"One financial planner, who has dual citizenship in the United States and Greece, said he was not taking chances. 'Having seen what happened in Greece, I feel even more strongly today that I should not count on any Social Security for me and my younger clients,' said the planner, George Papadopoulos, 43, of Novi, Mich. 'I will continue to tell clients not to highly rely on Social Security and think of any money coming their way as gravy.'"
Replies (62)
Financial planners, at least the ones worth their salt, have been saying that for years.
President Bush tried to change it, by privatizing a portion of Social Security, taking it out of Congress' hands and putting it in yours, but the Congress defeated it. It seems the idea of not being able to spend your Social Security contributions before you get them is a 'risky scheme', in their view, and something to be shunned.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Aug 2, 2010, at 8:15 AM
I think even a riskier scheme is letting congress control my money.
-- Posted by Mowrangler on Mon, Aug 2, 2010, at 8:47 AM
I think even a riskier scheme is letting congress control my money.
-- Posted by Mowrangler on Mon, Aug 2, 2010, at 8:47 AM
And then there's this:
What Don't You Understand About "It's Not Your Money?"
-- Posted by blogbudsman on Mon, Aug 2, 2010, at 9:27 AM
That's right. Letting people keep more of their own money is 'welfare'. Giving some people more of other people's money is 'compassion', according to the 'The New Dictionary of Left-Speak'.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Aug 2, 2010, at 10:02 AM
Social Secrity has long been considered (by politicians) the third rail of politics.
Let me ask you, what do you suppose will happen if the government defaults on Social Security and can't make the payments anymore. Any idea the number of SS recipients and what they will do?
Suspect the reaction will not be a pretty sight.
-- Posted by voyager on Mon, Aug 2, 2010, at 11:37 AM
The simple fact is: the programme is not sustainable at current levels. The logical solution would be to curtail increases and/or reduce benefits slightly while allowing payments to catch up, but that ain't gonna happen. Even when their own formulae dictate that there should be no Cost-of-Living-Increase, Mr. Obama and the congress decided to give a 'bonus' (which we couldn't afford, but gave anyhow) to make up for the shortfall.
The Congress will not act to save it until absolutely necessary, because they do not want to hamper their ready access to all those contributions, which they use to make up for revenue shortfalls, and because they do not want to risk the wrath of angry recipients when they find their entitlement's cut. Every Congressman that can read knows that the current levels are unsustainable, yet they continue to put off action.
President Bush showed that you can touch the 'third rail' and live, but that wasn't enough to convince the Congress. The people, including the recipients of Social Security funds, realize that the system has be fixed at some point. The people who are paying into the system, and not yet seeing the benefits, are the ones whose voice will have to be heard, loudly, before anything will finally be done.
President Bush's plan was a prudent one. It did not affect the benefits of those currently receiving Social Security, did not threaten the benefits of those close to retirement, and privatized only a portion of the contributions of those 15 or more years from retirement. This would have 'transitioned' younger generations into the privatized version of the system, while gradually reducing the amount of Social Security receipts that Congress had ready access to spending. Unfortunately, Not even the Republicans in Congress could conceive of not having access to all that money. The measure failed.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Aug 2, 2010, at 11:53 AM
So it is "sustainable" as long as the magic act continues. Reason tells us it won't continue. Plain and simple, the time will come when the government (as we have known it) will have no other choice but default. There are a hell of a lot of voters who receive and depend on their SS checks. When the time comes that the scam can no longer be covered, what do you think WILL happen? There are enough votes involved that can ruin any politician regardless of party.
-- Posted by voyager on Mon, Aug 2, 2010, at 12:13 PM
Voyager wrote:
"There are enough votes involved that can ruin any politician regardless of party."
Not necessarily. There are a lot of votes, but they can be countered by the votes of those who are currently paying for the scheme, as opposed to those who are benefitting therefrom. The politician(s) addressing it will have to stick their neck out, to be sure, but that's the only way to make progress.
It's like a cancer that should not be ignored, yet we ignore it. We can feel the pain, we know what is happening, but we're afraid of what the doctor will tell us when we seek treatment, so we pretend everything is fine and it will work itself out in the long run. Like cancer, we can only ignore it so long before it becomes untreatable.
It's clear that the current administration and the current Congress aren't going to do anything about it.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Aug 2, 2010, at 12:21 PM
The point, Hunter, is ultimately it can no longer be avoided. What will then happen? Revolution? Something will have to happen. What?
-- Posted by voyager on Mon, Aug 2, 2010, at 1:53 PM
Voyager wrote:
"The point, Hunter, is ultimately it can no longer be avoided. What will then happen? Revolution? Something will have to happen. What?"
I'm not sure what you're saying can no longer be avoided. Change has to happen, the question is what and how drastic. Minor changes such I suggested, ending the COLA's and reductions in benefits would be hard for recipients to swallow, but they won't be devestating, in which case the reaction may not be so bad.
Drastic reductions will result in outright warfare, legislatively and electorally if not physically. The 'takers' will seek to oust the fiscally responsible and replace them with 'eat the rich' liberals that, they hope, will keep the monies flowing. Those fed up with being taken from will seek to bolster the ranks of the fiscally responsible. If the issue cannot be resolved electorally (with a fiscally responsible legislature), their will be blood, methinks.
But, there could be some form of unexpected solution. A seisachtheia of sorts, or a buy-out plan that resolves the issue peacefully. Who knows? Perhaps the powers-that-be, sensing the impending collapse of their ivory tower, will appoint a capable and inventive leader to resolve the situation, our own Solon of Athens, if you will.
I'm sure, just as in Solon's case, the solution will not be palatable to everyone, but it needn't be to head off insurrection, it merely need to placate a majority.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Aug 2, 2010, at 2:04 PM
The current trend to redistribute wealth could solve the question of social security by taking away the age factor of the program and using a minimum living standard enhancement plan that would provide payments to eliminate the need for retirement checks from social security.
At least I wouldn't be suprised to hear something as convuluted coming from polititans in some sort of double speak.
-- Posted by Old John on Mon, Aug 2, 2010, at 3:37 PM
Old John,
Our politicians have become like rowdy teenagers that do not want to pay attention to parents and others in positions of authority. I suspect just like with teenagers.... we need to give them an attitude adjustment tomorrow and in November.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Mon, Aug 2, 2010, at 4:16 PM
How is that have wheels? elect new rowdy teenagers?
-- Posted by futile_rant on Mon, Aug 2, 2010, at 4:36 PM
Good Lord, I hope we can find some people that are a little better. I would hope that at the very least we can get them in such a position that they can do next to nothing... which would certainly be an improvement on what is going on.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Mon, Aug 2, 2010, at 4:48 PM
adidas, your annual benefit estimate from SSA has language stating that at the rate payouts are increasing, future benefit s may be reduced. It's all very vague as to time and amount. As Shapley Hunter says, moderate reductions may not bring out the artillery.
If you've been watching this for many years, you already know the tricks currently in play; increase the taxable wage base and the rate of taxation, sometimes one or the other, sometimes both at the same time. There's also been talk in the past about means testing. If you don't really need it, you might not get it.
Short history lesson. When FDR tried to get the program instituted, there were four members of the Supreme Court who were against it, declaring it unconstitutional on the grounds it amounted to socialism. The four justices had a record of coming out against "New Deal" legislation and were called "The Four Horsemen". With the addition of only one other justice, FDR's legislation was stalled. FDR threatened to increase the number of justices from nine to thirteen, appointing the additional four justices himself, naturally. The Four Horsemen hung tough, but other justices saw the writing on the wall and now we have So-called Social Security, even though congress failed to allow packing the courts.
-- Posted by Maynard on Mon, Aug 2, 2010, at 4:54 PM
That's right. Letting people keep more of their own money is 'welfare'. Giving some people more of other people's money is 'compassion', according to the 'The New Dictionary of Left-Speak'.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Aug 2, 2010, at 10:02 AM
It seems people don't remember Bush standing in front of the filing cabinets telling us "Here is your SS. It is in the form of IOU's now". The Democrats blasted him for it saying he was a troublemaker.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Mon, Aug 2, 2010, at 5:20 PM
They're misrepresenting Sharron Angle's position on it in an effort to save Harry's hide. Even if she wanted to abolish it, the way they say she does, she's only one vote. If Bush couldn't do it, why worry about a freshman in Congress?
There's nothing new in politics.
-- Posted by Maynard on Mon, Aug 2, 2010, at 6:17 PM
I can only imagine how much money I would have lost in a "privatized" social security invested in toxic assets, junk financial instruments, bogus real estate, and all the other FLUFF economy propping this country up during the "Roaring 2000s", a.k.a. "W's Folly".
My money would have earned more inside of a sock had his plan gone through.
-- Posted by FriendO on Tue, Aug 3, 2010, at 11:53 PM
Friendo,
And I suppose you think your money is safe in the hands of the government... which has less than no money. We are broke, social security is broke. China owns our future.
But don't be concerned, they will be fair to you.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Aug 4, 2010, at 12:05 AM
Not what I said.
A negative-36% annual return on investment from a 401k held by the #1-rated investment company should make a man equally wary of private investment and the so-called free & fair market.
Ironic that Social Security was developed as a counter to failure of private investment.
-- Posted by FriendO on Wed, Aug 4, 2010, at 8:37 AM
And Bush was wrong about the filing cabinets full of IOUs? He told the truth on the politicians who looted the SS fund to spend on other favorite projects and piled other "benefits" onto the SS system.
-- Posted by voyager on Wed, Aug 4, 2010, at 8:48 AM
FriendO:
The point is, there is still money left in that fund after the 36% decline. There is none in the Social Security 'trust fund', just IOU's. The government spends it every year, and replaces it with the 'investments' received the following, only to spend those. Bernie Madoff went to jail for doing just that.
Besides which, there were safeguards on investment types, and the plan did not transfer funds to private accounts for those with less than 15 years to retirement, giving them the benefit of the long-term planning function of the 401K, and not being dependent on a one-year or even a five-year performance.
The plan even offered guaranteed-return investment options, which most investment portfolio managers offer, and recommend to their clients as they near retirement age. The plan does not simply dump money into the market and say "Okay, you're on your own."
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Aug 4, 2010, at 9:01 AM
if they wouldn't have added suvivor & disability benefits social security wouldn't be having a problem....
-- Posted by futile_rant on Wed, Aug 4, 2010, at 9:16 AM
If, If, if! But they did!
-- Posted by voyager on Wed, Aug 4, 2010, at 9:35 AM
FriendO, the example you give isn't anything like what the Bush plan proposed, as Shapley Hunter explains. It's this type of misunderstanding that allows a plan shoved on us by a Democratic administration to be maintained by another Democratic administration.
I think someone said here or elsewhere that So-called Social Security is a Ponzi scheme, and makes the observation that Bernie Madoff went to jail for doing the same thing.
"I'm from the government. I'm here to help you"
-- Posted by Maynard on Wed, Aug 4, 2010, at 9:50 AM
Futile Rant wrote:
"if they wouldn't have added suvivor & disability benefits social security wouldn't be having a problem...."
Not entirely true. They've always spent what they took in, and provided a 'pay as you go' system. If they hadn't added those benefits, they'd have found another way to spend the money.
The thing about Washington is, they hate to see money not being spent. Every dollar saved is a vote not purchased.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Aug 4, 2010, at 9:51 AM
"I can only imagine how much money I would have lost in a "privatized" social security ..."
Darn, FriendO ... I keep pointing out that Pops' two retirement plans, paid into for 10 years each, total more than his SS income which he paid into for almost 50 years. We had control over how to designate the contributions ... from high-earning/high-risk to low-earning/low-risk ... I'm a true advocate of the idea of being in control of our 'future,' versus the government being in control of it.
And yes, there were a couple of set-backs ... which turned around within a year or so. With SS ... safe, but in the the whole scheme of things, our contributions to it could have been, over the long-term, better 'invested.'
if they wouldn't have added suvivor & disability benefits social security wouldn't be having a problem.... -- Posted by futile_rant
Surivivor benefits makes sense, and even disability might ... due to the fact that people should indeed receive something for their contributions to SS. But both of those programs went overboard ... Paying out many, many times what was paid into the system ... including survivor's benefits which include equal payments to the widow AND each minor child (unless they've changed that?) ... and disability for people who aren't actually disabled but 'cannot work in their chosen field' (uness they've changed that?).
On the other hand, consider this: The SS benefits of single people who die before retirement age are ... well ... never paid out to anyone?
-- Posted by gurusmom on Wed, Aug 4, 2010, at 3:52 PM
A negative-36% annual return on investment from a 401k held by the #1-rated investment company should make a man equally wary of private investment and the so-called free & fair market.
Ironic that Social Security was developed as a counter to failure of private investment.
-- Posted by FriendO on Wed, Aug 4, 2010, at 8:37 AM
At least I would have money that was MINE. I will get YOUR'S. Sucker.......
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Wed, Aug 4, 2010, at 7:02 PM
"At least I would have money that was MINE."
At last we are down to the base conservative republican philosophy. It is all about money.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Aug 4, 2010, at 8:21 PM
Common,
Money is not important... the lack of it is what is important!
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Aug 4, 2010, at 8:25 PM
At last we are down to the base conservative republican philosophy. It is all about money.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Aug 4, 2010, at 8:21 PM
What else can it be about? Oh I'm sorry. I forgot the Obama administration has an endless supply of cash. Are you planning on retiring one day or will you work until you are 95?
Democrats need to grow up and quit living day to day like a teenager.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Wed, Aug 4, 2010, at 10:19 PM
"Money is not important... the lack of it is what is important!"
------------------
Apparently this may be why Republicans are so obsessed with their money. Here are just 2 examples of many.
Republicans have a extremely long history of putting money before everything else. Tax cuts, smaller government, ending welfare, etc. all are specifically designed to put more money in their pockets.
When George Bush was picked as the Republican presidential nominee, it was likely because Republican insiders knew they could convince him to cut their taxes. Their campaign contributions were in actuality investments as a $10,000 contribution would result in a $100,000 tax reduction if you earned a few million dollars.
One of the more devious Republican initiatives which was somewhat hard to understand at first, was their support for school vouchers. Why would Republican favor vouchers for inner city children? The answer came from an unknown Republican who let it slip that the voucher program was only step one in the pursuit of universal vouchers which would pay wealthy Republicans for their private school tuitions.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Aug 5, 2010, at 5:01 AM
And if anything is said about the Republican's love of money, they start shrieking, "Wealth envy! Wealth envy! Wealth envy!"
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Aug 5, 2010, at 5:06 AM
Well, fancy that! Why do you keep bringing it up. There is a difference between wealth wanting and wealth envy. Am beginning to wonder if you really understand wealth.
-- Posted by voyager on Thu, Aug 5, 2010, at 5:45 AM
commonsensematters wrote:
"Apparently this may be why Republicans are so obsessed with their money."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Welfare, Social Security, Obamacare, Medicare, Medicaid, etc., are all about money. Many of these, Welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, and Obamacare, for example, are about taking some people's money and spending on someone else. Perhaps the reason we're obsessing about our money is because so many Democrats are obsessing about our money, too.
At least, in the case of Republicans, our obsession is with that which is ours. We merely want to keep it that way...
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Aug 5, 2010, at 8:27 AM
commonsensematters wrote:
"The answer came from an unknown Republican who let it slip that the voucher program was only step one in the pursuit of universal vouchers which would pay wealthy Republicans for their private school tuitions."
If he's unknown, how do you know he's a Republican?
We care about vouchers for inner city kids because we care about giving them a decent education for the money spent. Educated children make good wage earners and taxpayers, so we want them to get a good education. The public school system has become more about keeping teachers employed than about teaching children.
The cost of public schools goes higher even as the quality of the education drops. Our proposal: Let children that are in failing schools take their children, and the money that would have been spent on them in the failing schools, and let them spend it on good schools. It's a valid concept, unless you're married to the idea that we have to keep children in poorly performing schools 'for their own good'.
What proposal do you offer to fix the inner city schools?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Aug 5, 2010, at 8:34 AM
It's a hard job taking care of millions of dollars. I don't know if I would want the hassle.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Thu, Aug 5, 2010, at 9:36 AM
In England public schools are actually private schools. What sublime useage of the English language!
-- Posted by voyager on Thu, Aug 5, 2010, at 3:29 PM
"... the voucher program was only step one in the pursuit of universal vouchers which would pay wealthy Republicans for their private school tuitions."
I've puzzled over this concept every time it's been mentioned over the years.
My thoughts? If some schools are better than others in educating our children ... then why aren't all schools doing whatever it is those do? Now, now ... 'It's the money' reply just doesn't get it ... Not when America pays more for education than apparently any other country (or did 2-3 years ago). Incidentally, in most cases, the 'tuition' for private schools is approximately the same (and often less) than what our government pays per student in public schools. Think about that, if you will.
Same thing with 'inner-city' schools ... We can speculate all we want, but the bottom line is all public schools are (or should be) operating under the same criteria, regardless of 'where' they are. What we don't (cannot) seem to ever admit is that a large part of the problem in 'failing' schools is due to the students and the teachers not following the system our government has put in place for education ...
Sad fact is ... our public school system is, for whatever reason, pretty much a failure, compared to private/parochial and other countries.
-- Posted by gurusmom on Thu, Aug 5, 2010, at 4:10 PM
Mom,
I hope you have your flack jacket on.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Aug 5, 2010, at 4:15 PM
Sad fact is ... our public school system is, for whatever reason, pretty much a failure, compared to private/parochial and other countries.
-- Posted by gurusmom on Thu, Aug 5, 2010, at 4:10 P
Mom..
Government and liberals are the problem. Kids cant even play tag without hurting some one's little inner child. Or little Billy cant spell dog so they dumb down the whole class until he can catch on. Liberals ruin everything.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Thu, Aug 5, 2010, at 4:22 PM
Have_Wheels wrote:
"I hope you have your flack jacket on."
Flack Jacket? She needs the Flame Resistant Suit. I'd loan her mine, but it got pretty badly scorched last time I cooked up a horse-meat casserole...
I was going to try some Filly Mignon once I get the suit repaired.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Aug 5, 2010, at 4:24 PM
Shapley,
I'm glad Mom took some of these far left liberals', especially the teacher set, minds off the election Tuesday with a school issue.
They all seem to have a burr under their saddle. I don't think thigs went all that well for them.
You're not included Pups, I don't consider you extreme left like some on here.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Aug 5, 2010, at 4:51 PM
"If he's unknown, how do you know he's a Republican?"
Because the individual was identified as a Republican but did not give a name.
___________________________________
"We care about vouchers for inner city kids because we care about giving them a decent education for the money spent."
Then you should not have any problem with refuting the concept of "universal vouchers" for rich Republicans.
_____________________________
"What proposal do you offer to fix the inner city schools?"
I am a very strong proponent of the public school system. I received an excellent education in public schools in Massachusetts and Wisconsin. I do not believe that the quality of teachers has changed to a substantial degree. And I disagree that the public school system is merely about employing teachers.
The greatest difference in schools today compared to many years ago is the amount of time teachers spend trying to keep order and dealing with a wider level of interest in school between individual students in a given classroom. This applies even more so to inner city schools where there is an even greater gulf between those that want to learn and those who just do not care.
My recommendation is that public schools segregate their students into classes based on their demonstrated willingness to study and learn. The teaching methods would be tailored to the capabilities of the separate classes. Pupils in one class level could be free to move up if they become qualified, or be moved down if their motivation to learn suffers.
The idea of moving students from so-called failing schools along with their "money" condemns those same schools in a downward spiral. Allowing those students to move to "better" schools sounds logical but can cause overcrowding and possibly diminished quality and degraded educational opportunities for all of the students. This action may be feasible for a small number of students, but a wholesale move from "inner city" schools to suburban schools is not realistic from a cost standpoint and impractical from a educational point of view.
The concept of closing inner city schools and issuing vouchers for parochial and private schools is also impractical since there are not enough seats available in non-public schools to accommodate everybody. Freely issuing vouchers would likely cause the creation of new for profit private schools which would not necessarily achieve the standards of existing private schools. The most critical factor in application of private school vouchers is simply the fact that private schools do not have to keep students that do not comply with their standards and rules. Where do the "expelled" students go? The bottom line is that public schools have to keep all students, regardless of behavior, private schools do not.
The suggestion that private school are cheaper that public schools is a fantasy. In comparing high schools, private schools are normally twice as expensive (or more) than public schools. The only way to make private schools even with public schools on a cost basis is to lump in all pre-schools and elementary schools (including parochial) into the mix. Even with that private schools have a large number of fees not in the tuition costs and parochial schools have volunteer help and religious teachers that may or may not be part of the reported costs.
A final aspect of the educational system is of course parental involvement. Where parents are involved, schools invariably seem to do a better job. I feel strongly that public schools are vital and must be improved where necessary, but cannot be abandoned.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Aug 5, 2010, at 9:53 PM
Then you should not have any problem with refuting the concept of "universal vouchers" for rich Republicans
Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Aug 5, 2010, at 9:53 PM
It's not only rich Republicans as much as it is average people that don't want liberal politics shoved down their children's throats. They want them to be able to be above average instead of being held back so other kids don't feel inferior. The other thing is quality of the curriculum. They can teach them to be capitalists instead of socialists.
I have a friend that sends both of his kids to private school even though he is struggling to pay for it. He would love to get vouchers. Most public schools can't teach children what they need to know.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Thu, Aug 5, 2010, at 10:19 PM
So what do you propose, Theorist, a "redistribution of intelligence"?
-- Posted by voyager on Fri, Aug 6, 2010, at 8:50 AM
... sigh people are still blaming the schools?
it is the /b /u !parents! people...
-- Posted by futile_rant on Fri, Aug 6, 2010, at 8:57 AM
"Then you should not have any problem with refuting the concept of "universal vouchers" for rich Republicans.:
I've never advocated 'universal vouchers' for rich Republicans, nor have I ever heard the concept proposed.
I see a few problems with your proposal. First, 'merit based' classrooms have been forbidden by policy in some states, ruled to be racist or unfair. It is an old idea that was abandoned by the 'enlightened' teachers of the modern era. Some states do retain such merit based systems, and I think they work well. However, they usually pair the worst students with the worst teachers, based on the idea that they aren't going to learn anyway, so who cares. Those classrooms become little more than day care for the rabble of the future. No doubt some small percentage do move up and out, but most are 'dumbed down'.
"The most critical factor in application of private school vouchers is simply the fact that private schools do not have to keep students that do not comply with their standards and rules."
It is those standards and rules, which many schools lack, that drive parents to send their children to such schools. As to what to do with those that fail to make the grade, what do we do with them now? We put them in 'special education' or we keep them in the classrooms where they disrupt those that are trying to learn. Eventually, some do get expelled or, if their behavior becomes criminal, get sent to 'reform school'. The system for failing to make the grade at private schools would be no different than the one for those that fail to make the grade at merit-based public schools, except that they might remain in the same building complex.
You fail to address the basic idea behind vouchers, forcing the poorly-performing schools to shape up or ship out through competition. The voucher programme is not to 'shut down' public schools and send the kids to private ones, it is to allow parents to make a choice as to where to send their children.
Wealthier parents already make such choices: They buy houses in neighborhoods with good schools, they send their children to private schools, or they pay the out-of-district tuition to have their children attend better schools in another district. Some poorer parents send their children to 'live' with an aunt or grandparent in a better school district, or they misrepresent their address in order to have their children attend such schools. Only the poorest are left with no choice, they have to attend school where the districts say they have to attend. Vouchers are not just about sending children from public to private schools, they are about sending children from poorly-performing public schools to better performing public schools in other districts. Some states permit this, others do not.
As to overcrowding: the vouchers provide the capital the schools need to enlarge, to hire additional staff, and to otherwise cope with the problems of maintaining a growing attendance. The whole idea is simply to move the tax dollars that one spends in the district your child would otherwise attend, and give that money to the school, public or private, that your child actually attends.
As it now stands, those who send their children to private schools, or to public schools out of their district, pay twice, because their taxes support the school in the district in which they live, while they have to pay tuition to the school their child actually attends.
Private schools are cheaper than public schools, in many cases. You try to cite the 'hidden costs' of volunteers and Church-provided educator, but the public schools also have them. Most parochial school teachers receive lower pay than their public school counterparts.
The buildings are not always as new and the equipment not always upgraded, but that is one of the complaints I have long had with public schools, anyway. They are always demanding the biggest and the best, the newest and latest equipment, with which to teach our children. The teachers spend untold hours and dollars attending training sessions to learn to use the new equipment and the latest software. Private school children learn to 'make do' with what is at hand. Public school children frequently don't learn that because the schools haven't learned it to be able to teach it.
The biggest complaint I have with public schools is the focus on athletics. Private schools are not immune to that, but they frequently do so to a lesser degree. We build these massive warehouse schools, and the biggest part of the building is always the gymnasium. We put it right out front, to say, usually with big letters "Home of the Tigers" or "Home of the Eagles" or "Home of Whatever Our Sports Team Happens To be Named". It's never the "Home of the Scholars" or "Home of the Mathematicians". Academics are a sideline. Cape Central School's Academic building seems lost behind the maze of playing fields and the gymnasium, as if they are ashamed to admit they have such a non-atheletic facility. We ship our athletes all over the state, taking them out of classes so they can travel.
Small wonder, then, that some parents want their child to attend a school where the focus is on education. If education is a responsibility of government, why should the opportunity to choose an honest education be only the choice of those who can afford it? That is the motivation behind vouchers.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Aug 6, 2010, at 9:01 AM
Nor have I tried to compare costs of education. I am well aware that one special needs child can consume several childrens' worth of 'per capita expenditure'. However, Private schools also teach special needs chilren. The difference: Private schools teach the children to cope with the world they live in, public schools teach the the children to demand that the world cope with them. I prefer the private school approach.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Aug 6, 2010, at 9:05 AM
Milwaukee Teacher's Union Fights For Viagra Drug Coverage.
The district is in financial straits, but the teacher's focus seems to be elsewhere.
"MADISON, Wis. (AP) -- With the district in a financial crisis and hundreds of its members facing layoffs, the Milwaukee teachers union is taking a peculiar stand: fighting to get its taxpayer-funded Viagra back.
The union has asked a judge to order the school board to again include Pfizer Inc.'s erectile dysfunction drug and similar pills in its health insurance plans.
The filing is the latest in a two-year legal campaign in which the union has argued, so far unsuccessfully, that the board's policy of excluding erectile dysfunction drugs discriminates against male employees. The union says Viagra, Cialis, Levitra and others are necessary treatment for "an exclusively gender-related condition."
But lawyers for the school board say the drugs were excluded in 2005 to save money, and there is no discrimination because they are used primarily for recreational sex and not out of medical necessity.
The filing last month comes as the union, the Milwaukee Teachers' Education Association, is also protesting hundreds of layoff notices issued to teachers for the coming school year. Citing a "financial crisis" caused by exploding benefit costs and revenue shortfalls, the district's outgoing superintendent proposed laying off 682 employees in April.
The district gave layoff notices to 482 teachers in June, but recalled 89 of them last month. Additional teachers may be called back, but these are still the first layoffs of Milwaukee teachers in decades.
At least one lawmaker questioned why the union is fighting for Viagra while teachers are losing their jobs. A consultant for the school board has estimated that reinstating the drug benefit would cost $786,000 per year -- the cost to keep perhaps a dozen first-year teachers employed."
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Aug 6, 2010, at 11:06 AM
YOu mean the one that says they are in the red this year? I thought Nancy Pelosi told us that wouldn't happen, and that's why we were better off 'doing nothing' than allowing President Bush to fix us.
I haven't read it. I've read a summary.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Aug 6, 2010, at 11:29 AM
Viagra? Say what? Something's a little convoluted here. Maybe the drug is the only means some of the teachers have of "interesting" the men "in certain activities" with them.
Maybe they'd be better taking a vacation to Spain.
-- Posted by voyager on Fri, Aug 6, 2010, at 2:41 PM
Republicans have a (sic) extremely long history of putting money before everything else. Tax cuts, smaller government, ending welfare, etc. all are specifically designed to put more money in their pockets.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Aug 5, 2010, at 5:01 AM
My common sense tells me that tax cuts and smaller government put more money in the pockets of Democrats as well as Republicans. Speaking for myself, mostly a Republican, I think government should be smaller and therefore taxes lower because the constitution doesn't mandate all the entitlements politicians use to buy themselves votes to become perpetual malingerers. And welfare's not really in there either in the form it's manifested; "general welfare" doesn't mean WIC and food stamps.
-- Posted by Maynard on Sat, Aug 7, 2010, at 1:20 AM
Maynard,
While I agree with you, I am afraid you are beating a dead horse when it comes to Common. A number of people have tried to reason wiht him/her to no avail,
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sat, Aug 7, 2010, at 1:31 AM
"Delve deep and you will realize that no matter what the school system provides, some things are totally out of their hands."
And the solution is ... throw more money to those schools where that may be true? Uh uh, doesn't work. That's been pretty much proven. And delving deeply as 'experts' have done hasn't seemed to improve the situation with our public schools very much. One solution ... making it mandatory for parents to be ... um ... responsible parents? Ah, don't like that idea, do we? So instead ... throw money at the problems, concentrate on the 'problem-children,' and shrug our shoulders ... and watch our brightest students graduate from high school with what used to be about an 8th grade education--or less--while the ones we concentrated the most on have probably dropped out before graduating.
But that may be a good solution: "... no child can be left behind, but they can be 'kicked out' ... IF some children 'can't' (or won't) be taught, then perhaps it's past time to abandon the 'No Child Left Behind' philosophy ... which has helped downgrade education for the majority of pupils who are being short-changed in their education. Like it or not ... when we have entire school districts with children who can't read, etc. ... I guess we have to point at either the teachers, or the children (and/or the parents) ... or perhaps suspect the 'system' is flawed.
Some day, read some of the articles about time, incentives (like money), etc. being thrown into 'fixing' some failing schools. There's even one where the students are PAID (very well paid) for good grades. The latter is the only attempt I've read about that was successful ... so, now we have to pay students in order to discover that they can, indeed, learn?
And then again ... we have teachers who have been suspended, but still draw their salaries because they can't be terminated once they are tenured.
Surely no one honestly believes that those parents who send their children to private schools should be chastised for wanting the best education for them that they can afford ... even though it means paying tuition on top of school taxes? Wealth envy is one thing ... but to criticize parents who do that just goes beyond my comprehension.
Humbly thanking you, Shapley, for a great post (several, in fact). Quite a few years ago, a diocese in St. Louis attempted to convince the state that it should pay the tuition for their students, thereby saving the taxpayers because their tuition was less than what the state allocates per student in public schools. Wish I could find that article, it was very revealing, as well as surprising. What many of us 'got' from that was that the state was concerned that more parents would opt for private schooling, and the state schools would lose a large amount of per-student money from the state ... so how would they be able to pay wages, utilities, etc., for half-empty schools.
Reminds me ... I sadly never thought to thank my dad for all the tuition he paid for my education ... money that could have been spent to make life more comfortable for all of us.
And yes, I saw that about the Viagra ... But darn ... a man just can't be expected to not ... Oh, never mind! It's a life-saving medication that is totally necessary ...
-- Posted by gurusmom on Sat, Aug 7, 2010, at 2:30 AM
Here's a great idea. We'll get the dead horse from Maynard and Shapley can grill it and we'll have a big party.
-- Posted by Mowrangler on Sat, Aug 7, 2010, at 6:48 AM
"...when it comes to Common. A number of people have tried to reason wiht (with) him/her to no avail,(.)"
Unfortunately your arguments have sadly short on reason and logic, and painfully long on opinion and conservative rhetoric and Limbaugh/Beck talking points. That is why it has been "to no avail."
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Aug 7, 2010, at 7:18 AM
"...when it comes to Common. A number of people have tried to reason wiht (with) him/her to no avail,(.)"
Common sez:
"Unfortunately your arguments have sadly short on reason and logic, and painfully long on opinion and conservative rhetoric and Limbaugh/Beck talking points. That is why it has been "to no avail."
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Aug 7, 2010, at 7:18 AM
Common I sez:
When you set out to correct someone's typing errors because their arthretic fingers don't always fall on the correct keys you need to be real careful with your own wordage. I believe you left a word out in the paragraph above. But I am not going to correct you because I, unlike you, do not like putting words in someone else's mouth. I thought I would just let you go ahead and do that, giving us a more legible copy of what you meant to say. Since you are so perfect at critiquing other folks posts.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sat, Aug 7, 2010, at 11:48 AM
Unfortunately your arguments have sadly (sic) short on reason and logic, and painfully long on opinion and conservative rhetoric and Limbaugh/Beck talking points. That is why it has been "to no avail."
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Aug 7, 2010, at 7:18 AM
Please demonstrate how my statement, copied below, is short on logic. Perhaps you only want to address the part of my response that can't be reduced to a logical outcome. If not, make your case.
My common sense tells me that tax cuts and smaller government put more money in the pockets of Democrats as well as Republicans.
Posted by Maynard on Sat, Aug 7, 2010, at 1:20 AM
Prove it. Prove that the general welfare clause doesn't mean that congress can provide assistance to the poor. You have no clue what you're talking about. Just another limbaugh/beck idiot.
-- Posted by Spaniard on Sat, Aug 7, 2010, at 10:48 AM
Oh, you're asking for it, pendejo tu mismo, and since you fired the first shot, I'll feel no qualms at a response in kind. Let's get this straight first. I don't need a Limbaugh or Beck to tell me what to think. I formed my opinions as a benefit of a publicly funded education while these guys were still disc jockeys. I think if you and I can agree on anything, we can agree that they beat the same drum dia tras dia (day after day in English, which I translate not for your benefit, since you must speak Spanish, but for the benefit of those who don't). They're like a soap opera in that you can miss the show for a month and when you return, it's the same thread. Glen Beck's research, if he even does any on his own, is immediately suspect. If he'd done the same research when he switched religions...
The best illustration of public opinion about government largesse at the time the republic was founded is the story about Davy Crockett, told in an 1884 biography by Edward S. Ellis, "The Life of Colonel David Crockett.", and summarized here.
Davy Crockett was out trying to get elected. He came upon a farmer plowing his fields. Rep. Crockett was finally able to engage the man, Horatio Bunce, in conversation where he told Crockett he had voted for him in the past but could not any more. When asked why it was explained that Mr. Bunce followed the papers from Washington. He had read where there had been a great fire in Georgetown that Davy Crockett and others had helped put out leaving thousands of men, women and children out on the street with nothing but the close on their back. The House passed a $20,000 bill to rebuild Georgetown.
Mr. Bunce in the conversation asked Colonel Crockett "Well, Colonel, where do you find in the Constitution any authority to give away the public money in charity!"
Colonel Crockett was stumped and tried to justify the decision to vote to give the money to Georgetown. Mr. Bunce responded, "it is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the Government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing to do with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be entrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means."
Don't miss the part where Col. Crockett admits he had not sense enough to understand the Constitution. And don't try to tell us how the constitution is a living document and our opinion doesn't reflect the opinions of the Justices. Try something else, you Franken idiot.
In closing, just let me say that any able-bodied person, man or woman, who depends on the government tit deserves what they get, as do those of us who continue to allow it.
-- Posted by Maynard on Sat, Aug 7, 2010, at 1:14 PM
"How would the Bush plan have prevented this? Please be specific."
I didn't say it would, in and of itself. I said that Nancy Pelosi's solution to his proposal, which is to do nothing, has helped us reach this point. President Bush warned that the programme was in danger, Ms. Pelosi said nothing need be done. The President submitted his proposal, which the Congress should have debated, altered, and adjusted. Under Ms. Pelosi's gavel, however, the measure was killed.
I've already pointed out several times that President Bush's proposal was not about fixing it today, or for the retirees of today. President Bush's privatization plan was not even available to those over fifty, which is to say those who will retire in the next few years. President Bush was offering a long-term solution to combat one of the major problems of Social Security - the government raises the money, borrows the money from itself, spends the money, and pays it back to itself, with interest, from the monies they raise the following year, and they call this a 'trust fund'.
The key issue is that, under President Bush's plan, those who will retire in fifteen, twenty, or thirty years would not be dependent on the system as it stands today. Thanks to Ms. Pelosi's shortightedness, they are stuck with it, if it survives that long.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sat, Aug 7, 2010, at 1:36 PM
Spaniard, does lack of activity on the part of the government illustrate public policy? What I mean is, the Constitution was ratified by 1788, and the government began using it as policy in early 1789.
When did the programs we now call entitlements begin? If there were no entitlement programs to, in your words "provide assistance to the poor", is that because the framers and ratifiers of the Constitution didn't understand what they had written or that they had the authority, or are we the ones with the misunderstanding?
Social Security Act was not signed into law until 1935, Federal Unemployment Tax Act in 1939, Medicare and Medicaid in 1965. This is not a comprehensive listing. Were there entitlements before these? What took them so long? Please don't try to blame the Republicans for this, as the party was formed in 1854, 65 years after the government began using the Constitution as policy.
-- Posted by Maynard on Sat, Aug 7, 2010, at 6:40 PM
Maynard,
I remember reading, in the colonies there was an "If you don't work you don't eat policy in place"
Something we might want to consider reinstituting.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sat, Aug 7, 2010, at 8:16 PM
Menu
From the New York Times...
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/31/your-money/31money.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=social%2...
"One financial planner, who has dual citizenship in the United States and Greece, said he was not taking chances. 'Having seen what happened in Greece, I feel even more strongly today that I should not count on any Social Security for me and my younger clients,' said the planner, George Papadopoulos, 43, of Novi, Mich. 'I will continue to tell clients not to highly rely on Social Security and think of any money coming their way as gravy.'"
Replies (62)