![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
underlankers.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticshttp://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1451268
One interesting bit of political chicanery is the phenomenon whereby the states that condemn loudest the mere idea of the welfare state as an atrocity against all law and order, and as a type of Communism (whereby instead of a totalitarian party-state idea they seem to mistake it for Dr. Doom's Latveria with elements of Mordor) themselves take more out of the government than they pay into it. My first question is why these people expect the Federals to keep doing this? My second is what good is it if the Federal government keeps subsidizing people who give great lip service to the ideas of Ayn Rand, but like Rand herself depend on the Federal dole to keep themselves functional?
My second point is here: http://moneyning.com/money-news/federal-budget-breakdown-2011/
Defense, Social Security, and Medicare respectively are the big three of Federal spending, as shown by actual data. If people are truly sincere about cutting the budget, wouldn't one of the first and most obvious moves be to retool the military for a post-Cold War geopolitical sphere where soft power is more advantageous than hard power? Given the huge degree of pork spending in the Defense System, and the extent to which it serves to keep Senators and Representatives in the Congress until they're 100, why not start eliminating all *this* pork? It hardly meets the needs of a 2010s military, and didn't really meet the needs of the 1980s one very well. Too, a lot of military investment is toward weapons that break if you look at them cross-eyed, meaning millions of dollars, frankly, go to something that does not half of what it's supposed to do. Is it also not sensible to eliminate useless things like this?
Too, both Social Security and Medicare were designed for the lower-population and higher mortality rate of the 1930s, when most people, to put it bluntly, did not live to be 80. These days the Baby Boomers are getting older, but are going to be supported on a system drawn up in the 1930s. Wouldn't the most sensible ideas about Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid be to retool them to a 21st Century society that is much more populated and older, as opposed to the one of FDR's day?
In my view, so long as these big 3 are ignored any and all talk of "fiscal conservatism" is so much humbug designed to hoodwink the voters. To retool and cut from these services is not a magic bullet, and there's other cuts that will have to be made. But how is it remotely possible to believe a budget can be balanced when these three are considered sacred cows that must not be harmed lest Ahura Market have to face the challenge of Angra Gubment?
One interesting bit of political chicanery is the phenomenon whereby the states that condemn loudest the mere idea of the welfare state as an atrocity against all law and order, and as a type of Communism (whereby instead of a totalitarian party-state idea they seem to mistake it for Dr. Doom's Latveria with elements of Mordor) themselves take more out of the government than they pay into it. My first question is why these people expect the Federals to keep doing this? My second is what good is it if the Federal government keeps subsidizing people who give great lip service to the ideas of Ayn Rand, but like Rand herself depend on the Federal dole to keep themselves functional?
My second point is here: http://moneyning.com/money-news/federal-budget-breakdown-2011/
Defense, Social Security, and Medicare respectively are the big three of Federal spending, as shown by actual data. If people are truly sincere about cutting the budget, wouldn't one of the first and most obvious moves be to retool the military for a post-Cold War geopolitical sphere where soft power is more advantageous than hard power? Given the huge degree of pork spending in the Defense System, and the extent to which it serves to keep Senators and Representatives in the Congress until they're 100, why not start eliminating all *this* pork? It hardly meets the needs of a 2010s military, and didn't really meet the needs of the 1980s one very well. Too, a lot of military investment is toward weapons that break if you look at them cross-eyed, meaning millions of dollars, frankly, go to something that does not half of what it's supposed to do. Is it also not sensible to eliminate useless things like this?
Too, both Social Security and Medicare were designed for the lower-population and higher mortality rate of the 1930s, when most people, to put it bluntly, did not live to be 80. These days the Baby Boomers are getting older, but are going to be supported on a system drawn up in the 1930s. Wouldn't the most sensible ideas about Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid be to retool them to a 21st Century society that is much more populated and older, as opposed to the one of FDR's day?
In my view, so long as these big 3 are ignored any and all talk of "fiscal conservatism" is so much humbug designed to hoodwink the voters. To retool and cut from these services is not a magic bullet, and there's other cuts that will have to be made. But how is it remotely possible to believe a budget can be balanced when these three are considered sacred cows that must not be harmed lest Ahura Market have to face the challenge of Angra Gubment?
(no subject)
Date: 28/2/11 19:22 (UTC)In effect it is a Ponzi Scheme, where the money paid in now is simply distributed as benefits now and eventually the benefits to be paid out will outpace the money being paid in.
The only reason it has lasted as long as it did is because it is mandatory and we have had a rapidly growing GDP for 50 of the last 70 years. However for a great many reasons** it is clear that GDP cannot continue to grow at that rate and in fact is likely to be relatively stagnant (at best) for the next several decades meaning that it is impossible to increase the money going in and demographic forces (namely a stagnant and aging populace) requires massive growth in the money being paid out.
Whether privatized or not Social Security needs to be transformed into a program where at least a portion of the money you contribute is placed into an account which YOU own and 100% of the money is placed into accounts belonging to some future beneficiary (that is if you pay in $10,000 then all $10,000 of it goes into someone's future retirement account, none is paid out to current beneficiaries).
If it is not, then it will continually be in danger of bankrupting the country because it's stability will be subject to the whims of demography and stagnant or shrinking populations will always mean not enough money coming in to pay the benefits.
** = While there are a lot of reasons why this is so the main one was the fact that the US had an artificial short term windfall coming out of World War 2 as the only functioning industrial economy. It took until well into the 1980's for other large states to fully recover from that war and some of them were then saddled with the burden of leadership imposing socialism on them. By the late 1990's when the last of those states finally recognized the failure that is Socialism and instituted Market Reforms plus India and Brazil's abilities to leave the ranks of the "developing world" and actually develop into something approximating modern industrial/post industrial economies has knocked the US down several pegs to the point where economic dominance is gone and we're only barely holding on to economic leadership.
In this world of increased international competition the US will always be a rich country, possibly always the richest, but it is never going to be able to consume anywhere near the fraction of global GDP that it did from 1940 - 1990 and in terms of real purchasing power parity the US GDP can only shrink or at best stay stagnant as the rest of the world catches up.
(no subject)
Date: 28/2/11 22:49 (UTC)The SSI gap only lasts for a few years till the pool of workers catches up with the pool of benefit receivers, and that presumes there's no changes to the formula.
(no subject)
Date: 1/3/11 01:14 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2/3/11 03:54 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 3/3/11 08:41 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 1/3/11 08:20 (UTC)And do we need to be in a position of what you term economic leadership in order to pay these debts? I haven't seem any large trend of our GDP going down over those decades you mention. Instead we have more and more income going to a small percent at the top, and not the bottom.
Sorry if this is confusing, I am responding to the both of you in different ways.
(no subject)
Date: 2/3/11 03:26 (UTC)