One interesting thing about your first statement, "At the end of the Cold War, other conservatives were making the same noises that you're making now". A few years ago I had the opportunity to hear Francis Fukuyama speak. He was the author of The End of History and a later follow up book. I never knew it before then, but he was one of the founding members of the Neo-conservative movement. It was originally started by him and a group of like-minded sorts around a cafeteria table in some ivy-league college (Princeton maybe?). He went on to talk about how the ideals of what they founded were adopted and warped beyond recognition by the Evangelical Christian community in the U.S. and by other conservatives. What was remarkable about the talk was that at the end, he essentially repudiated everything he had originally written in The End of History.

I remember stories my grandparents told of growing up during the Great Depression. I also remember stories from my mom's family of 7 kids growing up poor in Rochester, NY in the post-war era. Perhaps I've inherited an attitude of bite-down and deal with reality from their history.

It's downright eerie.

And it's gotten to the point where "extreme" right-wingers like Pat Buchanan are saying that the bankers and corporate executives are ruining America. Paul Craig Roberts, assistant secretary at the Treasury under Reagan for crying out loud, the guy who helped implement supply-side economics, sounds more like Noam Chomsky than George W. Bush, these days.

It's a topsy-turvy world.

One of the big motivations behind the pushing of non-denominational, stupid christianity as you get these large flocks of people attracted to the personality of the leadership of their church, but there's no doctrinal basis. The Catholics or Lutherans have their issues, but they won't allow the psychotics to retain power within their religion.

The traditional patrician Republicans are getting owned.

And Fox News had such a clear role in making the Tea Party into a meaningful political force that commenting on the connection isn't necessarily even a political statement - it's a historical statement.

I wonder if the powers that be have been purposefully trying to jam media with lots of spurious messages about, "The Truth Behind The Lies," most of which are structurally similar to actual such messages, but otherwise are just junk.

you get these large flocks of people attracted to the personality of the leadership of their church, but there's no doctrinal basis.

Really, this sort of thing isn't that unusual. In places in the US like Cincinnati, with large populations having immigrated generations ago from Ireland, Germany, and Eastern Europe, you have large numbers of people who call themselves "Cultural Catholics." Do they agree with all of the doctrine of the Catholic Church? Heck, a quite a number of them disagree with most of it. Attendance at mass is really just one way they identify their group.

Given that much of the motivation for religious practice is really group affiliation, it's no wonder there's a lot of it organized around personalities.

I have not much to add to your excellent comments, I just wanted to give you a heads-up. I grew up in a former Eastern-European country, and my childhood and teenage years were very much marked by the economic collapse of the post-communist years.

First, regarding the reducing of military spending by the US, I can still remember reading a very beautiful Soviet propaganda magazine in 1989 (with colored pictures and all) about how happy everyone was that the Soviet Army was getting out of Afghanistan and how about everyone will be happy. Then 1991 happened to them and the Soviets disintegrated under their own weight, in many cases leaving military units stranded in foreign territory because the money had just run out. I don't know what the moral of this story should be, maybe that it is never too early to cut military spending. You (the Americans) should do it now.

Second, I have nothing intelligent to say about your health-care system, but regarding Social Security I hope that you, the American people, will find a bunch of decent politicians willing to sacrifice their political careers over this. The reason being that when the money will run out (and at this rate it will definitely run out) no amount of blaming the other party or of accusing the Chinese or the Martians or whatever will make up for the fact that Government-run agencies will have no money to actual do their jobs (and no, inflation, i.e. indefinite printing of money will not help solve this, it will only make it worst). Again, I saw this happening in my country, ~20 years ago, social services going the way of the shitter and basically the entire Government-run infrastructure crumbling on its own weight. It wasn't funny at all.

Care to elaborate? (Preferably in English.)

"Time magazine's Joe Klein has suggested it is legitimate to look at the religion of neoconservatives. He does not say there was a conspiracy but says there is a case to be made for disproportionate influence of Jewish neoconservative figures in US foreign policy, and that several of them supported the Iraq war because of Israel's interests, though sometimes in an unconscious contradiction to American interests: "I do believe that there is a group of people who got involved and had a disproportionate influence on U.S. foreign policy. There were people out there in the Jewish community who saw this as a way to create a benign domino theory and eliminate all of Israel's enemies....I think it represents a really dangerous anachronistic neocolonial sensibility. And I think it is a very, very dangerous form of extremism. I think it's bad for Israel and it's bad for America. And these guys have been getting a free ride. And now these people are backing the notion of a war with Iran and not all of them, but some of them, are doing it because they believe that Iran is an existential threat to Israel."[75]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism

There is an ethical problem with using surplus social security revenues to fund tax cuts to non-contributors and then claim there isn't money left to pay back the workers who contributed in good faith. But this isn't a problem with bureaucracy so much as a problem with the Republican Party.

Second, you mention the money "to pay back the workers who contributed." There was never any money to pay back. Social Security was always a pay-as-you-go system. Current revenue pays for current appropriations. There was never any "trust fund," another fact that smoothed the way for Congresscritters to raid Social Security and replace the surplus with Treasury IOUs.

This system was feasible when there were ten workers being taxed for each retiree receiving benefits. With the graying of the Baby Boomers, that ratio will approach parity. Another commenter on this thread mentioned that the best thing to have done to Social Security would be to build an electric fence around it. A good idea. Too late. Congress has fleeced it.

Second, that doesn't change the social contract we have with people who have spent their entire lives paying out up to $6000 a year in wages to the fund.

Third, yes, while baby boomers retire, it will run a deficit. But if the surpluses over the last SEVENTY YEARS hadn't been diverted to the general fund, they'd have enough in the "lock box" (that Al Gore advocated for in the 2000 election) to pay for 'boomer retirements.

Look at the predictions made by FDR's guys in 193(4?) about social security. They are surprisingly correct. They saw this coming. The only thing they didn't do is force a segregation of funds.

A good reason not to trust the government to keep a forced retirement account on your behalf. Someone is going to get the short end of the stick here eventually.

I would prefer that people own up to this and we set up an orderly, phased dismantling of the program, but that doesn't seem very likely. Politicians and head-in-the-sand populace apparently insist on a single disastrous collapse that leaves millions insolvent rather than admitting and accepting that there will be some controlled loss involved in a phaseout.

As for investing pensions in the stock market, I'll merely add that in Australia, where we've had superannuation for 20 -odd years, all usually invested in stocks, there were are a large number of people who thought they were going to retire in 2008 (my parents amongst them) who are now still working.

Psychologically, does it work? In general, if you tell a 22-year-old that in 40-something years he's going to really need some of the money he's making now (even if he feels like he's barely paying his bills), that he absolutely must set aside enough (and invest it wisely, assuming he has the wisdom to do so), will he manage to do it?

From what I understand of human psychology, the answer isn't "yes" nearly enough to make your solution palatable.

It sets up a good learning experience for him when he finally gets to retirement age and finds himself as a greeter in Walmart, but it's way, way too late at that point.

No one wore seatbelts before they were legally required (and still many don't, and many still die because of that dumb decision). People don't, as a rule, have a good grasp of the distant future and/or events that seem unlikely. How many people are still starting smoking, even though it says "cigarettes kill" in big black letters on that first pack they buy?

There are plenty of problems with the US social security system, but removing the safety net entirely to teach a lesson to people who fail to adequately prepare for their old age doesn't feel like a sound approach to me.

Do you support alcohol prohibition? Alcohol leads to much more damage than even smoking from an emotional and psychological perspective.

What if, one day, the government decides that people who buy Japanese cars are a danger to themselves since they are costing the American car companies so much money by refusing to buy home-grown goods? The people just don't have the foresight to understand that buying Honda today means depression throughout Michigan tomorrow. Shouldn't we protect people from that eventuality by ensuring that they only buy domestic vehicles?

How far do we take this? Why do we believe that the politicians have such a heightened sense of foresight and such impeccably unselfish motives? I don't vote for people so they can do my thinking for me, I vote for people who I think will best represent important core principles, like retaining individual free exercise of conscience (like the choice to buy American or foreign cars, even if it will cost Michigan a lot of jobs).

The attitude that we need the government to protect us from our own decisions is in fact extremely dangerous and insidious. Old people survived for thousands of years before the implementation of social security -- if the industrial society doesn't support old people well enough, we have to tweak it so that these things work instead of doing these grotesque hacks of taking > 10% of an average person's salary every year to pay to support your grandpa's RV tour of the US.

This is partly why I hate political discussions as-they-are-played... everyone has such strong opinions based on incredibly tenuous links to actual history, studies, etc.. Just "this is how it is, how it has always been, and if only I were in control I'd have this all tidied up right quick."

Of course I don't support alcohol prohibition. Haven't we tried that? Did it work? Also: we weren't talking about making smoking illegal, just about human psychology, and how people aren't logical. To actually give people better lives requires science, not "more laws" or "fewer laws".

I don't disagree with you on your other examples, generally, but I'll refrain from offering other examples that are obvious in the other direction... it doesn't get us very far.

"I don't vote for people so they can do my thinking for me" -- I half agree with this. I will gladly vote for someone who has thought and researched more deeply on important topics than I have, provided they can explain themselves and advance my own knowledge. In the end we are responsible as citizens for who we elect, so I do agree it's not much use to be snowed by anyone who uses big words or says they have the solutions.

For core principles, though... this is much trickier. Principles, in abstract, are useless. I agree totally with some of my older relatives' politics, when we talk only in terms of principles ("we need better education! critical thinking!"), but when we get into applying the principles we're miles apart.

"Free exercise of conscience", what does that mean in terms of specific issues? We should rely on lynch mobs instead of police? Citizen militias to take out unfair monopolies?

I'm in favor of encouraging responsible citizens who can think critically. I'm not at all convinced that your suggestions (inasmuch as I've seen them) would do that, based on what I know of human psychology.

I also have a suspicion that your idea of what social security payments will cover is a bit overblown. I don't have any living grandparents left, but my father is losing his house and has no medical insurance, in spite of social security.

While there is some migration to the richest province, that has more to do with jobs related to the oil boom there, and the low taxes there are due to oil revenues.

Such a decision is overridable by 50%+1 of the legislative body--that same number that is would take to spend the money.

Okay, yes, a constitutional amendment would work, but I suspect most legislators proposing a "wall" like the one in question would be lukewarm to the idea.

Just to be clear -- that would effect me, so I'm not advocating for others to pay the price.

2. Your characterization of the "feasibility" of the social security program is wildly inaccurate. Seriously, instead of turning yourself inside out trying to claim that Republicans didn't setup a system that had workers pay MORE into the system than they were taking out for 30 years, why not just roll back the Bush tax cuts and call it a day?

"Add together the unfunded liabilities from Medicare and Social Security, and it comes to $99.2 trillion over the infinite horizon. Traditional Medicare composes about 69 percent, the new drug benefit roughly 17 percent and Social Security the remaining 14 percent." –Richard W. Fisher, Dallas Federal Reserve President, May 28, 2008 [1]

1. http://www.dallasfed.org/news/speeches/fisher/2008/fs080528....

Returning to the issue of social security, the statistic Fisher cites comes from Table IV.B6 of the trustees’ report, which is extremely conservative in its assumptions (assuming essentially zero productivity growth over the next 50 years) and thus - even at the worst - would require only a minor tax addition to permanently solve without reducing benefits.

I do not much like your suggestion that since the Republicans instituted tax cuts the surplus is gone and there's nothing we can do about it, but will add only that if Gore's proposal had been adopted (Republicans at the time were championing the terrible idea of dumping social security funds into the stock market while cutting top-end taxes), even the "infinite horizon" figure would be nowhere near where it currently is and it would likely be possible to reduce the payroll tax or increase benefits. And given all this, I don't know how to reconcile your claim that this is not a Republican problem with the fact you claim to be a rational fiscal conservative.

Medicare is a another story altogether. Fact is, a 1960-style PPO for every old person just isn't sustainable when health costs rise like 13% per year.

It would be interesting if these funds could invest (limited amounts) in some other type of security, but for now, they are limited to Federal securities. Imagine the sway on the market a $2.7 trillion fund would have.

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/fundFAQ.html#n7

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/specialissues.html

Social Security was <i>never</i> self-sustaining. It's doomed by demographics and has been since the day it was enacted.

Not having read the North Atlantic Treaty, I don't know that the US has any special obligation above and beyond the rest of the NATO members. Yes, the US is obligated by treaty to defend Latvia, but by the same token Latvia is obligated by treaty to defend the US. American deployments to Europe are likely above and beyond American treaty obligations.

And, in fact, the only time that Article 5 of the NATO treaty -- the mutual self-defence article -- has been invoked was after 9/11, when the US used it to drag the rest of NATO into Afghanistan.

The article says:

" Five NATO planes have arrived at Tinker Air Force Base in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma"

and:

"Most of the United States' 30 AWACS, based at Tinker, have been flying around-the-clock surveillance of U.S. airspace..."

In my opinion, the phrase, "a good chunk of" is dubious. In a few minutes of Googling, I could find no indication of how many missions (if any) those NATO planes flew.

http://www.nato.int/docu/review/2006/issue2/english/art2.htm...

Fred Kaplan:

"Aside from letting a handful of NATO's AWACS radar planes come help patrol American skies, Bush's response was a shockingly terse: Thanks, but no thanks; we'll handle it by ourselves. Marc Grossman, the undersecretary of state for political affairs, later admitted to the Washington Times that the United States initially 'blew off' the allies. Douglas Feith, the undersecretary of defense for policy, said that the United States, in the Times' words, 'was so busy developing its [Afghanistan] war plans that it did not have time to focus on coordinating Europe's military role.'

"The effect, of course, was to alienate the allies just as they were rediscovering their affections. As London's conservative Financial Times later put it, 'A disdainful refusal even to respond to a genuine offer of support from close allies, at the time of America's most serious crisis in decades, spoke volumes about its attitude to the alliance.'"

http://www.slate.com/id/2088113/pagenum/all/

(The similarity between the "thanks but no thanks" phrase used by Kaplan and the one used by me is a complete coincidence. I found this article this afternoon when googling for something to support a rebuttal.)

That's why in some ways, watching the government on the brink of default is exciting. For once there's nothing the Cool People can do.

Other departments can't touch the SSA's budget-- because it's the SSA's budget.

I've often argued that SSA should be allowed to invest some portion of the surplus (perhaps 10-20%) in AAA-rated municipal bonds. Perhaps the downgrade today will prompt more people to consider this.

http://aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com/

and not skim and look to argue. read charitably and see if you can still buy into her ideas, after reading some articulate people dissecting them (and seeing rand's defenders try and fail to defend via the comments sections).

I stopped reading your comment after that sentence with the assumption that all of your other points would be equally dumb.

The neocons are not nice people. They will call you names for all kinds of silly and/or evil reasons. And they will demand that you think of them as the Righteous Good Guys every step of the way.