![[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 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.