BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Privatising social security will increase the amount of money that reitrees can draw on

Nobel Laureate economist Paul Krugman. Argued in 2004 that: “Social Security is a government program that works, a demonstration that a modest amount of taxing and spending can make people's lives better and more secure. And that's why the right wants to destroy it."[1] The problem with Social Security is not that it does not work, nor that it fails the poor. Rather, as Krugman notes, social security uses limited taxation to implement a clear and successful vision of social justice. As a consequence, the social security system has been repeatedly attacked by right wing and libertarian politicians. Such attacks are not motivated by the merits or failure of the social security system itself, but by political ambition and a desire to forcefully implement alternative normative schema within society. Privatizing Social Security would require costly new government bureaucracies. From the standpoint of the system as a whole, privatization would add enormous administrative burdens – and costs. The government would need to establish and track many small accounts, perhaps as many accounts as there are taxpaying workers—157 million in 2010.[2]  Often these accounts would be too small so that profit making firms would be unwilling to take them on. There would need to be thousands of workers to manage these accounts. In contrast, today’s Social Security has minimal administrative costs amounting to less than 1 per cent of annual revenues.[3] It is also unlikely that individuals will be able to invest successfully on their own, although they may believe they can, leading to a great number of retirees actually being worse off after privatization. [1] Paul Krugman. "Inventing a crisis." New York Times. 7 December 2004. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/07/opinion/07krugman.html?_r=2&scp=539&sq... [2] Wihbey, John, ‘2011 Annual Report by the Social Security Board of Trustees’, Journalist’s Resource, 9 June 2011, http://journalistsresource.org/studies/government/politics/social-security-report-2011/ [3] Anrig, Greg and Wasow, Bernard. "Twelve reasons why privatizing social security is a bad idea". The Century Foundation. 14 February 2005. http://tcf.org/media-center/pdfs/pr46/12badideas.pdf
The social security system is unsustainable in the status quo

Social Security is not in crisis and there is no need for privatization. Social Security is completely solvent today, and will be into the future because it has a dedicated income stream that covers its costs and consistently generates a surplus, which today is $2.5 trillion. Proposition’s dire prediction of the collapse of social security’s financial situation is misleading. The Social Security surplus will grow to approximately $4.3 trillion in 2023, and that reserves will be sufficient to pay full benefits through to 2037. Even after this it would still be able to pay 78%. Moreover, there are plenty of ways to reform Social Security to make it more fiscally sound without privatizing it, including simply raising taxes to fund it better.[1] Furthermore the problem that affects social security of falling numbers of contributors to each retiree will also affect private pensions, at least in the short to medium term, just in a different way. If all younger pensioners went over to just paying for their own future retirement who is to pay for current retirees or those who are shortly to retire. These people will still need to have their pensions paid for. They will not have time to save up a personal pension and so will be relying on current workers – but such workers will not want to pay more when they are explicitly just paying for someone else as they are already paying for themselves separately. [1] Roosevelt, James."Social Security at 75: Crisis Is More Myth Than Fact." Huffington Post. 11 August 11 2010. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-roosevelt/social-security-at-75-cri_...
Privatising social security will harm retirees

Most of these arguments can be undercut by noting that the privatization of Social Security accounts would be voluntary, and thus anyone who believed the argument that the government invests better would be free to leave their account as it is, unchanged. Those who believe they can do a better job of investing and managing their money on their own should be given the freedom to do so. In this respect it is important to remember the origin of the money in these accounts: it has been paid in by the individuals themselves. As James Roosevelt (CEO of the health insurance firm Tufts Health Plan) notes: " Those ‘baby boomers’ who are going to bust Social Security when they retire? They have been paying into the system for more than 40 years, generating the large surplus the program has accumulated. Much of the money that baby boomers are and will be drawing on from Social Security, is, and will be, their own.”[1] As it is their money which they have paid in in the first place, members of the baby boomer generation should have a right to choose how they invest –it. If that means choosing to go private and pursue riskier investments, so be it. The money paid out by the social security system belongs to those who paid it in, and the government should not deprive taxpayers from exercising free choice over the uses to which their money is put. Moreover, none of the other arguments adduced by side opposition do anything to address the ways in which Social Security currently harms the poor, the redressing of which alone justifies privatizing Social Security. [1] Roosevelt, James."Social Security at 75: Crisis Is More Myth Than Fact." Huffington Post. 11 August 11 2010. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-roosevelt/social-security-at-75-cri_b_677058.html
Privatising the social security system would harm economic growth

Privatization would increase national savings and provide a new pool of capital for investment that would be particularly beneficial to the poor. As it stands, Social Security is a net loss maker for the American taxpayer, and this situation will only continue to get worse unless privatization is enacted: those born after the baby boom will forfeit 10 cents of every dollar they earn in payments towards the up keep of the Social Security system.  By contrast, under privatization people would actually save resources that businesses can invest. As Alan Greenspan has pointed out, the economic benefits of privatization of Social Security are potentially enormous. In Chile, as Dr. Piñera has noted, there has been real economic growth of 7 percent a year over the past decade, energized by a savings rate in excess of 20 percent.[1] Martin Feldstein, a Harvard economist, formerly Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors under President Reagan, estimated that the present value to the U.S. economy of investing the future cash flow of payroll taxes in real assets would be on the order of $10 to $20 trillion. That would mean a permanent, significant boost to economic growth.[2] [1] Crane, Edward. "The Case for Privatizing America's Social Security System." CATO Institute. 10 December 1997. http://www.cato.org/testimony/art-22.html [2] Crane, Edward. "The Case for Privatizing America's Social Security System." CATO Institute. 10 December 1997. http://www.cato.org/testimony/art-22.html
The problems with the social security are systemic, not inherent

The American people do not oppose privatization -in fact, most support it. A 2010 poll showed overwhelming support for personal accounts. Republican voters support it 65-21, but even Democrat voters like it, 50-36.[1] A poll commissioned by the Cato Institute through the prestigious Public Opinion Strategies polling company showed that 69 percent of Americans favored switching from the pay-as-you-go system to a fully funded, individually capitalized system. Only 11 percent said they opposed the idea.[2] A 1994 Luntz Research poll found that 82 percent of American adults under the age of 35 favored having at least a portion of their payroll taxes invested instead in stocks and bonds. In fact, among the so-called Generation Xers in America, by a margin of two-to-one they think they are more likely to encounter a UFO in their lifetime than they are to ever receive a single Social Security check. Even more remarkable, perhaps, was a poll taken in 1997 by White House pollster Mark Penn for the Democratic Leadership Council, a group of moderate Democrats with whom President Clinton was affiliated prior to his election. That poll found that 73 percent of Democrats favor being allowed to invest some or all their payroll tax in private accounts.[3] Moreover, the 'alternatives liks raising taxes and reducing benefits are merely kicking the problem further down the road but it will still become a problem at some point. At the same time either raising taxes or reducing benefits would be unfair – raising taxes because it would mean today’s generation of workers paying more than their parents for the same benefit and cutting benefits because it would mean that retirees would be getting less out than they were promised.' The alternatives would also be particularly devastating for the poor. Individuals who are hired pay the cost of the so-called employer's share of the payroll tax through reduced wages. Therefore, an increase in the payroll tax would result in less money in workers' going to workers. It is also important to remember that the payroll tax is an extremely regressive tax. Likewise a reduction in benefits would disproportionately hurt the poor since they are more likely than the wealthy to be dependent on Social Security benefits.[4] [1] Roth, Andrew. "Privatize Social Security? Hell Yeah!". Club for Growth.21  September 21 2010. http://www.clubforgrowth.org/perm/?postID=14110 [2] Crane, Edward. "The Case for Privatizing America's Social Security System." CATO Institute. 10 December 1997. http://www.cato.org/testimony/art-22.html [3] Crane, Edward. "The Case for Privatizing America's Social Security System." CATO Institute. 10 December 1997. http://www.cato.org/testimony/art-22.html [4] Tanner, Michael. "Privatizing Social Security: A Big Boost for the Poor." CATO. 26 July 1996. http://www.socialsecurity.org/pubs/ssps/ssp4.html
Governments protect culture every day

Governments also ignore or destroy culture all the time. Historic and significant buildings are built to build infrastructure, traditions are lost through an unwillingness to provide funding to prevent it from dying. When governments protect culture they inevitably protect one over the others. This is nearly always the culture of the majority. Instead it is not for the government to promote or protect any culture over others rather it should be left to private individuals and each cultural group to promote their own culture. improve this
Culture provides no tangible benefit that justifies the use of government funds to preserve it.

Cultural preservation enriches society; just because it cannot be measured quantitatively does not mean it is not worthwhile. Without government assistance, many museums and theaters would have to close down, or would be too expensive for the general public to access. Government support for cultural enrichment contributes towards the public's education and allows citizens to develop an appreciation for traditions other than their own. This does not mean arguing that the government should abandon its basic duties, but simply that a small portion of the budget be dedicated to preservation of indigenous culture. improve this
Culture evolves over time and is largely impacted by improved standards of living and exposure to other cultures

Mainstream cultural norms are so pervasive in every aspect of society that without an active effort, indigenous values and traditions will be lost. Preserving culture often involves funding- whether it is for a theatre group, art show, language program, or other means of cultural expression. In countries like the US and Australia, indigenous groups make up less than 3% of the current population; 1;2 without assistance from the government, it is unlikely these groups would be able to sustain such cultural efforts and as a result their culture would not have any chance to evolve. 1Race- Universe: Total Population, U.S. Census Bureau American Fact Finder, 2009. 2Experimental Estimates and Projections, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians, 1991, to 2021, Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2009. improve this
Culture is an incredibly complex concept

Anarchy is not necessary for culture to exist. Legal restrictions do impact cultural norms; for example, Native American use of peyote for religious ceremonies is permitted only at the discretion of state governments1. However, restrictions on drug use have not turned native cultural expression into a meaningless practice. Rather, the fact that native groups must conform to external standards is more reason for the government to make an active effort to protect indigenous culture. In the previous example, the US government acknowledged that Native American use of peyote in religious ceremonies is different from typical drug use, and consequently permits such peyote use (with limitations). It is this active effort to respect native culture that allowed Native Americans to preserve their religious practice. 1Elijah Sweete, "Peyote in Short Supply," The Moderate Voice, 2010. improve this
All of society benefits from protection of indigenous culture

Across the United States, Australia, and Canada, native customs are often tied closely to the land. For example, while descendants of the Sioux Indians of the American Midwest may no longer hunt buffalo, learning about traditional means of hunting, animal use, rituals involving the surrounding wildlife, means of ensuring a sustainable food supply, and other cultural norms related to the land gives people a greater appreciation for the land they now inhabit. Exposure to traditions that have been practiced in one's land for thousands of years helps us to appreciate the legacy we have inherited. This does not just benefit the direct descendants of those practicing these traditions but the whole of society. improve this
Existing states are responsible for the destruction of indigenous populations and their societies, and thereby have an obligation to help reverse the effects of their actions

The Indian Removal Act of 18301, the 1871 Indian Appropriations Act, and the 1887 General Allotment Act are just a few examples of legislation used to destroy Native American communities in the US2. Settlers in Australia are similarly responsible for a multitude of massacres3, as well as several decades of forced separation of aboriginal children from their parents in an effort to "Christianize" them4. While the current citizens of Canada, the US, and Australia are not guilty of the crimes of their predecessors, they nevertheless reap the benefits of those atrocities while today's indigenous populations still suffer from the lasting impact of oppression. When chemical companies make huge profits at the expense of damaging the surrounding community's environment, those companies are expected to pay reparations. A government that destroys an indigenous culture must similarly work to reverse their destruction. 1Indian Treaty and Removal Act of 1830, U.S. Department of State. 2Preamble to the Trail of Broken Treaties 20-Point Position Paper: An Indian Manifesto. American Indian Movement, 1972. 3History of Australian Aboriginal Massacres, Treaty Republic, 2011. 4"Living With the Past," FOCUS September 1997, Vol. 9, Asia-Pacific Human Rights Information Center. improve this
The preservation of displaced cultures is important in preventing future oppression.

Notions of cultural superiority virtually always influence displacement and abuse of indigenous cultures. For example, when the government of Botswana expelled the Kalahari Bushmen from their land in 2002, President Mogai defended his actions by describing the bushmen as "stone age creatures."1 This cultural insensitivity, in addition to the incentive of material gains, led the Botswani government to violate the tribe's rights. By preserving indigenous culture, governments recognize the value of these groups and prevent future hostility. 1John Simpson, "Bushmen Fight for Homeland," BBC, 2005
Governments protect culture every day

Governments already protect culture so it is not a big step to apply the same protections to aboriginal culture as well. In school, students learn about traditional art and their national history. For example, the state of California compiles reading lists that largely include Shakespeare, Virgil, and John Steinback, though also including ethnic authors like Maya Angelou1. Governments recognize days like Christmas and New Years and fund programs that promote the arts. States recognize marriage and structure divorce and custody laws based on cultural norms of gender roles and family responsibility. If a government can protect the norms on one culture in society, there is no reason that the government should not also protect the culture of those who first inhabited the land. This current protection makes it easy to build on, to make highlight more aboriginal culture, recognize their festivals etc. 1California Reading List, California Department of Education, 2011. improve this
Culture evolves over time and is largely impacted by improved standards of living and exposure to other cultures

Virtually all cultures around the world have changed radically over the past two hundred years; if a government takes action towards "preserving" an indigenous culture, it is interfering with the group's ability to mold their identity to fit the modern world on their own terms. For example, the Australian and American governments have tried to appease native groups by offering land for reserves where they may lead a traditional lifestyle. Native individuals, however, often do not want to live in isolation, and would rather adapt their culture to an urban environment where they can have a higher standard of living. improve this
Culture is an incredibly complex concept

Culture contains many elements; it is the food one eats, the clothing one wears, the holidays one celebrates, and the names of the spirits one worships. However, it is much more than that; culture dictates parent-child relationships, courting customs, family size, gender roles, healthcare, education, and every law, regulation, and standard a society holds. Governments rarely give blanket approval to an indigenous customs; children are often compelled to attend school and receive vaccines, substances used in religious rituals may be banned, and customs that infringe on the rights of group members are not permitted. These restrictions may be reasonable, however, they create a false sense of cultural preservation. Rather than ostensibly protect aboriginal culture, governments should leave it alone. improve this
All of society benefits from protection of indigenous culture

Protecting indigenous culture is unlikely to have a significant impact on the general population. Native groups often live in relative isolation, thereby having little contact with people outside the community. Furthermore, antiquated forms of hunting and cultivating food that were used over a hundred years ago have little relevance to the modern environment in which people live. Learning about these traditions is unlikely to impact the public's perception of its environment because the public is unlikely to make an emotional connection between these traditions and their modern homes. improve this
Existing states are responsible for the destruction of indigenous populations and their societies, and thereby have an obligation to help reverse the effects of their actions

Indigenous populations have no more right to special government treatment than other minority groups. Even indigenous populations did not inhabit their current territory from the dawn of time, and many ethnic groups around the world live where they do because they were pushed out of some other territory hundreds or thousands of years ago. Virtually every ethnic group in the world has been conquered and abused by some other group. Tracing the entirety of human history to determine which group owes reparations to which other group is unproductive; rather, governments should move forward to promote a better standard of living for all citizens. improve this
Tax cuts and spending cuts are necessary for growth.

Deregulating the market is precisely what is not required at the moment. The financial crisis of 2008 caused by irresponsible banking has shown that more than ever, regulation is necessary to ensure that corporations act responsibly and recognise the significance of social good, not just financial profit. Cutting Medicare will lead to huge numbers of people no longer having access to affordable healthcare. Romney talks of this scenario as if a market without Medicare would be better because people would be able to choose one of the more competitive, more efficient private insurance companies for their health care. Once more however, this is only applicable for those who can afford such a choice! Not providing a safety net and preventing millions of people from attaining treatment for illnesses or chronic conditions is a huge failing from the part of the government. Lastly, it is not true that cutting spending and taxes reduces the budget deficit. This was exactly the policy tried by George W. Bush and only led to a widening of the budget deficit and an increase of the total federal debt. By contrast, Obama’s plan of cutting inefficiencies and increasing tax on the country’s wealthiest has already been tried and tested under President Clinton and it resulted in a budget surplus.
Tax cuts and spending cuts are necessary for growth.

With a national unemployment rate of 8.1% as of September 2012 [1], the United States economy has not recovered from the global financial crisis of 2008 and the recession that followed it. Governor Mitt Romney’s plan to cut taxes would lessen the burden on American citizens, and spur businesses and entrepreneurs to create more jobs. Governor Romney advocates a Reagan-esque devotion to laissez-faire economics, arguing that with substantial tax cuts and limited regulation on private businesses, the economy will naturally grow. Mr Romney states on his website that he would reduce government spending from its current level, around $33,000 per household, to around $25,000, while maintaining individual tax rates but decreasing rates for private corporations. [2] Regarding government programs, Governor Romney opposes President Obama’s spending, vowing to repeal Mr Obama’s healthcare act, saving the country around $95 billion, according to his website. He also has advocated cutting spending on social programs by 5 % (without touching national security spending) and pulling funding from the National Endowment of the Arts and Humanities, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and the Legal Services Corporation. Furthermore, he plans to save up to $100 million by reducing foreign aid. The budget deficit will be reduced despite the proposed tax-cuts. This is because tax cuts will have a positive effect on growth, while the spending cuts and clamp down on loopholes and inefficiencies will also help cut the deficit. Overall, Mitt Romney’s economic policies boil down to taxing less and spending less, allowing the free market to work uninhibited. As with Obama, Romney’s position on this issue reflects his broader beliefs about the problems facing America. His plan to eliminate Title X Family Planning funding, for example, draws quite publicly from his opposition to abortion rights. While, also like Obama, his main concern is lowering the national deficit and paying back the national debt, the ways he would go about it are very different from those of his opponent, and realistically would benefit very different types of Americans. [1] Google Public Data, http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=z1ebjpgk2654c1_&met_y=unemployment_rate&idim=country:US&fdim_y=seasonality:S&dl=en&hl=en&q=us+unemployment , accessed 8/10/2012 [2] Mitt Romney Website, http://www.mittromney.com/issues/spending , accessed 8/10/2012