Tax cuts vs the economy

[mcwoodduck]

quote from mcwoodduck:

No Social Security was set up to steal wealth.  Why invest if the Government is going to do it for you.
The idea of social security was started in a time whne the average american lived for 67 years.  So the plan was never to pay you anything.   You contribute for 30 years or more and you get payments on average of 2 years. With life span now 85 we have huge problems payig for a system that was made to go for 2 years that now goes for 20.

 
Go out into the private sector and price a disability insurance program with dependent riders, inheritable by spouse, and that can be annuitized for lifetime payments.....come back and tell us what that would costs.
  Find such a program that is ouside the whims of the market, too.  And if you want to invest in the 'market' just call up a broker and I'm sure he will have suggestions where and what to invest in,,,and all you got to do is write him a check and watch your money roll in... .
 
SS was/is the most successful social safety program ever devised...it is a shame it was pilfered, but the real danger to it was when Bush Jr doing the bidding of the Wall ST government tried to hand it over to Wall St....that hopefully would have led to his arrest and hanging...
 
 
..TM7

WOW.  How do you argue with crazy.
First, why is it my responsibility and that of all the others to provide for you.  Are you not a grown up and should provide for your self and your family?  As with everything there is a proirity system to your needs and wants.  Insurance is there in case of an accident.  Not to take care of you and provide everything for you.  Imagine the expense of your car insurance if you wantred it to cover everything related to your and multiple people?  The very definition of Economics is the unlimited wants of people and tyhe limited resources.  The greater the want or need the greater the prioce and your wants and needs may not be the same as the person next to you.  You have to look at what is important to you and provide wants and needs for your self.  And some of the wants my have to give out to the needs, not voting in some one that will use the power of the federal government to steal the resources of another to make your wants possible.
Social security can be called a success if the idea is to steal wealth and pass the theft on to future generations with huge debts.
You want to pass the benefits from the insurance on to you loved ones and moan about it costing too much but you are not upset that millions  are not allowed to be passed on to loved ones with the Government program.  Consistancy in the liberal argument would be good, Now you see why I said crazy.
Investing is for the future and will show a growth.  A billion dollars a month headed into wall streat to provide capital for the ecomony to grow would be a good thing.  Now it heads to DC to be squandered.  That money whaile you think the brokers steal it would be watched by people and companies, board of trustees would be encouraged to provide goods and services that sell, create a profit and return those profits as dividends.  The dividends would be reinvested in your retirement.  The Day trade mentality of constitantly moving your investments to hit the Stock market lottery with the next big thing would be for those who, buy lottery tickets or head to Las Vegas as the last great hope.  And while your 401K may have taken a beating over the past few years if you look at the history of the market it is a good way to invest for the future.  At the same time, more people would pay attention to the rules an regulations, taxes and other things that the Government passes as it effects how main street does business, effecting what happens on Wall street.  Want to see stocks fall, announce a tax increase.  Want ot see stocks go up, announce de regulation, and lower taxes.  These equal greater profits meraning higher dividends making the stocks wortth more.

[mcwoodduck]

DD...looks like Nat'l Gas gave to OBama,,,they're going to frack the Marcellus Sheild, etc...but they got to pay some tax kickbacks. Looks like Big Oil gave enough to Obama...ME wars/occupation still ongoing and expanded. Looks like Coal Inc didn't give enough to Obama...they're on his sheit list..
 
 
..TM7
.

If we can open up easier resources to mine we would not need to resort to Fracking.  Drill baby drill!   More rules and regulations creating problems for main street, effecting the enviroment and wall street. 

[BUGEYE]

If my contribution had went to private investment instead of SS, I would be a multimillionare now.
also I'm one of those people that I call insurance poor, meaning, I pay a lot of money for health insurance and straight life so my family will benefit from my hard work.  when I croak, my wife will have plenty to live, but if all that SS I paid in had been invested instead, she could REALLY live.
of course the liberals would rather she lived in a commune and worked in a state owned factory.

[us920669]

It's hard to deal with all the erroneous assumptions.  Social Security is based on the idea that today's workers can carry today's retirees.  If the worker/retiree ratio remains in bounds, life is good, but too few workers or too many retirees will break the system.  Everyone has realized this from the very beginning.  Earlier I mentioned the bipartisan panel the suggested privatization back in the '80s.  One member was democrat Daniel Patrick Moynihan.  We definitely don't see eye to eye on everything, but he was a honest and intelligent man, and he cautioned that idea simply could not be allowed to become a political football.  Unfortunately, it has, and the consequences will be tragic, especially for the two guys to the left, my grandkids.


It's really misleading to have Social Security show up as a separate line item on your W2 - it is just another income tax.  And it is also paid by our employers, with money they could have used for R&D, plant expansion, etc.  Social Security has been a multi-trillion dollar disaster for the country, but the money was taken and the promises were made.  The politicians had better make good on them.


By the way, Atlas Shrugged is a fine book.  Actually it isn't, because she was not a very good writer, but she was a very brilliant thinker.     

[billy_56081]

Reading atlas shrugged at this time.

[Casull]

tm, that is load of tripe.  Do you even read what you post?
 

Since the mid-1980s, however, Social Security has collected more in taxes and other income each year than it pays out in benefits and has amassed a trust fund of $2.6 trillion. The trust fund will enable Social Security to keep paying full benefits through 2037 without any changes in the program, according to Social Security’s trustees

What a joke.  That so-called trust fund is paper promises.  There is no $2.6 trillion of cash sitting in some vault, just a pile of IOU's.   

[mcwoodduck]

TM-7  When i say wealth stealing government program I mean just that.
You and your employer pay in thousands of dollars a month to the program.  Where does that money go?  It is paid to current retired people that paid into the system for years.  Had those same thousands of dollars been put into a savings account, government bonds, the stock market, or other financial vehicle you would have gained wealth.  It would be yours!  It would be something based on the desicions you made and what vehicle you wanted to invest in as to what kind of wealth you would generate.  But it would be yours to hand to your kids, use how you wnat and in what fassion.  Even if to get it started you are only allowed to invest 50%.  I would love that over trhe current system that reluis on future generation to part with more and more of their pay.  What tax level is enough?  No mater what comes into DC as tax dollars the politicians spend more, prommise more and subsidize more.  As things get cheaper more is demanded and the idea that the government can provide you with everything you want is a problem.

[us920669]

TM, you are getting some flak on your post and you deserve it.  I am frankly disappointed.  Look at the list of directors of the Center for Whatever.  Even the names I don't recognize are associated with center-left establishment pillars. These ARE the Powers That Be.  Many are not doubt Bildeberger, Council on Foreign Relations, etc.  This doesn't especially surprise me, but on another day it would drive you apoplectic.  Of course they don't want Big Gov to lose the income stream and the power over people the current Social Security set-up gives them.


They make assumptions about fiscal and budgetary matters out to 2037, when Social Security is a major factor in the financial Zero Hour coming up in just a few days.  I can't believe the audacity of calling money retained by the people under the "Bush tax cut" (a tax cut for everyone) "lost revenue", and then charting it out 75 years.  This entitlement, so crucial to us all, is a big part of the pending bankruptcy of the country brought about by generations of politicians guided by the great principle of '"let someone else pay for it".


Atlas Shrugged is a great book.  Another is Hayek's The Road to Serfdom.  You should read it, since we are now living it.   

[Casull]

The SS Administartion says differently... that the fund is doing well as i nmention in my last link

 
That's odd.  It actually sounds like you believe the government.  Ohhhh, because it fits your purpose.  Got it.   

[DDZ]

..TM7

  There is not one single thing wrong with a governmnet program to administer and oversee, and keep the con-theives away from your citizen's worker benefit program--not a single thing wrong with a socialization of costs ::: socialization of benefit program which you and your employer payed into.
 ...TM7


Gee...who keeps the thieves in government away from your citizens worker benefit program?

Way to many people have this perception that government should be the "all mighty" that oversees our lives. This kind of thinking is the reason we are trillions in debt, and losing liberty.   

Social security is nothing but a mandatory redistribution of wealth program. Do we not have a fundamental right to dispose of our earnings as we want to? SS forces people to pay 12.4% of their earnings to the federal government, who then redistributes it. Thus SS undermines economic liberty and the free choice that citizens should have.
In addition to violating individual rights. SS undermines financial responsibility, and real savings. Does a strong culture not consist of self responsible people who plan long range? SS does nothing but undermine a culture of responsibility and encourages dependence on the national state.   
I guess some people participate in it willingly, but how does this legitimize taking money from unwilling workers. Then government tells you at what age you can have your money and how much of it you can have. There is simply no good reason to support the current SS program. Its a ridiculous, asinine program contrary to every principle of good government. The only possible intellectual reason to support SS is a belief that centralized power is good for its citizens.


   

[Casull]

As an accountant present your arguement that trust fund is gone, i.e doesn't exist, where it went, and who is repsonsible. 

 
First of all tm, I am NOT an accountant.  I won't ask about your sources since I don't have my tinfoil hat on at the moment.  Oh, BTW, I am also not a Jew (which you have stated recently), nor am I a Freemason, member of the Knights Templar, or any of the "alphabet" organizations (real or imagined) that you so love to refer to.  But, please do tell how the government can spend all those funds, issue IOU's (treasury instruments) and still call it a trust fund.   

[NWBear]

Well said TM7.  SS is more than a "retirement plan", I am not sure if that was the original intent but that IS what it has become.  It is also a ponzi scheme based on the income from future payors, paying for the benfits to the previous participants.  The old 25 workers paying for one retiree.  This a simple version leaving out accumulated interest etc.  The real bug as I said in another post on "why is SS in the budget"; SS is not accounted for as a long term debt owed in the future (not carried on the books as accumulated liabilities, instead it is "loaned" to the "budget" to offset the deficit)  Second they mask the true size of the annual deficit by reducing it by the amount of the SS surplus, very tricky and illegal if you are not the Govt.  I am glad I will receive my annuity, based on the $200,000 + - I and my empoyers have paid in and I believe everyone else deserves their rightful share.  I would be in favor of a manditory PRIVATE plan IF they put it in guaranteed investments and allowed a portion to go to an "insurance" plan for the other benefits which may be needed by yourself or family.  As a life long conservative I am not sure after living through the last 10 years (watching virtually my entire industry relocated to China) I really still support an absolute "free market".  Remember in a turely "Free" market companies can go anywhere they want and hire the cheapest labor, ban unions by refusing to hire anyone connected with them, charge what ever the market will bear, get away with anything they can fool you into (no regulations you have to look out for yourself) If they substitute anit-freeze for sweetener in your kids cough syrup, oh well just sue them (check out cough syrup sent to South America, a China supplier swapped anti-freeze for sweetener - killed kids).
I have more compassion for my fellow man than to believe that big business will do anything except do what is best for the business and its largest benefactors.  I have seen this first hand for the last 30 years.  I really DO NOT BELIEVE that BP whould have handled the Gulf spill the same if the Govt. and public outcry had no ability to punish them (and with out the Govt. "guns" the public would be treated like a eunich)
I respect everyone elses opinions these are just my thoughts. 

[us920669]

TM, friend, I get the feeling you do not agree with me, but some of your statements do not seem coherent.  I agree that citizens should not put up with such nonsense, but beyond that, I'm not sure what you are talking about.


You say Bush wanted to give the money to Wall Street.  I don't think he intended to drive up there with the money in a suitcase and hand it over in a parking lot.  The funds would have been directed into a proper investment account, in the citizen's name.  There are some really despicable people on Wall Street, and the things they did with government connivance to bring on the financial crisis should be prosecuted.  But most of the trust funds, annuities, pensions and so forth that they produce are very good.  In fact, that's what most retirees live on.  If the money the government stole from the people had been so directed, the return would have been much better, and it could have been bequeathed.  Did you suggest that Social Security can be?  Think again.


Before I retired I used to get a letter from Social Security telling me how much I contributed and what I could expect to get.  I didn't save any of them, but they all had a statement to the effect that the baby boomer crush was going to swamp the system.  That's what we are talking about, not your chart.   Social Security themselves stated that at the rate we are going, all the little boxes will eventually be red.

[NWBear]

DDZ   I would agree with your intent to opt out of SS, if I didn't fear that everyone would want back in if "things did not work out".  Maybe a voluntary diversion to an insured private plan with the same contributions mandated - you could choose the plan and control it but you would HAVE to contribute.  Sorry I don't have any faith in the general public to diligently plan for the future - you, like my daughter, may be the exception.  However MOST people I know do not have that discipline.  Some of my friends HAVE made enough to never worry about money again, but not many of them have.  I applaud your efforts and wish there was a way you could opt out - but the greater good demands a more balanced approach.   

[Casull]

....that has a lifetime annuity feature that pays back your investment in about 5.5 years

 
Oh yeah, I always love it (sarcasm) when someone trots out this tired little gem.  First, it completely ignores the "investment" made by one's employer.  So, that really moves it to about 11 years.  Second, it also ignores the accumulated interest earned, or that could be earned, on that "investment" over the course of 40 or more years.  So, that moves it to probably 33 years or maybe 44 years.  Now, since I currently won't be able to collect until I'm 67 (assuming they don't raise that before I get there), and the average male lifespan is about 77, it sure doesn't look like such a good investment.   

[Casull]

Yes, the Bush tax cuts ultimately resulted in less tax revenue despite sself-styled conservative pretzel rhetoric.

 
No, they did not.  Despite inheriting a recession from Clinton, and despite a terrorist attack that nearly wiped out the airlines industry less than 8 months into his first term, the tax revenues were basically level as averaged over the 8 years that Bush was in office.  Federal revenues in 2000 (before Bush took office) were $4.146 trillion.  They did drop early on (but thankfully the tax cuts kept them from tanking), but increased thereafter.  The average annual federal revenues while Bush was in office were $4.150 trillion per year.  So, even with an inherited recession, and even with a monsterous blow to the economy, AND even with (actually because of) a tax cut across the board, tax revenues slightly INCREASED during the entire 8 years of the Bush administration.  Now, tm, try to use some of your pretzel rhetoric on that.   

[mcwoodduck]

TM7,
Look since the government is involved and gives you a free policy anything done in the private sector is going to be expensive as there would be a small pool of people to pay into that fund.  But if we allowed the contributions mandated under the SS laws and you were able to invest it, along with purchase a program like you described there would be millions of people that too would have such a program, the larger pool of paying customers allows you to lower the costs and the risks.  Private companies are contractually obligated to provide the services you are paying for.  And you can sue them if they fail to provide, you can not sue the government.
But I guess this is one of those things that people are going to dis agree about.  I see government as a way to allow companies to provide goods and services that people want and allow for fair compitition between those companies.  The fair comitition will create the lowest prices for those goods and services and provide the highest wages and a return on investment to the owners (stock holders - 401K, pension plan, ect)  That the free market is the best way to employ resources and labor to meet the unlimited wants and needs of people.
Liberals see government as a sole provider for everything from cradle to the grave, and people have no responsibility for their actions or life style and that all people no matter how they act should be treated equal and you are entitled to what ever you want.  By subsidizing your wants with other peoples money is morally OK.  But everywhere we have looked, socialism does not work and no matter what you think socialism creates unfair markets, coruption, and will fail when more people are taking from others.  We now have less than 10% of the population payng more than 50% of the federal income.  25% pay 75% of the federal income and we still need to borrow money due to over promising and spending.
You can talk about compassion but as Taxes have increased to punnishing effects Charities and churches have seen a rapid reduction in incomes that were directly given to the needy.  If someone gave the church $100 to feed the poor 98% made it to the plate.  The sdame $100 in tax dollars going to a program to feed the poor 35% makes it to the plate.  Where is that money best spent in the private sector or in government to do the same thing.

[DDZ]

DDZ   I would agree with your intent to opt out of SS, if I didn't fear that everyone would want back in if "things did not work out".  Maybe a voluntary diversion to an insured private plan with the same contributions mandated - you could choose the plan and control it but you would HAVE to contribute.  Sorry I don't have any faith in the general public to diligently plan for the future - you, like my daughter, may be the exception.  However MOST people I know do not have that discipline.  Some of my friends HAVE made enough to never worry about money again, but not many of them have.  I applaud your efforts and wish there was a way you could opt out - but the greater good demands a more balanced approach.

I think people would be more apt to save for their retirement if there was no government SS program. Not sure why anyone would ever want back in the program when things didn't work out, because you could bury the money in your back yard that government takes in SS tax and be better off in the future. Instead of relying on a corrupt government to pay back some of your money whenever they say when, and how much.
If governments true intent was to look out for our welfare, why do they not pay back our money in one lump sum the day we retire. Its all based on the bet that you are going to die before you get near the amount back, what the fruits of your labor put in.

[us920669]

Dickens lived in the 19th Century, the Pre-Industrial Age, and his concerns were very real.  That's why by the 20th Century, the Industrial Age,  practically everyone was a Progressive and those concerns were addressed.  Rand lived in the Industrial Age, but her concerns were not addressed.  That's why now, in the Post-Industrial Age, we are in a real jam.
 
Child labor laws prevent teenagers from working.
Workplace regulations have spawned a hydra-headed bureaucratic monster which no one can control.
A wage structure based on a politically-conceived minimum wage has made up uncompetitive.
The very-laudable environmental movement of the 60s and 70s has produced another federal enforcement arm which is now used to reward some states and punish others.
Perhaps the biggest in the long term is an economically irrational retirement plan, which shafts the recipients and allows whatever tinpot hustler gets elected president to threaten to withhold it.  I could go on but you get the idea.
 

[Junior1942]

All the above rhetoric can be condensed to a single sentence: one party doesn't care if old people go hungry or get kicked out of hospitals and nursing homes, and the other party does care.

[us920669]

I quit.  Someone else can talk to these brick walls.

[BUGEYE]

All the above rhetoric can be condensed to a single sentence: one party doesn't care if old people go hungry or get kicked out of hospitals and nursing homes, and the other party does care.

that's right junior, once people get too old to work, the democrats would have them euthanized.
every liberal state here and every liberal european country think it's a good idea.
asians respect their old people a lot more than we do.

[nomosendero]

I quit.  Someone else can talk to these brick walls.

Maybe you will learn before I did. Good looking kids BTW.

[magooch]

Casull, unless something has changed, or does change before you are ready to collect S.S., you are still able to start at 62, but the penalty is substantial.  You could always fall down the stairs, or jump out a window and get disabled.  For that you get rewarded with full S.S. benefits (no penalty) and in some cases, depending on where you work, you might even get full pension too.  There is no reward for remaining healthy and fit--except the health of it.

[DDZ]

All the above rhetoric can be condensed to a single sentence: one party doesn't care if old people go hungry or get kicked out of hospitals and nursing homes, and the other party does care.

Jr, you have been lied to and it appears you are unaware of it. If you buy into the BS of either party, "shame on you". Government especially the democrats enslave people with entitlements, then buy votes with those same entitlements. Its all about staying in power by any means necessary. They do have a good scheme working, and its all about protecting their biggest donors. They give the public sector unions a bunch of money, the unions give it to the party to ensure they win the elections. Then the Democrats in turn increase the money and power of the unions. So they are making the tax payers pay for the unions, then the unions can pay for the democrat party. If it were the party of the people don't you think most of the money would come from private donations from working families instead of the public treasury? 

All their talk about empowering the little guy, at the end of the day they retreat to their mansions, light up a cigar and laugh at the poor uninformed peasants they are representing. If they really cared about people, they would take care of them by reducing the debt. Their only solution is to raise taxes on the rich, and their definition of rich is anyone that works for a living. I really don't think any of the leftist goons that make up the democrat party have ever taken an economics class before. That includes the basic economics class you get in high school. Government in general has bought debt, and weakness to this country, and to end this mess, the solution does not include the thought that the democrats are the party that cares about people.

[us920669]

Thank you Nomosendero.  I hope they are as happy in 10 or 20 years.

[mcwoodduck]

TM7, I did get back to you.
As long as the govenments subsidizes insurance with social programs the cost for additional coverage is going to be extremely high as there are few people paying into the insurane pool.  But car insurance is cheap, in comparison as there are many paying in and only a small percentage of people filing claims.  No matter how large those claims are
How much do you think insurance for your car would be is it was only you paying for it? Limits of 100/300/100 would cost you 500,000 if you were the only person paying for the policy.
But then again all you are going to say is, How much is a policy.  My answer back is how much would a policy be is the government did not steal from me to give you a policy and everyone had to use the free market to provide from them selves?  Privatizing SS, making insurance companies compete for your business lowers prices, increases profits and actual costs are reflected.
The idea that I and my fellow citizens are too stupid to plan for the future, to think about what is going to happen and how I can take care of my self just proves that the Liberals are too stupid to take care of them selves and need someone else to do it.  Right nmow what ever you make is only about 75 to 80% of what the company you work for pays in total to employ you.  How much more could you be doing, could you afford to do for your self if the company paid you directly all the added costs it pays in hidden taxes?  Personal pension?, Disability insurance (form fitted to your family needs), Medical plan that meets your needs and wants?
If you look at the history of SS it was set up as a safety net, then manditory then became the third rail of politics as the lock box was added to the general fund.  Our super smart presidents like Clinton in his first budget spent SS twice not knowing it was in the general fund.
Well look, here is the brick wall, I will bang my head against, I have an easier time of battering through it with my forehead than explaining economics and morality to a liberal.

[us920669]

Dickens was a great writer, mainly because he was educated at a time when skillful use of the English language was probably the primary focus of education.  Rand's writing is a bit clunky at times because she learned English as a second language.  She learned it as a second language because she had come from Russia, where she saw first hand the ruinous philosophy of socialism at work.


Another perspective:  Dickens gave us Scrooge, the personification of a nasty old skinflint who couldn't care less about the ordinary person.  The whole progressive paradigm of the 20th Century was the notion that only the government could protect us from the nasty old skinflints of the world.  But for the last several decades now, the equation has been reversed.  The government is the nasty old skinflint from whom we need to be protected.

[mcwoodduck]

Groan.  Look you missed the point.  Car insurance is inexpensive as there are a pool of people that want and need it.  Disability insurance is extremely expensive as you are a pool of one!  While you are complaining about car insurance being expensive in your area that is due to precieved loss and your driving habbits and levels of insurance.  Of course the more of the risk you personally finance (your deductable) the lower your rate.  I lived in an area where Luxury German cars were the norm.  I was renting a guest house and I knew that I needed to insure myself against an accident that could ruin one of these cars that cost 5 to 8X what I made.  My car insurance was expensive to cover a risk of hitting one of these uber cars.  Normal levels for my record and car should have been half what I was paying but I knew if I damaged someone elses property, let alone them, I would not be able to pay.
Now here comes the part that liberals never understand.  At what point is it OK for you and a few others to vote to make me pay for your car insurance, your deductable?  I understand SS and I am anti SS tha same way I am anti theft.  The problemn comes as that money that has been stolen from me and everyone else is then used against us by politicians to get us to steal from further generations.  So in 20 + years will it be OK that I have your kids and grandkids giving up 50% of their salaries to fund my SS?  At what level will the governemnt have to borrow $ to pay for the debts it owes the SS promise?  The thousands I contribute each month will I see hundreds a month as a return?  Not to mention all the fraud and theft in the system.  Making the system private or portions of it private will allow your kids, grandkids to work for themselves and not be a slave to the state to feed you and me.  At the time you retire should there be a safty net, sure.  If you out live your money should there be a public fund you pay into as insurance against it, yea we can take SS back to what it was intended to be.  A suplmental payment to help you out not YOUR retirement that the government controls and makes you dance this way or that to get it.  Look at the current Debt problem.  The great Obama said if he does not get his way He will stop SS checks.  Dance geezer dance!  I am not sure about you but I do not want to be a puppet when I retire.  Iwant to shoot sporting clays, Play golf, hunt, and sail a little.  If you want to be on the phone to Congres telling them to support some stuipid thing or another so you get your Free Pills, YTour Free money, or you Free this or that, that your and my grandkids have to surender 50% or more of their pay to give us, making them a slave and ending the American dream for them.   Will we be the new Mexiacans and headed to Canada looking to take their wealth back home in meanial tasks illegally?

[us920669]

Well, I'll defer to your research on the bios, but as for "what they were writing about", I think the names should be switched.  Socialism brought ruin to both England and America; Dickens succeeded, Rand did not.


And I'm modifying the post after a quick trip to Wikipedia.  Let it be known that Dickens attended some very good schools and was a prolific reader.  His father was a government bureaucrat, apparently a wastrel but no doubt well-educated.  Anyone entering the literary arts in Dickens' age had to be top-notch - there was too much competition, and society was not yet debased enough for stream-of-consciousness ramblings.  As for Rand, she reached the New World at age 21, so even if she learned English in Russia, it was probably not very good.  Her career in Hollywood was devoid of any real accomplishments, but as I recalled, she cut a broad swath with her scathing wit and towering intellect.  This was during the 1920s and 30s, and if you think Stalin's Russia was a happy land of contented peasants, please do a little more reading.  Ruthlessly-efficient collectivization killed a lot more people than the Czar's incompetent bungling.


And I'm gonna add something else.  McWood didn't miss anything.  You say there is nothing wrong with govt running SS if they do it right, but they can't.  As long as govt produces the inflation numbers, they can understate it until, after 20 or 30 years, SS brings a hundred bucks or so in today's money, and there is nothing to stop another president from using it as a whip to herd the sheeple in whatever direction the socialist overlords want, as Obama did just last week.  I think that backfired on him, too.