When do we really get to "soak the rich"?

[mookiemookie]

Entitlements should be considered just as cuts in defense spending should be. If they're serious about balancing the budget, there can be no sacred cows.

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Entitlements should be considered just as cuts in defense spending should be. If they're serious about balancing the budget, there can be no sacred cows.

Except that defense is discretionary by law, and social programs aren't discretionary by law.

To enjoy your idea social programs should be made discretionary as defense is discretionary.

[tater]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Entitlements should be considered just as cuts in defense spending should be. If they're serious about balancing the budget, there can be no sacred cows.

The military is maybe 20% of the budget. It could certainly be cut, but it is at least a legitimate expense, unlike SS etc.

So cut away, but if we want to hold the line, basically 2/3 of cuts need to be entitlements.

As for insulation from insolvency having some offshore investments and gold is about it if you don't count real estate, guns, and ammo . Not enough, but better than someone depending on SS. Assuming the country doesn't fail we'll be fine without it.

[seanobrgp]

Originally Posted by tater

The military is maybe 20% of the budget. It could certainly be cut, but it is at least a legitimate expense, unlike SS etc.

So cut away, but if we want to hold the line, basically 2/3 of cuts need to be entitlements.

As for insulation from insolvency having some offshore investments and gold is about it if you don't count real estate, guns, and ammo . Not enough, but better than someone depending on SS. Assuming the country doesn't fail we'll be fine without it.

Social Security may be many things, but it is not an illegitimate expense; with respect, to even imply that suggests you are simply projecting your ideological beliefs rather than taking a moment to consider the issue.

The individualist argument against Social Security is at least consistent -- give as little as possible, expect nothing in return -- but I can't agree that it would translate to effective or positive policy, at least not now. According to The Century Foundation, 40 percent of our country's elderly population were kept out of poverty because of Social Security in 1999; another 10 percent were in poverty despite their benefits, and I believe those two figures have remained constant since. Eliminating or significantly reducing the program could thrust anywhere from 13 to 20 million people beneath the poverty line, to say nothing of those who would have their retirements impacted by an amelioration in supplementary income. Assuming that the economy continues to linger for the foreseeable future, it's simply not possible that all of these people could re-enter the labor force to finance their retirement as it is ongoing (it never will be), and that ignores turning this into legislation a majority of politicians could coalesce behind.

I'm far from a supporter of his, but I'm inclined to agree with Robert Reich's argument that the question of Social Security -- which will not be forced to reduce its payments until 2036 in a worst case scenario -- is resolvable with a few adjustments. The Urban Institute wrote an excellent summation on the subject earlier this year; ultimately some combination of an increase in the retirement age (68 or 70, to better coincide with today's longer lifespan), raising the tax rate by a percentage point to 13, and an examination of the Cost Of Living Adjustment will have to be undertaken. I don't welcome the idea of any tax increase, but in the absence of a superior alternative, it's the only fiscally responsible, conservative thing to do if we are committed to retaining Social Security as it exists today. We also have to increase investment and wealth management education, encourage personal prudence, and emphasize the costs of an ideal retirement. In 2003, 34 percent of people on Social Security relied on it for 90 percent or more of their income; if we can reduce that statistic by half or more, then we may have cause to delicately explore how to reduce the benefits Social Security is paying out.

You may disagree with the definition of retirement as a universal or Constitutional right, but it's an eventuality I think we should try to facilitate for everyone, and the implication that some should not be deserving of the privilege is rather draconian. As a society, we need to be better than that. As a Republican, I believe we should strive to find conservative, logical solutions to these challenges, not pretend they don't exist or aren't worthy of our concern because they violate some sacrosanct ideological prism. That's what the Republican Party is truly about.

[Torvald Von Mansee]

If I become rich, overnight, won't I pay as much as the current rich? And that is somehow unfair?

[gimpy117]

its funny how the top tax rates are close to the lowest in history, yet the rich see any increase as "gouging them". During WWII and into the cold war the rich paid anywhere from about 91%-70%. Whats even more funny is that our economy was much more vibrant then, then it is now.

[Torvald Von Mansee]

http://whatwepayfor.com/

seems relevant

[SteamWake]

Originally Posted by seanobrgp

Social Security may be many things, but it is not an illegitimate expense; with respect, to even imply that suggests you are simply projecting your ideological beliefs rather than taking a moment to consider the issue.

The individualist argument against Social Security is at least consistent -- give as little as possible, expect nothing in return -- but I can't agree that it would translate to effective or positive policy, at least not now. According to The Century Foundation, 40 percent of our country's elderly population were kept out of poverty because of Social Security in 1999; another 10 percent were in poverty despite their benefits, and I believe those two figures have remained constant since. Eliminating or significantly reducing the program could thrust anywhere from 13 to 20 million people beneath the poverty line, to say nothing of those who would have their retirements impacted by an amelioration in supplementary income. Assuming that the economy continues to linger for the foreseeable future, it's simply not possible that all of these people could re-enter the labor force to finance their retirement as it is ongoing (it never will be), and that ignores turning this into legislation a majority of politicians could coalesce behind.

I'm far from a supporter of his, but I'm inclined to agree with Robert Reich's argument that the question of Social Security -- which will not be forced to reduce its payments until 2036 in a worst case scenario -- is resolvable with a few adjustments. The Urban Institute wrote an excellent summation on the subject earlier this year; ultimately some combination of an increase in the retirement age (68 or 70, to better coincide with today's longer lifespan), raising the tax rate by a percentage point to 13, and an examination of the Cost Of Living Adjustment will have to be undertaken. I don't welcome the idea of any tax increase, but in the absence of a superior alternative, it's the only fiscally responsible, conservative thing to do if we are committed to retaining Social Security as it exists today. We also have to increase investment and wealth management education, encourage personal prudence, and emphasize the costs of an ideal retirement. In 2003, 34 percent of people on Social Security relied on it for 90 percent or more of their income; if we can reduce that statistic by half or more, then we may have cause to delicately explore how to reduce the benefits Social Security is paying out.

You may disagree with the definition of retirement as a universal or Constitutional right, but it's an eventuality I think we should try to facilitate for everyone, and the implication that some should not be deserving of the privilege is rather draconian. As a society, we need to be better than that. As a Republican, I believe we should strive to find conservative, logical solutions to these challenges, not pretend they don't exist or aren't worthy of our concern because they violate some sacrosanct ideological prism. That's what the Republican Party is truly about.

Thats one hellua first post right there.

[seanobrgp]

Originally Posted by SteamWake

Thats one hellua first post right there.

Apologies if I came across too strongly -- that certainly wasn't my intent.

The issue of entitlement spending is a conundrum. I think the Republican Party's reluctance to outline a credible reform plan is an admission on their part that, while the rhetoric is proving successful in the immediate term, the majority of Americans are unwilling to accept a disruption in the benefits they currently or intend to receive upon eligibility. Any discussion of how we can bring these programs back to fiscal solvency and reign in the deficit has to respect that boundary -- or make a credible effort to preserve as much of the safety net as possible.

What's most disconcerting to me is the culture of expectation and ignorance that we're seeing play out. There appears to be a large subset of our society that has been taught to want all things with none of their obligations; to accept grandiose assurances, but not the grandiose costs that go with them. Separating myself from ideology, the succinct truth is this: if we want to guarantee an individuals' retirement, health care for the elderly and infirm, and provide for the destitute and unfortunate, then we must accept that these initiatives will soon be unsupportable at our current level of taxation. Social Security is rectifiable; Medicare, with an unfunded liability of $38 trillion? Probably not. If we want progress on this issue, we first have to convince the electorate that our present path is unsustainable and a re-examination of entitlement spending is in our collective self-interest to prevent some dire consequences.

We have to be accountable as a nation, and maybe that has to start with what type of society we aspire to be. If the majority of Americans want comprehensive amenities resembling those you would find in Europe, it will require their marginal tax rates or an additional VAT to comfortably support them, and we shouldn't pretend otherwise. Whatever the outcome, the time to start reform is now -- but impoverishing a third to half of the elderly population is never going to a tenable prospect.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by seanobrgp

Apologies if I came across too strongly -- that certainly wasn't my intent.

The issue of entitlement spending is a conundrum. I think the Republican Party's reluctance to outline a credible reform plan is an admission on their part that, while the rhetoric is proving successful in the immediate term, the majority of Americans are unwilling to accept a disruption in the benefits they currently or intend to receive upon eligibility. Any discussion of how we can bring these programs back to fiscal solvency and reign in the deficit has to respect that boundary -- or make a credible effort to preserve as much of the safety net as possible.

What's most disconcerting to me is the culture of expectation and ignorance that we're seeing play out. There appears to be a large subset of our society that has been taught to want all things with none of their obligations; to accept grandiose assurances, but not the grandiose costs that go with them. Separating myself from ideology, the succinct truth is this: if we want to guarantee an individuals' retirement, health care for the elderly and infirm, and provide for the destitute and unfortunate, then we must accept that these initiatives will soon be unsupportable at our current level of taxation. Social Security is rectifiable; Medicare, with an unfunded liability of $38 trillion? Probably not. If we want progress on this issue, we first have to convince the electorate that our present path is unsustainable and a re-examination of entitlement spending is in our collective self-interest to prevent some dire consequences.

We have to be accountable as a nation, and maybe that has to start with what type of society we aspire to be. If the majority of Americans want comprehensive amenities resembling those you would find in Europe, it will require their marginal tax rates or an additional VAT to comfortably support them, and we shouldn't pretend otherwise. Whatever the outcome, the time to start reform is now -- but impoverishing a third to half of the elderly population is never going to a tenable prospect.

I don't wish to sidetrack you, but I assume from your age that you are in college. May I ask what your major is? I do not agree with all of your points, but your prose is excellent and your logic is well-supported. I wish that more of my students wrote half as well.

[seanobrgp]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

I don't wish to sidetrack you, but I assume from your age that you are in college. May I ask what your major is? I do not agree with all of your points, but your prose is excellent and your logic is well-supported. I wish that more of my students wrote half as well.

Computer science -- the major of people who can't communicate, so I appreciate the compliment.

I thought I could contribute a different perspective to the discussion, being a college-aged Republican when others of my demographic are overwhelmingly liberal or apathetic, but also because I reside in one of the country's most liberal states. I've received the odd askew glance before, yet it's forced me to try to learn as much as possible to combat the echo chamber, and that's a positive.

[SteamWake]

Originally Posted by seanobrgp

Apologies if I came across too strongly -- that certainly wasn't my intent.

Not its just that pepole dont usually drop in a several paragraph half page post in a political discussion thread as their first post is all.

It is usually "Why dont this mod werk"

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by seanobrgp

Social Security may be many things, but it is not an illegitimate expense; with respect, to even imply that suggests you are simply projecting your ideological beliefs rather than taking a moment to consider the issue.

That's for sure. We paid into SS so that money should be earmarked for retirees.

But if they want to return the $$ I paid in over 30 years, with interest, I would gladly take it.

Every coin has two sides......

That post is probably worthy of a case study.
Such crazines is quite interesting.
So one would be beholden to be loyal to a state if one availed of financial measures regarding purchase of property....yet one would not be beholden of a state to a state if one availed of financial measures regarding purchase of property.


There was once this fellow who refused to walk on the footpath as his personal taxes did not cover the cost of buiding and maintaining the footpath, he did not want to be a parasite.

He got run over by a car on a road that he had not personaly purchased, a minute portion of his contributions to the state may possibly have paid for some of the water that the fireman used to hose his remains off the tarmac, he didn't get reimbursed for any portion of that water.

[gimpy117]

Skybird, I completely agree. There are many people that use the tax code to skirt around paying what they should. Write off's here- write off's there....
It is you're social responsibility to pay taxes, and to not use the system.
But I like how you said how even if you are legally entitled to money from the state, you don't have to take it!