Liberals - Practice Conservative Argument Techniques

I did the math awhile back. If I had invested my social security cotnributions in the most conservative vheicles available in the stock market when I first started paying into the system, I would be a very nicely well off lady at this point in my life. As it is, there is no way to do anything other than subsist in substandard housing and on marginal food with social security. Other income is necessary.

Whether or not I draw social security, as a self-employed person, I must pay 15.3% of my income in social security taxes PLUS pay income taxes on 90% of any social security income I draw, however meager it may be.

All the money I have paid in has not grown one dime. Nor is there one penny in the social security trust fund nor has there been one penny in the fund since its inception. The government has spent every penny on stuff that should have been paid from the general fund.

Raising the cap will not affect me and will garner only a pittance from a few fat cats while most will find ways to shelter their income and avoid the tax.

Raising the age limit at which you can draw social security makes some sense and will help. That was started during the Clinton administration and will no doubt continue in increments.

Let those workers with a few decades left in their working life direct a portion of their social security contributions into growth investments with the understanding their entitlement will be reduce by a proportionate amount will cost the system nothing over the long haul and can ensure a more comfortable requirement for those who do that. What is mostly accomplished is that huge amount of additional funds won't be necessary to keep up with rising costs of living.

The main fear of liberals I think is that once people see the adventages of being able to invest their retirement accounts instead of pouring them into a stagnant black hole, they'll want to do that with all their money. But that puts the power in the hands of the people and liberals just hate giving up power.

Tired argument. The amount raised would be truly large, becuase it would have to be matched by the companies that pay the 'fat cats' as well.

Traditionally, large companies hide the vast majority of their payroll from social security taxes by concentrating the vast majority of payroll to the top branches, where most of it will be SS tax-free, as it's easily over 90k. This will help cut that loophole out.

Of course, I'm sure you're against companies paying their fair share, as well as the extremely rich, right? Right.



The problem is this: we see SS as insurance, not an investment. You can take all the money you spend on Home Insurance, Car insurance, Life, Fire, etc., and invest it in the stock market; there's a very good chance you'll make a much larger return than any such insurance will pay out, over time.

Think you'll do it, Fox? Think everyone should?

Cycloptichorn

conservative paradigm
major premise=I'm right
minor premise=everyone who disagreses with me is wrong
concluding premise=SHUT UP

Making a note that Cyclop missed the point. But that seems to be a liberal trait too. Better assign a number to it.

Fair enough. I hated F9/11 because I did indeed consider it blatant agit-prop - well-made but shameless agitprop. I think you may have your analogy into place here. Fox on the one hand - F9/11 on the other.

Issue here is that there is no cable news station broadcasting F9/11 24/7. You may think ABC or CBS are biased, but its not F9/11 they're putting out - nothing quite like that. So what balance?

Now if you had a Daily Kos TV broadcast into Americans' homes country-wide 24/7, you might have a point about equivalence ... but there is no leftist equivalent to Fox, not in the US, not on any significant scale. (In England at least you have the Daily Mirror ...)

Huh? That just didnt make any sense at all.

Fox, you tell us (when did I get all caught up in this "us", I ask - bloody American wishy-washy liberals) that if we have a "diferent approach there needs to be a discussion about that." OK, good. But it being a different approach pretty much automatically implies that our reaction to what you would be proposing would be, "no we dont think thats the right way to tackle it: we have this different approach". Which is what, on the one hand, you're telling us to do - but at the same time you're saying that should we actually say that, you'll consider it "just another way of saying "no"', for didn't we just refuse to discuss vouchers? "No" is "no" - after all: "If vouchers are proposed, there needs to be a discussion about vouchers"!

Eh - but the vouchers are not the subject - they're your proposed solution. And "we" might have a different solution. So yes - if the problem in education is the subject, we will insist on talking about something other than vouchers.

I dunno. Basically the logic here is, OK - we gonna talk about the problem in education - but since we proposed vouchers as solution - you're only allowed to talk vouchers back - and if you say, "no, vouchers are not the solution, we would instead solve the problem by..." we'll assert you're trying to change the subject and refusing to address the point. "No" is all you said to school vouchers, after all!

What is the Democrat plan to improve the dismal state of US education?

Yep, Lola - cool tricks they be.

So OK, we're supposed to learn in this thread, so lessee if we can do something like that too.

Choose topic. Global warming! I'm sorry, climate change (how did they get away with that one, eh?). Big problem! Might not affect us in thirty years (actually it will, but lets keep the SS analogy up) - but we wont let those reckless wait-and-seeers gamble with the future of our children! If it looks like its gonna be a problem in 30 years time, we need to tackle it now. And heres how we suggest doing it. Restrict co2 emissions. Make economical cars less expensive for the consumer to buy and use, and finance it by making gas-slurping cars more expensive. Limit dependence on foreign oil, develop -

No, wait <stops himself>. Heed lesson 23a): only propose one, simple solution. Dont confuse the discussion by proposing a network of solutions. Choose one catchphrase.

OK: the one solution - make buying/driving fuel-economical cars cheaper, and gas-gulpers more expensive. Now for the catchphrase, you need to ignore the part that may sound bad (increasing taxes on gas-gulping cars) and highlight the part thats positive and advantageous to the consumer's wallet. We want to make a fuel-economy car affordable for everyone! Promote research & development, provide tax incentives (you hear: tax cuts!) - whatever it takes to be a responsible government.

It needs one more spin. The reversal trick. Classic Rove: make the attack you're about to launch on a current institution sound like you're defending it. The attack is of course on the ridiculous fuel habits of Americans. One way or another, those need to be tackled. Many Americans know that, really, but push the thought away because they're afraid tackling it would mean giving up driving (as much as they want or the car they want). So to get them behind your idea, you need to make the attack on those habits sound like a defence of them.

Eg: "We want to make sure than in thirty years time, you'll still be driving!". Cause if we do nothing now, you see, about global warming, then in thirty years there may be some sudden clampdown on cars. We want to prevent that and thus safeguard your right to drive wherever and whenever you want.

OK, thats the sales pitch covered. Now back to the lesson about arguments. Your typical conservative wont like the idea about investing into stuff like electric cars and such hippie stuff. They'll even less like the idea of taxing gas-gulpers or pushing the car industry. So they'll try to stop you - after all, they disagree with you on the problem and the solution. So the cue here is to not let them "change the subject" (ie, propose their own take).

The way to do so: label every attempt they make to say that they dont think the problem is real or that big as irresponsible recklessness, and every attempt they'll make to reject our proposals and propose their own as shameless negativity and obstructionism.

Lets try.

- "To stop our children from facing the costs of climate change, we need to act now. Fuel-economy cars should be affordable for everyone!"

- "But climate change hasn't been proven at all, according to some scientists .."

- "Doing nothing is not an option! We simply will not have you gamble with our children's future, just kinda betting that perhaps it wont be so bad. You may be willing to lean back and take the risk, but we will not sit by and let our children pay the price because we thought it might still last our time. Its our responsibility, when we see a big problem emerging in the future, to tackle it now. We want to make sure that in thirty years time, Americans will still be driving!".

- "But you're being deceptive about what you're setting out to do. You say, "we want to make sure that in thirty years time, Americans will still be driving", but you're decieving us about the costs of your proposal, which will put us into an irresponsable extra debt, plus what you're really on about with this proposal is something wholly different, namely regulating industry."

- "Look, we have an obligation towards the future. We govern not just for ourselves, but also for our children. And we have a vision on how to do so. The conservatives are saying, "no", this is unpractical, "no", that we won't stand for - just no, no, no. But do they have a plan of their own about the issue? They're just putting roadblocks in the way."

- "But thats just because you're proposing the wrong solution! I mean, you're asking the wrong question! Fuel-economy cars won't help - even if everyone would drive one, emissions would still increase over tribleteen point etine percent. And it would harm the tax base and in any case, you shouldn't mess with the workings of the free market. And it isnt even clear that the problem you would create such a risky mess about is even real! No, what we would propose is .."

- "See, they wont even talk about the solutions we put forward! All they say is "no". Folks - we Democrats are for making a fuel-economy car affordable for everyone. Its not that difficult. We simply think it's right - something we need to do. We have a solution - and it may be imperfect still, and we're willing to talk with them about how to go about making fuel-economy cars affordable for everyone. But they dont even want to talk about it! They just try to change the subject..."

Something like that? I'm still kinda awkward at this ... but might I be getting it?

OK, enough play for tonight ... I gotta gets myself to bed ...

What is the Democrat plan to address the approaching failure of Social Security?

what is the republican plan? is there one?

Nimh, A+



What approaching failure? The point where we take out more than we put in, in thirty years or so?

How is that any different from how we spend more money on our wars and defense than we take in today? Does that mean our government is a failure, because we deficit-spend?

Cycloptichorn

abolish it

I know you haven't been under a rock. The privatization plan is being discussed by Bush all over the place.

It is getting mixed reviews from both parties... many of them are afraid to agree with the privatization plan--because people are nervous about it.

You must know the GOP plan...so, what is the Democrat plan?

We need more of the sneering, god-who-is-making-that-stench, kind of talk, the kind that Lola is encouraging. I find it difficult to do but extremely satisfying nonetheless, though not as satisfying as writing a sentence that has nonetheless (my favorite word) in it twice.

Joe(jesus, if I didn't know we would all be dead in twenty years, I could take all this seriously) Nation.

go to bed ya'll.

j

Well.

It seems the #1 objective would be to get a plan.

#2 would be--try to get a plan that may work.

#3--Tell people your plan that might work.

what I've seen from Bush
#1 sell the plan
#2 blame the dems for not having a counter plan to offer
#3 create a plan that includes a privatized segment (currently no plan exists)(may or may not raise payroll taxes, depends on definition of "raise payroll taxes")

The purpose of this thread, as closely as I can tell, is to practice arguing with conservatives. (As if liberals needed any practice doing that.) The purpose is not to make a case for this plan or that plan, but it is okay to express that there is a plan. For if there is no plan, there is no reason for the liberal to say no.

If you don't like the conservatives plan, and you have no plan, that's a 'no'. It seems the only plan the liberals have these days are various shades of 'no'. Oh, well, there's always the tried and true plan to raise taxes on the rich. I'll concede that one. But otherwise, it is pretty consistent that the liberal plan is to say no to the conservative plan.

I really do think it needs its own number.

pretty hard to say no to a plan that doesn't yet exist, if you remember what Bush has said, he has charged congress to create a plan. So far the majority of the obstruction as come from repubs that are running for re-election. If anyone here has different information that shows a "plan" please post so that we can actually discuss the merits thereof.

A plan does exist.

When the Dems said...No...he asked them to contribute their ideas. He said he's open to their suggestions.

I saw a photo op with Pelosi, Schumer, Reid, wherein they said they weren't going to contribute to any plan, because if it went wrong, they weren't going to be blamed for it.

That, IMO, is typical of the Dems.

They are offered a position of leadership or at least participation...but they refuse because they are afraid they won't get re-elected.

That is why no one wants to touch it--but it needs to be taken care of now--or our kids and maybe some of us will be in more trouble than we can imagine. People who are making decisions for this country can't be cowards, passing off vital work because they are greedy and cowardly.

Their contribution---> No.

Don't you think they should at LEAST have an alternative plan?

One Cheer for Clinton's Social Security Plan
by David C. John
Executive Memorandum #566


January 20, 1999

President Bill Clinton is considering a plan to use the budget surplus to fund new retirement savings accounts to supplement Social Security.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/SocialSecurity/em566.cfm


so, i'd say that it appears that the republicans said "no" to clinton's personal account idea. the big difference being that clinton's plan would use part of the surplus to get it rolling instead of barrowing yet more money from our foreign creditors.

Social Security: The Grand Opportunity

By Peter J. Ferrara
1/21/99

The bottom line on Clinton's Social Security reform proposal is simply this - it is not workable, and it will not solve the problems of the program.

http://www.atr.org/policybriefs/012199pb.html