The basis of the Democrats philosophy!

[Tigermike 3,042]

DAVID GELERNTER

The 'We're Smart, You're Dumb' Principle

The ugly truth is that Democrats habitually treat voters like children. It's the basis of their philosophy.

DAVID GELERNTER, David Gelernter is professor of computer science at Yale University and a senior fellow in Jewish thought at the Shalem Center, Jerusalem.

Who could possibly be against cutting voter fraud on election day? You'd have to be some sort of fruitcake. But when Georgia's Republican Gov. Sonny Perdue recently signed a bill to reduce voter fraud, under which voters must show a photo ID before casting their ballots, many of Georgia's black legislators stormed out in protest. They even threatened to sue. The new process is simple, easy and fairly effective, but Democrats alleged that it would reduce voting by minorities, the elderly and the poor. So black legislators had to oppose it.

For legislators to announce that getting a photo ID is too tricky for their constituents is downright amazing. Wouldn't you expect those constituents to say, "Drop dead! Stop treating us like morons!"?

After all, any 15-year-old half-wit can get a photo ID — and the governor is promising to hand them out gratis to voters who don't already have one. All you need to do is show up in the right place at the right time — which is just what you have to do in order to vote. (Unless you vote absentee, which will still be allowed under the new law.) In short: If you can vote, you can get a photo ID. So there's no reason why a single legitimate voter should be excluded.

Lots of Georgia Democrats are outraged anyway. As Michelle Malkin points out on her blog, those outraged Democrats are treating their constituents like children. But actually the episode points to a bigger, deeper, uglier truth: Democrats habitually treat Americans like children.

That's the whole basis of Democratic philosophy (I use the term loosely). We'll take care of you. Leave the thinking to us. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, minority leaders of the House and Senate, respectively, — kindly Mom and Pop to a nation of intellectually limited youngsters. (But thank goodness, they love us anyway.)

How could anyone be opposed in principle to private investment accounts within Social Security? I could understand Democrats arguing that "private accounts are a wonderful idea but the country can't afford the transition costs right now." But mostly I hear Democrats saying they're a lousy idea, and that President Bush wants to wreck Social Security — because, after all, he wants to let you keep a great big whopping 4% of your payroll taxes in a private account instead of handing over every cent to the government. How on Earth could anyone be opposed in principle to letting taxpayers manage a minuscule fraction of their own money (their own money, dammit!) if they want to? Because private accounts violate the Infantile American Principle, so dear to Democratic hearts. Little kids should turn over their cash to the Big Smart Government for safekeeping.

But of course they can't say that, so instead they say, "Bush wants to privatize Social Security" — as if government were going to wash its hands of the whole mess. The technical term that logicians use for this rhetorical gambit — applying a correct word for one part of a proposal to the proposal as a whole — is "lying."

Here's another one: How could anyone be opposed to school vouchers? Vouchers let you decide where to spend tax money to educate your children. You give the voucher to any public or private school; it's your call. But Democrats worry that (among other things) too many parents will spend their vouchers at a local Obedience School for Little Nazis or the neighborhood Witchcraft Academy. That's what they think of their fellow citizens. That's what they think of you!

Now some readers will say, hold on, be fair! Democrats only oppose vouchers because the teachers unions ordered them to. Agreed, teachers unions are a big factor in every major decision a good Democrat makes, starting with what cereal to have for breakfast. But Democrats also oppose vouchers out of honest conviction. They are honestly convinced that ordinary Americans don't have the brains to choose a school for their own kids.

Advanced Democrats are now revving up to make sure you eat your vegetables and steer clear of those nasty French fries. Why is it their business? Because Democrats are professors in disguise. Scratch a Democrat, find a professor.

It all goes back to central planning, socialism, Marxism — let the experts run the economy; free markets are too democratic and messy. Many professors believed in Marxism right up to the point where Communist China itself bailed out in disgust.

Professors see the world in terms of experts and students: "We are smart; you are dumb." That's the Infantile American Principle in a nutshell. Now go play with your toys and don't bother me.

LA TIMES

[Auburn85 432]

dems want control.

Simply put.

That's why they won't budge on Social Security.

They feel we can't control or have the proper brain power to manage our own money. They'd rather have control of the so called "Trust fund". Nothing Trust worthy about a pay as you go system.

[Piglet 0]

I believe the article misspelled "Republican". Their entire approach to government has been to tell people in need that they're dumb and deserve to be punished, not helped.

And a Republican accusing someone elde of "wanting control" is like a possum criticizing someone for being ugly.

Silly me. Here I saw a header about where Democrats got their philosophy, and thought maybe there'd be some nice info about John Locke or John Stuart Mill. Shoulda known better.

[Tiger Al 0]

dems want control.

Simply put.

That's why they won't budge on Social Security.

They feel we can't control or have the proper brain power to manage our own money. They'd rather have control of the so called "Trust fund". Nothing Trust worthy about  a pay as you go system.

157899[/snapback]

Everyone is pretty much in agreement that Social Security, as it works now, will lose its solvency at some point in the future and will have less money coming in than goes out. How does Bush's plan address this?

[Auburn85 432]

by partially privatizing SS. It will be around 4% of the SS. You can use the current system or choose to make a personal account. 4%, not half or your whole SS.

You have a choice.

I like the idea of passing it down after you die. Unlike the old system, if you work from age 18-61 and then die..... sorry, government profits off of you for over 40 years.

And people keep throwing around this number of $2 trillion of more debt. I weish they'd give us a number of how many people would sign up.

The lastest numbers show that this isn't a popular idea, so is the $2 trillon figure inflated?

But the main thing is, you wil not be forced to privatize.

I think payroll taxes may be increased.

[Tiger Al 0]

by partially privatizing SS. It will be around 4% of the SS. You can use the current system or choose to make a personal account. 4%, not half or your whole SS.

You have a choice.

I like the idea of passing it down after you die. Unlike the old system, if you work from age 18-61 and then die..... sorry, government profits off of you for over 40 years.

And people keep throwing around this number of $2 trillion of more debt. I weish they'd give us a number of how many people would sign up.

The lastest numbers show that this isn't a popular idea, so is the $2 trillon figure inflated?

But the main thing is, you wil not be forced to privatize.

157909[/snapback]

I also agree with passing it down.

But, you didn't answer my question. If we are going to have more people applying for SS than we have SS witholding to pay for it, how does his plan address this?

[Auburn85 432]

I think payroll taxes amy be increased, and I think if you choose to privatize, then I guess raise the retirement age by 1 year.

Although I feel all this does is put a bandaid on the problem

I think anytime you try to fix a program this big, it's not going to become solvent overnight. For it to become solvent will take "hard work" and tough times. And I don't mean cut benefits.

I think alot of the pork in this year's proposed budgets should go towards SS.

Also, I've heard that the obesity "epidemic" will drive life expectancy down.

[Tiger Al 0]

I don't have a problem with people diverting some of their SS witholding to personal stock or bond accounts in theory. There's a concern that, in the future, people who made bad investments, got ripped off, etc. will still have financial shortcomings when the 96%, or whatever in ends up being, isn't enough and they present us with an avoidable problem. I suppose that could just be dismissed as "the chance you take," though. I also don't think that, in my case, for example, 4% of $124 per paycheck ($4.96) is going to create the "financial nestegg" that is being touted. Of course, that number will rise through the years (hopefully!) but so will inflation and cost of living.

What it WILL do, I'm afraid, is immediately exacerbate the SS problems. For example, there are approximately 148M people employed in the US. Let's say only 25%, or 37M, elected to divert their funds when it becomes available tomorrow. That adds up to $1.835B that doesn't go toward paying benefits on the following payday. That's not a big hit. This time. As less and less money goes into SS at every payday, the date that SS becomes insolvent rapidly approaches that much faster, doesn't it? Unless, of course, you decrease the number of people receiving the benefit by raising the retirement age, decreasing the amount of money as a benefit, increasing the amount of SS witholding or any combination of those. These things may be necessary anyway, but it seems to me that decreasing the amount of money going into an already overstressed "pot" would mean needing to do these things at a greater proportion.

Would a better idea not be to, in the spirit of having personal accounts, instead of decreasing the amount going into SS by 4% per person, increase witholding by 4% for those who want and sending that amount into the private account? Other fixes would then be more manageable and you'd still get to have some self-direction for your money.

[Tigermike 3,042]

The Democrat's bottom-line "plan" to fix Social Security: "Our plan is to stop Bush." -- Senator Barbara Boxer

Ms. Boxer, your concern for people and country is touching.

[DKW 86 7,433]

Would a better idea not be to, in the spirit of having personal accounts, instead of decreasing the amount going into SS by 4% per person, increase witholding by 4% for those who want and sending that amount into the private account? Other fixes would then be more manageable and you'd still get to have some self-direction for your money.

157920[/snapback]

Al, if you think that is a good idea, I have just lost ALL respect for you. The idea was to wean the Federal Govt off of our money to take them out of the equation altogether. Giving the US Govt 4% more that will assuredly be pissed away on some worthless program with no return, like Snail Darter Reparations or whatever, is the ABSOLUTE WRONG THING TO DO.

The President is now making nice with the Dimwits and saying he will allow a US Saving Bond-T-Bill savings plan. WTH for? We have that now. It is a failure. It will be a failure again. Getting only 1-2% return on your investments is wasting your time and paving the way for a "Dog Food" Retirement.

Dave Ramsey Privatized Account Generator

[Tiger Al 0]

Al, if you think that is a good idea, I have just lost ALL respect for you. The idea was to wean the Federal Govt off of our money to take them out of the equation altogether. Giving the US Govt 4% more that will assuredly be pissed away on some worthless program with no return, like Snail Darter Reparations or whatever, is the ABSOLUTE WRONG THING TO DO.

Dave, put your knee down and actually READ what I said.

increase witholding by 4% for those who want and sending that amount into the private account?

That is exactly what Dubya wants to do, isn't it? I'm saying instead of bringing the crisis home many years earlier by reducing witholding so you can have a private account, increase it by that amount, send that amount to your account where, as Bush promises, gov't. can't touch it.

But, OK...it seems to you that that's crazy talk, so, answer the same question I asked 85:

If we are going to have more people applying for SS than we have SS witholding to pay for it, how does his plan address this?

[Piglet 0]

It "addresses" the problem by intentionally attempting to confuse people about it. The goal of the Republican party remains what it has always been---the elimination of Social Security. They're not trying to save it, but to make its destruction certain.

[Auburn85 432]

oh yeah, privatizing it 4% AT THE TIME....dang your great great great grandchildren will have to deal with no SS.

[DKW 86 7,433]

increase witholding by 4% for those who want and sending that amount into the private account?

Al, why in the world would we do that? Anybody can do that now with a 401K plan at work, or any of 10K brokerage houses. Price-Waterhouse, Schwab, Fidelity, etc, etc. Do a google...

The giving the Fed Govt control over one more dollar is silly in the extreme. Even we two can agree that they cannot be trusted, Dems or Bush Republicans either, with any tax dollars.

It "addresses" the problem by intentionally attempting to confuse people about it. The goal of the Republican party remains what it has always been---the elimination of Social Security. They're not trying to save it, but to make its destruction certain.

No, Piglet, the REAL PROBLEM is that the Fed Govt gets too much of our money now and admittedly no one in Washington, Dems or Bush Republicans, seems intelligent enough to be able to spend it wisely.

I want a Phil Gramm, Newt Gingrich fiscal revolution where we balance the budget tommorow and end these ludicrous idiotic wasteful programs. Reagan was right, the closest thing we have to eternal life in America is an outdated, worthless worthless program. The Dems dont want to improve'alter/reform anything in American govt. At least the Republicans will at least experiment with reform. They dont take the "Mo Money Only" amswer to all programs.

And yes, I am breaking with the W camp on the budget busting. It is just continued porkbarrel spending now.

[Tiger Al 0]

oh yeah, privatizing it 4% AT THE TIME....dang your great great great grandchildren will have to deal with no SS.

158018[/snapback]

I was using YOUR number.

by partially privatizing SS. It will be around 4% of the SS.

Did I misread what YOU said?

[Tiger Al 0]

David, you didn't even address my simple question. How does Bush's plan come up with the money to cover the shortfalls in SS that will occur much faster if we send less money to it?

[DKW 86 7,433]

David, you didn't even address my simple question. How does Bush's plan come up with the money to cover the shortfalls in SS that will occur much faster if we send less money to it?

158023[/snapback]

We are approaching shortfalls now. We will have shortfalls in the future, no doubt about it. The debate is on when and what to do about it. Do we wait till we have shortfalls to act as in the Dem model, 2018, or do we act now?

We will either borrow now to set it up for long term sustainability or we will wait till when it will be far more expensive and do it later.

We need reform now. We can use the market to help us. We shed a ton of waste in the Fed Govt and use that money to finance it. Of course my reasonable idea has no chance to work with the closed minded crowd now in power.

We will see drastic cuts in SS, not now, but in our future. By 2018 we will all be laughing at the promises of the Do-Nothing crowd.

[Tiger Al 0]

We are approaching shortfalls now. We will have shortfalls in the future, no doubt about it. The debate is on when and what to do about it. Do we wait till we have shortfalls to act as in the Dem model, 2018, or do we act now?

I understand what the debate is and what it's about. The solution was debated in the 2000 election five years ago.

We will either borrow now to set it up for long term sustainability or we will wait till when it will be far more expensive and do it later.

How much will we be borrowing? From who? Won't lowering the amount of SS witholding NOW not only bring the SS "crash" to us sooner, but also cost us more? Bush claims that, “In the year 2018, for the first time ever, Social Security will pay out more in benefits than the government collects in payroll taxes.” This is untrue. It has paid more benefits than the gov't. collected 14 times before. Regardless, something DOES need to be done, as the "Do-Nothing" Democrats have asserted before, but I don't see how taking MORE money out of an already cash-strapped system and borrowing MORE money than we already will is going to help.

And, as I illustrated with my own SS witholdings, I don't see how 4%, $4.96 in my case, per paycheck is going to provide me with a seat in the lap of luxury as its being touted. But, for the time being, why not have 104% taken out instead of 96% and send the additional 4% to your personal acct? That way, until SS is fixed we don't cause a greater crisis than we already have. Or, maybe saving SS isn't really the desired outcome.

We will see drastic cuts in SS, not now, but in our future. By 2018 we will all be laughing at the promises of the Do-Nothing crowd.

According to Bush we won't see cuts.

[Auburn85 432]

no cuts 55 and up

and at least that pitiful $4.96 per payday will be there.

I see nothing TRUSTworthy about the current system.

[Tiger Al 0]

and at least that pitiful $4.96 per payday will be there.

Maybe...I'll rely on the $250 per paycheck that goes into my 401k, instead. I've NEVER had the belief that SS was supposed to be a pension plan. Only a corollary safety net to be used in conjunction with a true retirement plan.

[DKW 86 7,433]

Revised Math for Al.

Your withholding on your paycheck is only 6.25% of your income.

Your employer pays an additional 6.25%, making a total of 12.5%.

Bush would take 4% of your Withholding, ie about 2/3rds of your withholding on your check.

As shown with the Dave Ramey calculator before, I would have about 310K in the bank under Bush.

Using your math, you must only make:

((4.96/.04))= $124 a week!

Bush says that if you make $1k/week.

TODAY

You Pay 62.50

Your employer pays 62.50

Total: 125.00

Under Bush

You Pay: 62.50 -- 22.5 SS -- $40.00 Private Account

Employer Pays: 62.50 --62.50 SS

Total: 85.00 SS -- $40.00 Private Account/week.

[Tiger Al 0]

Revised Math for Al.

Are you a smartass with your students, too?

Your withholding on your paycheck is only 6.25% of your income.

Your employer pays an additional 6.25%, making a total of 12.5%.

Bush would take 4% of your Withholding

This is where the confusion is. I read this to mean, well, 4% of my withholding,

which my last paycheck was $124, is what would go into my private account. That would indeed be $4.96. What you are actually saying is 4% of my gross income could go to the account. That makes a difference, in more ways than one. On the one hand, my account would be much larger than I had previously figured and would be more worthwhile. On the other hand, my predicted shortfalls for SS in the immediate future just got infinitely more grim. That's a lot of money to borrow.

[DKW 86 7,433]

and at least that pitiful $4.96 per payday will be there.

Maybe...I'll rely on the $250 per paycheck that goes into my 401k, instead. I've NEVER had the belief that SS was supposed to be a pension plan. Only a corollary safety net to be used in conjunction with a true retirement plan.

158049[/snapback]

Good for you Al, we agree on SS then. I think SS will make great gas money when I retire.

It would be far better if everyone in the US were open and non-hysterical about the looming SS cuts. They are coming for those under 55. They will be huge. They must happen.