Solution to the Federal Deficit

[Sava]

Originally posted by Oerdin


Those old people vote. In US politics Social security is called the 3rd rail (like the electric rail which powers street cars) because who ever touchs it is politically dead.

I think Social Security, as we know it, should be scrapped. I'd like to see Universal Health care, number one, but then, some sort of program or law that gives businesses more of an incentive to provide stable, reasonable pensions to people. Seniors and the disabled need to have a means of income or security in the event they cannot work. In order to keep costs down, we should investigate what they need money for... i.e. health care, housing, etc... The best way to cut costs is to get a hold of our health care industry and pharmaceutical companies who bilk seniors for billions.

edit: A question for conservatives... how do you propose we take care of our seniors and disabled if you get rid of Social Security? Is you solution just to get rid of it and let them die in poverty? Or do you have some other alternative?

[DanS]

Really? Explain, please.

Social Security taxes more than it spends. The surplus goes directly to reducing the federal deficit. If you get rid of the system now, you would also get rid of the surplus in that account.

We can't have the fiscal disipline your talking about if the rate of increase for social programs is always increasing.

Consider that revenue increases with the economy and with inflation. So right now, a 4%-6% increase every year would have no impact on how much of the economic pie the federal government constitutes. Anything lower than that figure, shrinks the government's piece of the economic pie.

If you were to manage a 2%-3% increase every year, and considering income tax bracket creep, you would end up back at balance in 5 or 10 years or so (depending on the economic cycles, of course). What Clinton did was to find that happy medium at 22%-23% of the economy while Bush is trying for 20% of the economy (or whatever). The difference in policies between the two is rather minute.

[Defiant]

Originally posted by Sava

edit: A question for conservatives... how do you propose we take care of our seniors and disabled if you get rid of Social Security? Is you solution just to get rid of it and let them die in poverty? Or do you have some other alternative?

What about this, we take that 7% FICA or whatever it is now and have the worker put it into a 401K type fund, it does two things, 1)invests into America, (the investments can be regulated, ie(no Janus 20), use a little more stable investment and 2) keeps the money out of the worst money manager in the world(the gov't).

Or are you going to assume Sava, that Americans are too dumb to control their own retirement destiny.

[David Floyd]

edit: A question for conservatives... how do you propose we take care of our seniors and disabled if you get rid of Social Security?

I'm not a conservative, but I'll answer anyway.

It isn't my responsibility to take care of people who didn't save for retirement or for unexpected life events (ie, becoming disabled). They can take care of themselves, rely on their families, and take charity. If this means they end up dying in poverty, so be it.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Oerdin


Skip the relocation and go right to the sandbox.

Hey -- don't toast my creative solutions.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Sava
One issue that has been overlooked here is the privatization of the military and how it has increased costs. The government outsources a lot of jobs to private firms that once used military personel. This has lead to a for-profit element that has crept into our defense spending in a big way. There was some discussion about it on MSNBC last week, but I regret I don't have any sources or figures.

Overall, there is government waste in every sector of government spending, that needs to be dealt with in a big way. I would create a commission of accountants to look at the entire budget and find government waste. Cutting spending without cutting the waste is a big mistake. Massive spending cuts are only going to hurt America. Instead, I would get more for our money, and make cuts in pork-related and corporate welfare programs.

I would also repeal the Bush-gift-to-the-rich-cuts, as well as instituting a progressive shift in the tax code, closer to pre-Reagan era (maybe 1950's-1960's) levels when America had a true progressive tax system. The burden should be put back on America's elite and taken off of the shoulders of the poor and middle classes. America was on the right track in the 1960's, but somehow, the junta of corporate scoundrels hijacked our country. The average net income for average workers in America has remained stagnant over 40 years, while income for the rich has increased dramatically. Everyone should be able to prosper in America, not just corrupt business leaders and those with wicked jump shots.

Kudos to slamming the libertarians and conservatives about the taxes.

[Japher]

Sava is a psycho!!! The problems of the many shouldn't rest on the shoulders of a few, that is how we got to where we are today!

Tuberski had it right on page 1: Cut funding to the NEA..

I'd go with giving Welfare the ol heave-ho as well.

I don't think we need to reduce spending, I think we need to cut programs out altogther...

[David Floyd]

Kudos to slamming the libertarians and conservatives about the taxes.

Umm, a lack of an income tax means that everyone benefits. Granted, some people don't benefit as much as when they get to steal the money of the rich, but you can't say that people don't benefit from a lack of income taxes.

[Odin]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Umm, a lack of an income tax means that everyone benefits. Granted, some people don't benefit as much as when they get to steal the money of the rich, but you can't say that people don't benefit from a lack of income taxes.

Not the Libertarian "tax is theft" BS. The richer you are the more responsibillity you have to people less fortunate or lucky as you. Most people are too greedy so that is where progressive taxes come in. If is wasn't for human greed and narcissism libertarianism would work, but it will never work in the real world.

Japher, Sava isn't a psycho, the libertarians are the psychos.

You can cut things as long it is not welfare, healthcare, education, or NASA.

[David Floyd]

Why should wealth = added responsibility?

[:) Smiley]

Health care is outrageously expensive not because of an aging population or government mismanagement, rather horrific nutrition that puts 1/3 of our nation overweight and another 1/3 obese is to blame.

[Odin]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Why should wealth = added responsibility?

I would explain but you would ignore it as communist ranting, so what is the point when you are too thick-headed?

Rich people waste a lot of thier extra money on useless goods like $100,000 luxury cars and whatever instead of using it for the good of society.

[Kuciwalker]

Instead of using for the good of the society

Why is it my DUTY to work for the good of society? Someone pays me (will pay, whatever ) because I provide them a service: my labor. Why is the payment I recieve in return for my labor not mine to use as I wish? When I am BOUND to work for the good of "society", it is slavery. I do not own the fruits of my labor. There is no freedom, because anything that is mine is no longer mine - it is the property of others. "From each according to his ability; to each according to his need". So I am REQUIRED to give something to someone else simply because they have greater need of it?

I can accept it being a moral responsibility to help the community, but not it being a REQUIREMENT. That is just as bad as any religious fanatic - enforcing your strict moral code as law.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I can accept it being a moral responsibility to help the community, but not it being a REQUIREMENT. That is just as bad as any religious fanatic - enforcing your strict moral code as law.

Well said. (though I back welfare for other reasons )

[Kuciwalker]

Some welfare is okay. I can understand something in (small) moderation. However, the belief "From each according to his ability; to each according to his needs" is, as I said, slavery.

[Odin]

I Know you Libertarians would say this. I hate libertarians because they act as if the poor can live of charity, GET REAL! Why should you be able to waste you money on a big new TV when a person is starving because he/she is only paid $4 per hour? Quit being so self centered, your lack of compassion and your social darwinism is sickening.

[Japher]

Japher, Sava isn't a psycho, the libertarians are the psychos.

I would explain but you would ignore it as communist ranting, so what is the point when you are too thick-headed?

Thank you for noticing and not spewing out your worthless bullsheit...

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Odin
I Know you Libertarians would say this. I hate libertarians because they act as if the poor can live of charity, GET REAL! Why should you be able to waste you money on a big new TV when a person is starving because he/she is only paid $4 per hour? Quit being so self centered, your lack of compassion and your social darwinism is sickening.

Why shouldn't I? I earned that money. Why should it be REQUIRED that I give it away? In fact, in this system, why should I work? If I don't work, I'll have a greater need, so I'll get things from those who do work... you see?

[Verto]

Why is it my DUTY to work for the good of society? Someone pays me (will pay, whatever ) because I provide them a service: my labor. Why is the payment I recieve in return for my labor not mine to use as I wish? When I am BOUND to work for the good of "society", it is slavery. I do not own the fruits of my labor. There is no freedom, because anything that is mine is no longer mine - it is the property of others. "From each according to his ability; to each according to his need". So I am REQUIRED to give something to someone else simply because they have greater need of it?

Because I work hard and manage to attain a certain level of financial success, I am obliged to take care of the rest of society?

Why should you be able to waste you money on a big new TV when a person is starving because he/she is only paid $4 per hour? Quit being so self centered, your lack of compassion and your social darwinism is sickening.

Who are you to tell me what to do with my money? I will admit it is self centered, but you have no right to tell me what to do with my money.

Rich people waste a lot of thier extra money on useless goods like $100,000 luxury cars and whatever instead of using it for the good of society.

And that 100,000 dollars goes to pay for the people who assembled that car. How is this not for the good of society? I am paid x number of dollars for the work I perform. When I use my money to purchase goods, I am paying somebody else for the work they perform.

[Kuciwalker]

Oh, and regarding the self-centered thing, maybe I agree! However, is it now illegal to be self-centered? Maybe it should be illegal to be rude, too! Or perhaps illegal to hold a grudge?

All of those things may be bad qualities, but BAD QUALITIES AREN'T ILLEGAL! Do you want everyone to conform and be exactly so?

[David Floyd]

Odin,

Rich people waste a lot of thier extra money on useless goods like $100,000 luxury cars and whatever instead of using it for the good of society.

Exactly right. their extra money. You hit on the operative phrase, on the first try even

I Know you Libertarians would say this. I hate libertarians because they act as if the poor can live of charity, GET REAL!

I don't actually care whether or not the poor can live off of charity. Maybe some can, and maybe some can't. Maybe some have no family, no friends, and can't find a church. I'll feel bad for them, too. But does this make a bit of difference to me when I consider welfare? Absolutely not. My money is MY MONEY, and I should be able to do with it as I please.

Don't like it? You go earn your own money, then.

[Kuciwalker]

Why does someone deserve something just because they need it? How does that work?!

[Verto]

I wonder how Benjamin Franklin was able to survive without Social Security to take care of him...

[Japher]

Rich people waste a lot of thier extra money on useless goods like $100,000 luxury cars and whatever instead of using it for the good of society.

That's why there is a "Luxury Tax"

In AMERICA ppl should be able to obtain and gain whatever they want...period

[DanS]

I can accept it being a moral responsibility to help the community, but not it being a REQUIREMENT. That is just as bad as any religious fanatic - enforcing your strict moral code as law.

In the US, it's a very practical thing, having nothing to do with the ethics of forcing people to pay for things against their wishes. Because of the Great Depression, there's a thought that we have to moderate the variability in the growth of our economy by having the government be a larger proportion of total economic activity.

Since that time, the general rules of the economic game haven't changed. Any changes in the equation have been around the edges.

[Kuciwalker]

That is a completely different ballgame. If you can show me that by doing this I will profit in the long run, then sure.

[David Floyd]

That is a completely different ballgame. If you can show me that by doing this I will profit in the long run, then sure.

If you can show me that I will profit in the long run, I will consider volunteering to let you use my money. However, I will not consent to you taking my money without permission, just because you promise me I'll get more in the future.

[DanS]

Over the long run we might be better off in as free of system as possible, but in the long run we're also all dead. We haven't had any depressions since our current system was put in place. During the 19th and early 20th centuries, they happened frequently.

We also haven't had as many big technological advances instituted during our time, even though I'm sure we're spending much more on R&D. I am amazed at what America did in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

[Japher]

DanS: I guess the computer industry and Internet exploding did nothing....

The whole welfare issue is a good example of why such things should be privatised... IMO, it is here that Libertarianist views could help..

[DanS]

DanS: I guess the computer industry and Internet exploding did nothing....

Compare to AC eletricity, the light bulb, flight, the automobile, skyscrapers, the telephone, phonograph, radio, etc. They did all of these things with a small fraction of our current population.