Liberals on the board: Why is this guy wrong?

[Bo's Pelini]

[mlyonsd]

Originally Posted by JonesCrusher

The problem most have with the Warren quote is that it implies that businesses currently pay nothing and it is time to start fulfilling their social contract. What should have been said is thank you for the roads we drive on but we kinda blew a shitload of money on waste and fraud and if we are going to keep this bottomless bucket of money mentality we will need a few more dollars please.

Nailed it.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Mr. Kotter

Are you serious....SS "progressive?" Lower income people get more as a percentage of contributions, of course; the REAL issue is ability to pay, and percentage of income contributed, which is why the current set-up is big time regressive (benefitting those with higher incomes more.)

No, that's not the real issue. The real issue is what does the program look like from a comprehensive pov. That's tough to do with the general fund taxes and discretionary spending because it's hard to apportion benefits, but it's not tough to do with SS.

Originally Posted by Mr. Kotter

The reason for making Medicare/SS into a social welfare program is expectations of current Americans--it already is, and politically it simply is NOT possible at this point to pull that rug out from under the majority of Americans.

That's evidence that I'm right not that I'm wrong. To the extent that some people already see it as welfare (and from my pov, your assessment is seriously overblown), it's because the solvency fix that took place under Reagan has already pushed it in that direction. The next round of solvency fixes will push the program even further down the road and erode even more of it's support.

I completely agree that it's not possible to pull the rug out from under some Americans (the ones who are at or near retirement age and have based their financial plans on it's availability).

Originally Posted by Mr. Kotter

I tried to toss you some bones....means testing, raising retirement ages, allowing for more working income, but....surprise, surprise....you opted the reverse class-warfare model expoused by plutocrats. I'm shocked.

You're not shocked, you're just dumb. I neither embraced nor rejected your bones. I've been talking about the degree of progressivity/regressivity in the system and what the likely impact of making these programs solvent through some of the means you've described will be.

[gonefishin53]

So who builds the roads and feeds the children when the U.S. goes bankrupt because of unsustainable levels of government power and spending authority?

[tiptap]

Marginal Capitalism. You have to provide a universal level of the necessities: food, water, education and health to a population. Money/ownership is not paramount and the source for an economy. People are. No people, no economy. And when you insist upon one manner of economy and value you are wedded to an ideology whatever that ideology is. And no single ideology can correctly cover all situations.

[mlyonsd]

Originally Posted by gonefishin53

So who builds the roads and feeds the children when the U.S. goes bankrupt because of unsustainable levels of government power and spending authority?

That's plan B. Storm all the rich folk's mansions and raid their refrigerators.

[CoMoChief]

Originally Posted by J Diddy

and if they're stupid and have no money to educate?

Not anyone's problem but their own.

[ROYC75]

Originally Posted by gonefishin53

So who builds the roads and feeds the children when the U.S. goes bankrupt because of unsustainable levels of government power and spending authority?

Liberal response would be , Uh, the road builders and farmers. We will tax you more,tax and spend is all we do.