Comments

1
I really hate the term, 'privatization.' It's a bullshit term. What it really is, and what it should be called is 'profitization.'

Call it what it is.
2
This is what big time Republican corruption looks like. They can wash their hands while their rich friends rob the public. You see it over and over again. Sigh. Americans really are clueless saps.
3
Hiring a private firm to manage pension obligations is not privatization in any sense related to what libertarians have proposed for social security. The social security proposal is to give everyone individual accounts which they can choose to be managed in a variety of ways by a variety of competing management firms. Such system has been successfully implemented in several countries. Hiring a private investment firm to manage a fund over which the pensioner has no direct control is what firms like Boeing that still offer defined-benefit pensions do; I thought unions and their leftist allies were keen to preserve and extend this practice.
4
George W. Bush and his administration had plans to add OPTIONAL federally matched mutual (401K-type) savings accounts where a portion of a tax payer's social security payment would OPTIONALLY be applied to that. It was a supplemental approach, not a replacement.
Of course, there are those of you who said it was the first step of a slippery slope. It was not.
Indeed, since 2008 mutual fund investments have more than doubled. Imagine if nearly every American had a slice of that. That's what George W. Bush wanted.
But continue to rewrite history as you see fit, Paul.
5
@4- Jane, you ignorant slut.
Social security is an insurance program. What makes it work, and it does, you ignorant slut, is that everyone contributes. And despite what your ignorant slut brain might believe, it is in no danger of going bankrupt soon. Any future shortfalls can be solved by doing away with the cap on contributions. Immigration also helps expand the insurance pool.
These are real world solutions, however, so most likely they are alien concepts to you.
6
@4: More people have money in mutual funds, ok, so how are their returns?
7
Next up: privatizing your transportation system.
8
@3,

Since you fucking love the free market, does it occur to you, the difference between a private corporation like Boeing choosing to use an investment firm (with the proviso that Boeing can easily change firms if it doesn't like the results) and a politician handing a public pension fund over to his political donors (with the clear implication that the inherent graft means the firm can do whatever the fuck it wants with public money)?

I disagree with your politics, but I know you're not this stupid.

Also, Republicans have suggested placing some amount of the Social Security trust in the hands of private investors. It was their big thing pre-Bush II.
9
Obviously, in your retarded attempt to blame Christie for one more thing, you have failed to even try and understand how pension funds actually work.

In reality, most pension funds have begun to employ an approach where high returns are not the sole focus of the Fund's investment objectives. Mitigating risk is now the main focus these days and that involves investing in some financial strategies which do not boom and bust based on market cycles. This is designed to prevent the massive drawdowns in pension assets that we saw in 2008/09. (You honestly should be applauding the New Jersey approach, but I'm sure that would make your little partisan brain explode.)

Obviously, Paul is not an intellectual, or a pension or a political expert so you sort of have to forgive his attempt at skewering a political opponent with no context at all. But then again, that is the Stranger's M.O.
10
@5: Be that as it may, nothing I said was not factual. I was correcting Paul's incorrect asseterion.
11
@ 10, you made false statements about the nature and purpose of pre-K education on the Saturday Morning News thread, and exposed the degree to which you disdain public education expenditure by falsely stating that "school begins at age six" when in fact it begins everywhere at age five.

Why should anyone else at Slog take you seriously?
12
@9: Yeah, those danged facts, always getting in the way of your imagination!
13
@11: You're not adding to the conversation, just throwing off-topic barbs over old wounds you're still licking.
14
@13 that's the story of your life. Oh the irony.
15
@14: If you're unable to provide commentary on the context of my exact comment, any response I give to you is totally superfluous. That goes for Matt in Denver and Pol Pot as well.
16
How much investment are we talking about?
17
Privatizing pensions and privatizing social security are just euphemism. Call it what it is: corporatism.
State employees deserve the pensions they've always had. If you want to give the OPTION of 401(k) to younger new hires, that's one thing, but taking money that was already put away and investing it without permission of the workers involved is close to fraud.

And no, social security should NEVER be privatized. But younger Americans should have a choice to opt out and pay a far lower tax to keep those who already depend on SS paid while they have more money to save as they see fit. I am against privatized social security (as are most Libertarians) but at the same time if SS so good, why do people have to be forced into it? Just give people a choice, that is all we ask.
18
@17: Seat belts are a good thing too. They save many lives at the cost of an extra three seconds to get in and out of your car and the occasional mild discomfort. And yet we need to mandate that people wear them or face a fine.
People aren't always capable of knowing what's in their best interests. (Another example: so-called "WalMart Republicans".) That is where capitalism fails.
19
@18: but I don't want to pay for the protections everyone else does! I just want the benefits!
20
It's all about the grift. Well connected cronies skim public money into their own pockets. Politicians retire and go through the revolving door and become cash skimming cronies themselves.
Yes, this is prevalent with Republicans - but Democrats do it also. Our political debates would be more fruitful if we call it like it is and stop pretending only one party is corrupt.
21
@ 15, you turn tail and flee conversations when we show you to be the fool you are.

"Licking old wounds." Projection, thy name is Raindrip.
22
@21: You still have not provided commentary on @4. Talk about fleeing.
23
Raindrip, you can't "flee" from a conversation in which you take no part. That's the difference between my commentary here, which is solely focused on your lack of credibility on any topic, and your commentary on Saturday's news thread, in which you inserted your ignorant opinion on one of its actual topics and then fled without acknowledgement when we pointed out the factual errors therein.
24
@17: SS is not an investment in you the individual. I will never recoup the money I have paid into the system during my working years.

But it is not all about YOU. It is about supporting others as well. You know, being an actual productive member of society, instead of a bitter person who only cares about themselves.

25
@8 I disagree with your politics, but I know you're not this stupid.

Meh...stupid|crazy like a fox.

Divide and conquer - no volume discount and lots of un-saavy rubes from whom to milk, one private individual at a time, exorbitant fees. Stealing all the vig off each individual's meagre savings.
26
@23: Factual errors? Not at all. Even though studies show kids do great in day care doesn't mean that a life at home bonding is not preferred. "A" can be true and "B" can be true, but the fact that "A" is true does not make "B" false.
You also disregard anything I write, like Pol Pot, and use me to unload on all things you hate conservative or republican or libertarian.
I afford you intellectual courtesy, all I request is that you afford me the same.
27
@ 26, For the third this is factually incorrect:

"Preschool has the prefix, pre, which liberals are always forgetting. The government should not be taxing for "pre" anything. School starts at 6 years, period."

School starts at five. Also:

"@11: I was well aware of the tired talking points. They make no difference. Preshool = Daycare = glorified infant and toddler warehousing."

Preschoolers are not infants or toddlers, and pre-K education is just that - education. That is fact and not opinion.

Tell me, have you spent any time in a certified preschool in the past 25 years? I have, and it's not simply playtime, snacks and potty breaks.

If you want intellectual (or any other kind of) courtesy, you'll have to stop pretending that I'm not citing your errors when I charge you with making them.
28
@27: First grade starts at 6 years old. That may vary depending on the school district.
I once attended a lecture given by a psychotherapist with her masters in family counseling and she asked the audience "whom of you would like to be born into a two parent household and raised in your earliest years by your parents and family." Nearly all raised their hands. Then she asked about a household raised by a nanny. A few raised their hands. Then she asked about raised in day care and nobody raised their hands.
Why would adults feel that way? It's because they remember those times. Children adapt and are incredibly resilient. A few more years at home far out weighs any kick start educationally as those precious years are precious times for both parent and child, unencumbered by schedules, driving to and from, etc.
Of course for some parents, day care in unavoidable and I respect that. But it is something the taxpayers should not be required to support.
That psychologist was Dr. Laura Schlesinger. Far more qualified to speak on these matters than you, or anyone at The Stranger.
29
@27: On top of that, socialization is an important part of the education process, which is a huge benefit to preschools.
30
@29: Children also develop socialization skills at home, with their family, and other kids.
Robin Williams had great socialization skills, BTW. Did he live a happy life to its conclusion?
31
And so did Ted Bundy.
32
@28: Turns out that's wrong, preschool is linked to far better results than no preschool. But congrats on using a tiny bit of anecdotal preferences to weigh against actual science.

http://nieer.org/resources/research/Pres…

Far more qualified to speak on this matter than you, or Dr. Schlesinger.
33
@30/31: Great job cherry picking end results after many other years and factors and using it to discount all the things they did. Hitler ate food, look how THAT turned out!
Would you like to have an intellectually honest discussion about this or just try to win cheap points with atrocious argumentation and no logic?
34
@33: Any study of fact that you can assert that daycare is better than no daycare is because you have adults with an agenda, not what's best for childhood development, bonding, and those early years.

You, are a childhood hater.
35
@24
http://img1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20130…

ahh, I know that SS is about supporting people. Which is why I said: "younger Americans should have a choice to opt out and pay a far lower tax to keep those who already depend on SS paid while they have more money to save as they see fit." As in if you opt out, you still pay, but a lower rate just to support those who are already on it.

Why do so many liberals have so much trouble understanding what is typed? (read: so many, NOT all)
I type "Americans of African ancestry (like myself) should be proud of who they are!" And people reply with "Who are you to tell them to go back to African!?"
36
^I meant "back to Africa" Sorry.
37
@18 You said: "People aren't always capable of knowing what's in their best interests. (Another example: so-called "WalMart Republicans".) That is where capitalism fails."
I give you credit: you're honest about being anti-choice and anti-liberty.
Yes, I am against seat belt laws. If you want to risk it, go ahead, by all means, get into a car accident and die. Your life. I am against bans on junk food. Your body, your choice. I am against the war on drugs: your body, your choice. I am against high taxes: your money, your choice. I am against mandatory retirement savings: want to risk not having enough to live off? By all means, your choice.
Capitalism is an awful system, I admit...but it is a lot less awful then every other system. Why? Because it allows for human freedom. One is free to start their own business, buy what they want, work for who agrees to hire them for whatever they or perhaps their union agree on, free to say what one wants, do with one's body that they want etc. And with the freedom comes the responsibility to take care of one's self and one's community.

Why not ban weed again? After all, it isn't good for you: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23846… Or how about anal sex? Should the government require people use lube? http://www.sandyford.org/adults,-parents…

In your world, where does The State making decisions for the individual end? Can you even give a simple answer, or is it arbitrary ? (seat belt laws yes, weed bans no) The voluntaryist philosophy is simple: As long as it doesn't harm another, or their property*, and no one can be coerced by the state into doing anything but refraining from harming anyone or their property* it is permitted. No victim? No Crime.

*By "harm" we include child molestation and neglect, fraud along with the obvious, and by "property" we include the environment, which is everyone's private property, along with the obvious.
38
@37 Why not I'm bored.

Tell me Collectivism_sucks how exactly would your Utopian government of minarchism actually work? How would it arrive at a decision? Even in your most absurd "I'm a Libertarian and I believe X" rants you grant that there would be some form of government. How would it function?

Don't tell me what decisions you would want that Minarchist government to make, the question is how would the system function?
39
@ 28, good god.

FIRST GRADE ISN'T THE FIRST YEAR OF SCHOOL. KINDERGARTEN IS. BY LAW. EVERYWHERE IN AMERICA.

AT AGE FIVE.

And, BTW... Dr. Laura? She was not a child psychologist. She was NOT more qualified to speak about it.

Anyway, no you're just lying. PRE-K is EDUCATION. Ted Bundy had terrible socialization skills, being both a psychopath and victim of horrible child abuse. Christ, it's not enough to use a fallacious argument by bringing up cherry picked exames; they aren't truthful to begin with.

You have really and truly jumped into Seattleblues/loveschild/SROTU territory when it comes to destroying all of your own credibility.
40
* examples
41
No, first grade is called first grade. There is no truancy for kindergarten.

Ted Bundy fooled lots of women, didn't he? He got want he wanted. He was a sociopath. Many sociopaths have great socialization skills to fool their victims.

You shouldn't criticize professionals like Dr. Laura. She has far more understanding in these matters than you or even I.

There is no need for daycare (or the whitewashed euphemism of pre-school). It should be a last resort, but unfortunately it has become a crutch for selfish parents whom will undoubtedly regret the golden moments they could have had watching their babies grow.

42
@37: Did you seriously just compare requiring that people driving on public roads wear seat belts to requiring that people doing the sideways samba in the privacy of their own homes use lube? If you don't see the glaring difference inherent then you're dumber than I thought.
You're up to your old tricks with your use of references. The abstract you linked to does not say that marijuana is bad for you, but rather that smoking lots and lots of marijuana leads to a higher risk of lung cancer.

You like to paint me as "anti-liberty" and "anti-choice", but you're spouting empty platitudes.
The social contract is thus: you give up some rights to some degree in exchange for some protections and some benefits. At the most obvious, we give up the right to keep all our income to ourselves in exchange for the services provided by our government. You say that high taxes (to your arbitrary standard) are an intrusion on liberty but that low taxes aren't, but any tax at all means that the State can stake a claim to some of your property contingent to certain rules. Distinctions between high taxes and low taxes are subjective.

The question is, do you believe the state is entitled to any authority over its citizens? If so, your purported grievances are absurd. (I have no problem with you thinking that a given policy is a bad idea, but calling it tyrannical or similar is nonsensical in the overwhelming majority of cases.) If not, I'm sure you can find a flight to Somalia.
43
@ 41 YES THERE IS TRUANCY FOR KINDERGARTEN.

Fuck's sake.

Everything you say is false.
44
@43: No, you are incorrect. Cite any occurrence where a child has been found by the court of any Colorado county in violation of kindergarten (state or federal) truancy laws and I'll donate $50 to the any Denver Colorado charity of your choice. You can verify because I'll include the "raindrop" in all correspondence.
45
Being that I am an alumni of the University of Denver, I am very proud to make that claim.
46
Or, we can duke it in on one of the sleazy dives you frequent on Colfax. Pool, darts, or arm wrestle. I'll win.
I love being accommodating to my fellow beloved Sloggers. Wimpy as they are.
48
22-33:104. Compulsory school attendance:
every child who has attained the age of six years...


Sorry. But you did try.
49
Ha ha!

Raindrip, I'm about to do something that you would do if you were mature and capable of not being emotionally invested in your opinions - admit I was wrong. I was positive Kindergarten was mandatory. I was wrong, and you forced me to look it up. So kudos to you on that point.

However, it doesn't help your position any, and you should emulate me and acknowledge that. We pay taxes for half day Kindergarten, even though it's not mandatory. Therefore saying "school starts at six" has no bearing on whether we should pay for pre-K.

Secondly, you must admit the following if you wish to win back your credibility:

3 and 4 year olds are not toddlers or infants.

You don't know the difference between daycare and pre-school.

You have never set foot inside a preschool as an adult.

Your opinions are based only on disdain for children, not any sense of what's best for society.

Admit these things, OR demonstrate why I did not reach those conclusions upon a fair reading of your comments.

Can you do it?
50
@35: You still need to figure out where all the money is going to come from if you let people decide to pay less, genius.

Your point is basically:

X needs Y amount of money, and if we let people opt to pay a total less than Y, we will magically still have Y at the end of the day.

51
@49: Matt, the reason we're at odds on this one is because I'm arguing from the heart and the human condition: Why force kids into the regimentation of pre-school and maintaining schedules at such an early age? You can't get those early years of innocence and bonding back.
Indeed I have been in both daycares and pre-schools. The blur between the two is legendary and very subjective. Many are better than others. Like the one at the health club I go to where I invariably see "Mommy, I don't wanna go" - "Mommy, please no..." as he is dragged into the building by his mother.
If you don't have to subject all that to a child, then why not wait? Why expect anxious little boys to sit quietly and clasp their hands politely in class when they should be outside running around, all the time too!
I bet you're not opposed to giving kids Ritalin. That selfish adult practice, by the way, will prevent that boy or girl from ever entering the military when they grow up.

Children who just enter 1st grade can also also exceed. Their aptitude for learning does not dissipate as they grow. I don't believe that Einstein went to pre-school.
Just because a study says something can be beneficial does not mean one should do it, or ask taxpayers to pay for it.
Taking another example: veterinarians will often convince that their cats need to be anesthetized each year for teeth cleaning to prevent decay.
Well, yes, it will prevent decay but it also unnecessarily put the cat into unconsciousness with harsh chemicals and a number of possible side effects. Crunchy treats do the job, is far less expensive, and not traumatic for the cat.



52
Arguing from the heart? In other words, playing a game in which you can't be wrong because facts don't need to be in evidence? And alsi frees you up to level baseless charges at me - what makes you so omniscient as to know my opinion about ritalin? I demand you apologize for that. (Your remark about it making children unsuitable for military service later un life, if true, is not exactly a winning argument against its use.)

You can argue all you want about what you feel is best for children. But since this is a matter of policy, you need to stick to the realm of facts.

Such as: The studies showing the benefits of early childhood education are NOT bought and paid for by interested parties who stand to gain from universal preschool, as you allege. Please admit that's not true.

Such as: comparing all children to Einstein (the product of an educational system substantially different from ours, never mind time and place) will make nearly every child look like a failure.

Such as: you haven't proved that you have really observed a preschool, if you haven't been inside one with the teachers and children for their full, 2+ hour session. Observing a few unhappy children being dropped off tells you nothing. It doesn't even tell you why the child is unhappy. Admit that you do not have this experience.

Finally, I still charge that you admit you screwed up when you described preschool age children as toddlers and infants.
53
@52: I apologize for the ritalin remark, and you should apologize for the pre-school remark as I had to pass by it to get to the locker room and I've looked in and observed classes from afar (not being a parent) and being a health club there's all sorts of activities like swimming and basketball - so that's good.

I clarify my stance to say that pre-school can be beneficial, but just that there is no reason for it as there are other more important things for a new life.
54
@ 53, apology accepted, but not reciprocated because classroom participation isn't achieved from afar, and there's no way to observe how much learning is happening. Also, I did say "accredited" back when I fist asked about it. Certification by the NAEYC is best, but Qualstar is valid too. Preschools aren't regulated for educational standards as far as I know of, even when associated with school districts, which is likely a factor in the disparities you cite.
55
@42
You said, and I will copy and paste it: "People aren't always capable of knowing what's in their best interests."
This is the trailer for an AWFUL adaption of the first dystopian novel I ever read, "The Giver". At 1:13 in, the antagonist says essentially the same thing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSQcvz7Y…

I say we let people make decisions. As long as it isn't hurting anyone else, who the fuck cares? Your life, your choice, and the State has no business as long as you aren't committing aggression. If you want to run down the street holding sharp as hell scissors, who cares? If you want to drink a Coke big enough to bath a German Shepard in it, who cares? If you want to drive without a seat belt, putting only yourself in danger, who cares?

And I said, POINT BLANK, what government should do. Here it is again and I hope you understand this time: The voluntaryist philosophy is simple: As long as it doesn't harm another, or their property*, and no one can be coerced by the state into doing anything but refraining from harming anyone or their property* it is permitted. No victim? No Crime.

*By "harm" we include child molestation and neglect, fraud along with the obvious, and by "property" we include the environment, which is everyone's private property, along with the obvious.

BUT, realistically, we understand that the government should do a bit more for the foreseeable future, like roads, bridges, water, education, and some social programs like Social Security, which we would reform (allow people to opt out and pay less in exchange for not collecting themselves) but certainly not end.

And as for taxes, anything more than 10% of an average person's income is too high...by "average" I mean not a millionaire. I would be fine with taxing the rich more and keeping or, in the case of Washington, creating a progressive tax. But when I see 20+% of my money going to fund endless wars on the command of George W Obama, the war on drugs, endless government bureaucracies etc and I am far from rich, what am I suppose to be but angry?
Lysander Spooner said it best: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6iHr69Lb…
In short, I see taxation as a necessary evil and the less evil, the better.

56
@50
http://www.quickmeme.com/img/e4/e4a13e33…

Like I said, TWICE, if people agree NOT TO COLLECT and in exchange pay but pay LESS we will be able to fund SS for those who are depending on it now by what is SAVED BY NOT COVERING THOSE WHO WOULD RATHER PAY LESS.

If a person does not want SS, they can agree to pay only enough to support those who are dependent on it now and in the near future and not enough for dependency years from now, i.e., what they would collect.

In other words, Social Security is what I am paying for those who are dependent on it now (X) and what it cost to keep it funded for the future (Y). Remove Y and keep X, and you end up with just X which is a lower amount then X+Y. How is that so difficult to understand?
57
@55: It may seem scary to you, but it's true that people often don't know what's in their own best interests. As for your "No victim? No crime" truism, allow me to tell you a thing.
Consumer protection laws. Among many other things, they say that you can't put certain substances in food and then sell it to people. According to you, companies should be allowed to offer products with dangerous additives in them; after all, they're open with their customers about what's in there, and if people want to make the choice to buy said products, that's their right to do so. And yet legalizing such practices would lead to literally thousands of deaths every year.

You want a government that leaves you the fuck alone. I want a government that cares for and protects its citizens. You think the individual is the most important thing there is. I can see things larger than myself.
58
Game, set and match to VL.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.