplish is the start of massive devaluation of the dollar.  For about 140 years after the American Independence until 1932, the US dollar stayed more or less stable at between 1/16 to 1/20 ounce of gold (or $16-20 could buy an ounce of gold).  In the 70 years or so since the "New Deal,"  gold price has gone up from $20 to $400+!  In other words, the US Dollar has lost 95% of its value!  Think about that!  The Roman Empire had nearly pure silver coins as currency during its Republica years and early Empire; then the adoption of bread-and-circus necessitated currency devaluation; over about 200 years, the Roman dinar was reduced from nearly 100% silver to about 2% silver (95% base metal).  That's when the Roman Empire fell apart.  We have come nearly as far in about 70 years, once again, thanks to tax and redistribution.  

If the government wants to curtail something, make it illegal or tax it.  What does that say about income tax??

Ponzi Scheme is characterized as promising depositors with unrealisic returns on the hopes that money from new depositors would pay withdrawals made by earlier depositors.  That's how Charles Ponzi ran it.  Such pyramid schemes inevitably collapse.  

Social Security is an especially pernicious pyramid scheme.  It not only operates on the principles of pyramid scheme, i.e. using new money to pay for old in order to keep up an unrealistic promise, but also base the scheme on a fiat money (FDR introduced Social Security along with banning gold ownership and taking the dollar off gold standard).  The result is that over 70 years the US dollar has lost 95% of its value where there had been none in the previous 140 years, just so that the government can keep up its promise at face value.  

The net result is a horrendous double whammy for anyone trying to save for retirement: if you save, your savings may well be rendered worthless by the time you retire; if you don't the Social Security is supposed to be able to take care of you (using the same devalued dollar).  The result is lower standards of living for seniors and plowing the next generation under at the same time, all the while the government gets to use your money to drive down its own borrowing cost whether you like it or not.

The US accounted for over half of the world's total industrial production at the end of WWI (1919).  If that's not an economic superpower, I don't know what is.  The US also acquired the world's largest battleship fleet at 1921 Washington Naval Conference.  Doesn't that make the US a military superpower as well, more than a decade before FDR's presidency?

Hey hey-

coming from a poster who can't seem to tell the diff between "outsourcing" and "offshoring"- why is your opinion any better than the previous poster?

Also- Adam Smith was the father of Economics.  Capitalism was the system he described and applauded- but he did NOT invent it- the WHOLE POINT is that it was a natural progression of a "free" society.

OK, fine.  I'll apologize for losing my shit a little.

I'll also recognize (as I hope you will) that the Great Depression was really an normal economic cycle that became far more severe due to several factors including those that we have both cited.  I was arguing that to compare 1929 and 2004 in terms of economic conditions and causes is a major reach.  Do you agree?

My objection to Halliburton is that I'm just tired of the litany of accusations that this whole war was just a Halliburton boondoggle.  Its just plain unsubstantiated and until it is proven true, unproductive.

Now that I've responded to your objections, how about responding to mine.  Namely....

The New Deal wasn't the reason the US is a superpower.  It was a great program at a great time and helped us continue the momentum that had been building for a half century and continues for another.  I'll debate the future but don't reinvent the past like you accuse others of doing.

-- Modified on 1/5/2005 6:18:10 PM

I have a coworker who used to be an actuary at the CBO.  He explains social security and Medicare in the middle of what you guys claim.

SSI and Medicare are not Ponzi schemes nor are they particularly inefficient.  All actuaries agree that, at some point, with aging and increased life expectancy, that SS and Medicare will fail to be able to meet their defined benefit.  The controversy is about "when" and "by how much" and its all dependent on the assumptions you use.  Again, the answer will have to be raise taxes somewhat or cut benefits - the issue is of course by how much and whether any party is brave enough to push this agenda.

LOL, I know Adam Smith didnt invent capitalism (Al Gore did, right....jk).  But, he did do a nice job describing how it worked in a way nobody else had ever done.  I also agree that the invisible hand isn't perfect.  I just felt that the previous poster was going a bit overboard by blaming all of our problems on free markets.  Read Michael Porter's text on health care and you'll get a fresh (if naive) perspective on free market health care.

Re: outsourcing and offshoring - I just heard alot of rhetoric from the Kerry camp about how outsourcing (his word) was really hurting the country and it reminded me of the trade barrier debate in the 20's.  Is that wrong?  

Sorry, I'm a globalist and would love to see free trade, minimal subsidies (farms no, technology yes) and multinationals.

The U.S. still does not have the highest standard of living in the world. We rand #8 behind a bunch of socialist nations.

http://www.2ontario.com/welcome/coca_801.asp

Your devaation of the dollar arguement is not anything I've ever heard before. Can you site sources?

My point is that the "privatization" scheme Bush has in store will be worse and much mor vulnerable to market conditions.

What's more, there are many people who don't know what they are doing with their investments and will make bad decisions. Now, you can argue that the evil government does not "trust people with their own money" if you want. However, the end result will be a lot of old people in poverty. Is that what we want?

I would hardly trust such socialist information source.  In case you did not know, for half a century, governments in USSR and China told their people that living standards in those countries were much higher than the US.  The hard irrefutable data point is migration pattern.  For example, far more people migrate from Mexico to the US instead of the other way around; that's indicative of people wanting to live in the US instead of Mexico, hence higher standard of living in US than in Mexico, regardless how much weight some socialist-minded academicians assigns to free healthcare.  Likewise, more people migrate to the US from Canada than the other way around; much much more if you calculate Canadian per-capital emigration rate to the US (ie. likelihood of people wanting to get the heck out there).  That is hard evidence of people voting with their feet.  It's a lot more hassle uprooting oneself and settle in another country than cooking numbers behind computers while being paid to research for a pre-determined conclusion.  The migrants' also have their own interest align with the accuracy of their judgement as to which country has higher standard of living; whereas the academicians politically motivated fund source may not align itself with accuracy per se.

As to source for devaluation of dollar. . . hmm, how shall I answer that . . . it's like being asked to give a source for 2+2=4.  The US currency before 1933 was gold coin (and suplemental silver coin for transactions below $5), and the paper currency was in circulation only based on the promise that the holder of the paper currency could change that into gold coin on demand.   The most important gold coin was the Double Eagle.  It weighed 1.0750 troy oz, and had a fineness (purity) 0.900 (90%).  In other words, it contained the equivalent of very close to 1 oz of pure gold.  That was something you could get at any bank or US treasury branch office holding a $20 bill, because the coin had a face value of $20.  If you believed the US dollar was worth much less than 1/20 ounce of gold, you could get those coins and melt them down if you wished.   Today, gold bullion trades at $400+ per troy ounce.  What more source do you need?  You can search for currenty gold price and the $20 Double Eagle.  Just in case you really don't know anything about the subject, please note that the key is that the Double Eagle was available on demand at the Treasury window if you present a $20 bill, whereas to get the same coin today, you need $400+.  That is 95% devaluation in gold terms.

Just because he says SS is not a Ponzi Scheme, we are supposed to take it at face value?  SS relies on new payers to pay for the benefits of old members withdrawing from the system, and even the post below admits that the only way SS can be saved is revising the terms: ie. either reduce benefits (i.e. return) or raise taxes.  Doesn't that mean the very definition of bankruptcy?  Charles Ponzi could not unilaterally revise the terms after the despositors started depositting.  Is that how you differentiate SS and Ponzi Scheme? i.e. Charles Ponzi could not just take your money and refuse to pay up according to terms he promised, whereas the government can and will simply rob your blind because it is the law?  

Any system that promises a return that can not be sustained without constant expansion of subscriber is by definition a pyramid scheme.  A pyramid scheme that is run by the "house" (i.e. a single operator instead of numerous volunteers like "chain mailing") is a Ponzi Scheme.

So far the primary source of fabrication and historical inaccuracy here seems to be from the Left, including the original poster.  The original poster started off the topic by arguing that FDR's "New Deal" made the US achieve the highest living standard in the world, and the status of eonomic and military super-power.  None of that is true.  The US had the highest livings standard in the world, and the largest eonomy and military super power status long before FDR's presidency even began.  

As to American prestige and what we can do about it, the Left is making the same mistake that numerous thinkers in world history made: that somehow "you" are the cause of all wrongs and there's something "you" can do (or avoid doing) to change that.   It's like, when the Mideaval warming period ended, and weather got colder and oceanic wind bands shifted, there was precious little settlers of Greenland and the Easter Island could do.  No amount of praying or Moiai building could change what was happening; sacrifices often times only made situation worse (like the Easter Islanders chopping down trees to build Maoiais in the hopes of gods/acestors saving them from a rapidly worsening climatic environment).  In a reference more familiar to some of us: no amount of stoning of adulterers can really prevent flooding or fire.  They just happen.  The US is experience what the British Empire experienced in the late 19th century: jealousy by peer nations.  When global trade based on silver and gold standards went into high gear in the late 19th century, people on the Continental Europe started to realize that they were making a fraction of the money the English were making doing the same jobs!  The ratio was as high as 7-to-1 between the average London wage and that of Vienna (easily counted, since both used silver).  Yes, plenty fashionable social commentators like Dickens harped on the terrible work condition in England, the reality was that the rest of Europe was immensely jealous of England.  The result of a prolonged period of isloation for the British Empire in diplomatic terms.

If you think seniors are worse off after the New Deal than they were before, you need to take a history class.  You're arguement has the appearance of having good points, but you are confusing ideology with reality - which is, that the social programs of the New Deal dramatically improved the lives of the eldely.  While social security may not be perfect, and neither was FDR, you are wrong about lower living standards for today's seniors.

I might be over-extrapolating, but doesn't your logic naturally suggest that we should roll-back 401-k laws and move back to pensions or a government retirement program?

George Will had a great piece in USNWR (can't find link) talking exactly about the "should the government protect us against our own stupidity" debate.

patriot - I'd like to see more on the dollar devaluation too, but I have to ask:

What did the standard of living ranking look like in 1870 and 1929 (pre crash).  I'm totally reaching here, but I'd guess that "old Europe" lead the list and the US wasn't even close to the top.  

Even more of a reach: What do the countries that lead the list have in common: Low immigration either thru an unaccomodating culture and immigration policies  (vs. Japan), or a very unviting climate (vs., say, Iceland, Canada, Norway, Sweden, 95% of Australia).  Canada might be the exception here (very diverse population in selected places) but I sorta suspect Canada skims the cream more than it attracts refugees.

Let me also be clear - I'm not anti-immigration, I just want us to recognize it has a cost that makes our progress even more impressive.

I just thought that since you said we have the highest standard of living that you could site your source. I'm willing to consider any source.

I'd like to see that as well.

But in all honesty, I think that there are probably a lot of reasons for this ranking including those that you mentioned. But also population size as well as policies, etc.

I was being a little facitious when I said they were all socialist countries (just to get a rise) even though they are. I don't think that is the primary reason their standard of living is higher than ours. But I do think that they do look at the overall standard of living as a measuring stick more than we do in molding their Gov't policies. I guess my point is that they do believe Gov't can make a difference in the overall standard of living and it seems to work for them.

Just because he says SS is not a Ponzi Scheme, we are supposed to take it at face value?  SS relies on new payers to pay for the benefits of old members withdrawing from the system, and even the post below admits that the only way SS can be saved is revising the terms: ie. either reduce benefits (i.e. return) or raise taxes.  

WE AGREE ON THIS POINT. HOWEVER, IT IS NOT AS BAD OFF AS YOU THINK -- IT WILL BE 100% OKAY UNTIL ABOUT 2023 (as a worst case scenaro). AT THAT POINT WE WILL HAVE TO CUT BENEFITS (NOT BY TOO MUCH THOUGH) IF WE DO NOT BOOST THE TRUST FUND (increase taxes, but again, not by very much) BEFORE THEN. THE SOONER WE ADDRESS IT THE LEAST WE WILL FEEL IT (probably not vey much if at all). MANY RESPECTED FINANCIAL PEOPLE HAVE PROJECTED THAT BUSH'S PLAN WILL SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCE THE FINANCIAL WELL BEING OF THE ELDERLY. IF YOU ARE IN FAVOR OF THAT, FINE. BUT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE ADVOCATING.

Doesn't that mean the very definition of bankruptcy?  

NO. IT MEANS YOU HAVE TO DO SOME "FIXING" -- JUST LIKE ANY BUSINESS THAT PROJECTS THEY WILL BE PAYING OUT MORE THAN THEY ARE TAKING IN (they would have to fix it now or pay out less later).

Charles Ponzi could not unilaterally revise the terms after the despositors started depositting.  Is that how you differentiate SS and Ponzi Scheme? i.e. Charles Ponzi could not just take your money and refuse to pay up according to terms he promised, whereas the government can and will simply rob your blind because it is the law?  

YOU ARE CONFUSING US WITH THIS -- DOES THIS MEAN YOU TO AGREE IT IS NOT A PONZI SCHEME? SS NEVER PEROMISED TO PAY OUT AS AN UNREALIISTIC "INVESTMENT" LIKE A PONZI SCHEME AND THE SYSTEM ONLY EATS UP 1% OF THE $$ IN ADMIN COSTS, SO THEY ARE NOT DEFRAUDING CITIZENS LIKE A PONZI SCHEME. SO HOW IS IT THE SAME?


Any system that promises a return that can not be sustained without constant expansion of subscriber is by definition a pyramid scheme. A pyramid scheme that is run by the "house" (i.e. a single operator instead of numerous volunteers like "chain mailing") is a Ponzi Scheme.

SS DOES NOT DEPEND ON THESE THINGS, TO BE HONEST, JAMIEE, I THINK YOU HAVE A FUNDAMENTAL MISUNDERSTANDING OF SS.

Yea, I agree that government can make a difference and should, perhaps just more selectively than you think.  Here's my question about the Scandinavians, et. al. - is their standard of living higher because they're socialists or are they socialists because they can afford it due to their already high standard of living?

Either way the fact they are Socialist apparently has not hurt their standard of living and not drven them to economic ruin -- they seem to be pretty happy with their system. Not that I am advocating it. I'm just saying it is not the same thing as Communism.