Do you agree with cutting social security or medicare?

[AidenCarby]

No, we should cut welfare programs!

^

[Yugl]

Since all of these issues fundamentally rely on some form of irrationalism, I prefer to look at this from a "roles" perspective. What do we expect business and companies to do? What do we expect government to do?

1. I think businesses should do what they're expected to do: fight competitively in a market.

2. I think government should work to fix the negative externalities of the market.

Of course, there are functions that business or government alone cannot handle, in which case, cooperation is necessary. The question still remains, what type and how many negative externalities should we fix? Due to the very nature of the relationship between these two entities, I would argue that the answer to this question should be a function of the affected population and the capabilities of government. On one hand, I'm sure the affected population would like these programs to remain (And if not, then don't keep them I would argue). On the other hand, reducing the deficit may have positive consequences in the future, but it's not entirely sure what these outcomes would entail. Overall, it may be that we don't, and probably will never, have the ability to discreetly look at this matter purely based on outcomes. However, using what we have, it may be more "responsible" for us to keep out programs and cut expenses in other ways.

[Cadsuane]

I don't know what you want us to talk about here, because my instinct is to focus on Goldman and bitch about how well connected they are. And dangerous. In fact, i previously made a thread specifically to bitch about Goldman.

Whatever lets you thread a point back to the topic of social security or you know, vindication of centre left principals in general I guess. A derail into talking about the euro zone predicament is acceptable as well.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

Since all of these issues fundamentally rely on some form of irrationalism, I prefer to look at this from a "roles" perspective. What do we expect business and companies to do? What do we expect government to do?

1. I think businesses should do what they're expected to do: fight competitively in a market.

2. I think government should work to fix the negative externalities of the market.

Of course, there are functions that business or government alone cannot handle, in which case, cooperation is necessary. The question still remains, what type and how many negative externalities should we fix? Due to the very nature of the relationship between these two entities, I would argue that the answer to this question should be a function of the affected population and the capabilities of government. On one hand, I'm sure the affected population would like these programs to remain (And if not, then don't keep them I would argue). On the other hand, reducing the deficit may have positive consequences in the future, but it's not entirely sure what these outcomes would entail. Overall, it may be that we don't, and probably will never, have the ability to discreetly look at this matter purely based on outcomes. However, using what we have, it may be more "responsible" for us to keep out programs and cut expenses in other ways.

Oil and water my friend. Because of Wall Street and the stock market a public company by law needs to show profits to its investors and that it is trying to generate revenue. To stay afloat these companies have been willing to lie, cheat, and steal - all of this on top of raising the wages of executive level employees while keeping the workers waging exactly where they are.

Big business has no interest in working with the government. The governments role is to protect its citizens from threats foreign and domestic. A threat is not always a bullet or a bomb as propaganda would have you believe. We have more deaths in one day due to corporate negligence and malice than we do from foreign attacks in a decade.

Yet people at home are more afraid of Osama Bin Laden than they are of the CEO's of mining corporations. It's pathetic, especially to watch people defend a corporations right to do bad business in the name of "freedom" when in actuality they encourage oppressive corporatist fascism through our current state of oligarchy.

[Kuya]

I don't think there is much of a discussion to be had unless a conservative who genuinely wants to cut social services arrives. The idea of social services being cut hasn't yet materialized and is at this moment mere rhetoric from the government in order to assure voters they are doing something about the deficit (which is the point of the summits), and is merely the wet dream of a few who, for whatever reason, want the cut or eliminate SS and Medicare. The only novelle thing i can point out is that there is some movement to cut social services, but whether it will be sucessful or not is up in the air.

I suppose we might have a discussion on the merits of cutting social services vs. the negative consequences of doing so, but i i'm not informed enough to lead a debate on that. My only real contribution is a poll to see how against or for people in this forum are.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

May as well have made a poll asking if Obama is a US citizen or a Muslim lol

[Yugl]

I won't argue against anything you've said namely because this is a opinionated discussion, and many of the roles you've mentioned (Monopoly over violence) are widely recognized as the function of states. However, I would like to add that the state provides the necessities for business to flourish. For instance, property rights are very important for businesses. Indeed, they companies can change locations, which hinders the capital accumulation within a country. It creates a complex reciprocal system between government and business. The one point I can make is that this shows the feebleness of a system with lots of veto points. Where interest groups and lobbyists cannot win the support of one policymaking body, it may seek assistance from another.

[Cantih]

If we were to discuss what might reasonably happen

The thing is, Defense is the only place literal real cuts can happen. The US is ridiculously ahead in capability, we can afford to dial back hardware spending. But of course, like the if you hit business with a stick they turn around and take it out of the customers, if you cut military budget they don't stop spending on toys it gets passed to the grunts, and that's bad.

Consider Iraq, the "war" lasted all of of six weeks, we completely wrecked their military capability. (The US could do the same to any country on the planet, barring those with nuclear deterrent) The occupation however, the people element, has lasted the better part of a decade.

With SS and Medi, any reductions are going to have to come from efficiencies, reducing the cost of things we need to spend on, rather than cutting spending itself.

[Kuya]

Oh, i wasn't saying that i don't think there should be cuts in the "defense" budget. It's just unlikely because the force with the strongest influence in the US is the military sector.

[Komm Suesser Tod]

As indicated in your post, the rich rarely pay taxes because of special interest lobbying, tax shelters, and teams of accountants hiding or writing off income. There should be a salary cap enforced on the top 5% of earners in this country with excess income being taxed 100%.

There should be an elite task force akin to the FBI or CIA whose sole purpose is to police these top earners outside of and in conjunction with the IRS. This task force should also have a corporations division that will police financial departments of the top 25% of earners of corporations in the same manner to ensure they are paying taxes properly.

Private business should be encouraged through a massive government effort and ad campaign, also through a federally funded non-profit that goes around to small business and preaches the benefits of remaining private and / or becoming co-ops.

The only programs that should be cut are programs that directly and indirectly subsidize for-profit corporations with a minimum of 250 employees.

The top two ideas should be maintained for 20 years and then voted on / restructured every 20 years to balance out the budget, or in times of extreme surplus / deficit.

I am not j/k. Not one single person on this forum would be negatively effected if this was implemented so I will enjoy the copious speculation of poor people giving rebuttals for the wealthy elite.

Maybe not to this extent, but I agree. Maybe products should be capped at a certain price, regarding their value. Like, if it cost $10,000 to produce, all costs included, you couldn't charge more than $15,000, something like that.

I'm not saying I'm 100% informed or anything, but I think that the corporations in America have to have more supervision and oversight, or things aren't going to get better?

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

Maybe not to this extent, but I agree. Maybe products should be capped at a certain price, regarding their value. Like, if it cost $10,000 to produce, all costs included, you couldn't charge more than $15,000, something like that.

I'm not saying I'm 100% informed or anything, but I think that the corporations in America have to have more supervision and oversight, or things aren't going to get better?

Corporations see the American government and its people as a resource. Once that resource is depleted they will move on. There are things sold on the market that are such a necessity of everyday life they shouldn't even be considered as for profit ( healthcare, energy ) much less be sold in the market as a competitive product.

The entire model needs to be reviewed and re-organized instead of adding more layers of oversight and regulation to an already broken system. We're at the point of using duct tape and hairpins to patch up a battleship.

[Komm Suesser Tod]

Corporations see the American government and its people as a resource. Once that resource is depleted they will move on. There are things sold on the market that are such a necessity of everyday life they shouldn't even be considered as for profit ( healthcare, energy ) much less be sold in the market as a competitive product.

The entire model needs to be reviewed and re-organized instead of adding more layers of oversight and regulation to an already broken system. We're at the point of using duct tape and hairpins to patch up a battleship.

When people mention things like "the free market will take care of itself" (ala Leif) I've always taken issue with it. I mean, one of the big issues with corporations in this country is that many are short sighted and seem to just do whatever they can to make the current heads rich, and fuck whoever gets fucked by it. Newsflash, what we have now isn't working, and letting it continue under the idea that it will someday even out just isn't good enough.

And I suppose I meant more effectual oversight, like what would be accomplished with an overhaul of the system, rather than more oversight.

[Cadsuane]

I don't think there is much of a discussion to be had unless a conservative who genuinely wants to cut social services arrives. The idea of social services being cut hasn't yet materialized and is at this moment mere rhetoric from the government in order to assure voters they are doing something about the deficit (which is the point of the summits), and is merely the wet dream of a few who, for whatever reason, want the cut or eliminate SS and Medicare. The only novelle thing i can point out is that there is some movement to cut social services, but whether it will be sucessful or not is up in the air.

I suppose we might have a discussion on the merits of cutting social services vs. the negative consequences of doing so, but i i'm not informed enough to lead a debate on that. My only real contribution is a poll to see how against or for people in this forum are.

I don't know enough talking points to do devil's advocate either. I could say EI raises unemployment, or that medicaid is the worst parts of universal healthcare and private insurance rolled into one, but that's about it.

We can also examine that class warfare comment since that's the stink your article had to it and it seems to be what Perm's sticking to. Like you I agree with Marx on that one, but the reason I mentioned it was to poke fun at making normative statements about rich people when you're only doing so due to being socially marginalized and poor in comparison. That's kind of a dick Leif type comment to make but if someone indignantly refines an argument because of it, great. The refinement being a serious questioning of whether or not it's a conscious oligarchy with an agenda, or a blind systemic one, even better.

[Kuya]

I don't know enough talking points to do devil's advocate either. I could say EI raises unemployment, or that medicaid is the worst parts of universal healthcare and private insurance rolled into one, but that's about it.

We can also examine that class warfare comment since that's the stink your article had to it and it seems to be what Perm's sticking to. Like you I agree with Marx on that one, but the reason I mentioned it was to poke fun at making normative statements about rich people when you're only doing so due to being socially marginalized and poor in comparison. That's kind of a dick Leif type comment to make but if someone indignantly refines an argument because of it, great. The refinement being a serious questioning of whether or not it's a conscious oligarchy with an agenda, or a blind systemic one, even better.

Yes, the whole situation does stink of class warfare to me. For example, here you have Rubin and Peterson, both pro-deregulation pro-tax breaks guys who didn't seem to think that austerity meassures applied to them, and here now they say that in order to stop the deficit social security and medicare might need to be cut, when the people who rely on these services are mostly middle class or lower class. I don't know if they realize how this looks, as in, whether their intentions really are class warfare, although that might be the least important issue. They don't seem to consider at least mentioning increasing capital taxes or larger taxes on corporations in order to at least make themselves not look like they're waging class warfare.

Not to mention the absurdity of the entire situation. You get the argument that you can't raise taxes on corporations or else it will hurt the economy and jobs will be lost. It sounds like they're holding the economy hostage. But then what are you supposed to do about taxes or money? Presumably you either tax the middle class (lol taxing the lower class) or you cut services. It just seems incredily unfair.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

I don't know enough talking points to do devil's advocate either. I could say EI raises unemployment, or that medicaid is the worst parts of universal healthcare and private insurance rolled into one, but that's about it.

We can also examine that class warfare comment since that's the stink your article had to it and it seems to be what Perm's sticking to. Like you I agree with Marx on that one, but the reason I mentioned it was to poke fun at making normative statements about rich people when you're only doing so due to being socially marginalized and poor in comparison. That's kind of a dick Leif type comment to make but if someone indignantly refines an argument because of it, great. The refinement being a serious questioning of whether or not it's a conscious oligarchy with an agenda, or a blind systemic one, even better.

I seriously doubt there's a macro-agenda taking place on conspiratorial levels, I think it's just several micro-agendas colliding on a massive scale that overlap and end up being supported and pushed by the same folk ( or their representatives ) for the same benefits they all end up sharing.

[Marootsoobutsu]

As indicated in your post, the rich rarely pay taxes because of special interest lobbying, tax shelters, and teams of accountants hiding or writing off income.

First, to this... the wealthiest 10% pay 70% of America's taxes; this is a higher ratio than the wealthiest 10% pay in any other nation on earth. The wealthiest 1% pay about 50% of America's taxes. This, too, is a higher ratio than the wealthiest 1% in any other nation pay on their taxes. The bottom 49% didn't end up owing *ANYTHING* in income tax, and a sizable chunk received back *MORE* than they paid. History has shown that trying to squeeze a higher percentage out of the rich just leads to creativity or hording. The former leads to them taking more risks to avoid paying taxes, and the expense of the lawyers to get them out of those risky binds is no where near the amount they'd end up paying. History has also shown that reasonable tax rates (read: close to what the mainstream pay in pure % terms), tends to get paid, particularly as the risk of cheating gets less worth the potential benefits.



More on topic, yes, the FICA programs should get cut. Social Security isn't a financial sinkhole (yet), but it is on its way, and will be entirely unsustainable in the next 10 years as more and more baby-boomers start collecting, and don't stop collecting for 10-20 years. Social Security either needs privatized (probably not happening until it's at a true deficit), the rates increased (which will hurt the poor more than it helps those who need SS), or we need a massive population boom. Canceling it is altogether is another option, but really, the first two are the only two that are plausible. As the Greatest Generation dies off, privatization is more likely. Medicare I'd have almost no problem axing altogether. I'd love to see Medicaid reduced to state-funded only.

With the topic answered, make no mistake: the military could be scaled way back in budget, too. The main problem is duplication of function in the branches. Streamline and more specifically identify each branch's role, remove the overlap, and then budget accordingly. It really is mostly the redundancy that destroys the budget, particularly when you have multiple branches funding research on the same problem. I'm a firm believer that the military must continue to make progress, as stagnation is eventual death, but I also think that the military would make better progress, for less money, if about half the politics were removed, and more genuine military discipline reigned at the top.


The main problem that these programs face, of course, is that they are the two largest lobbying groups in the country. That is also, of course, why they are each over-funded and under-regulated. They are the hot buttons no one wants to touch, except to expand. Both have also grown to the point where they need trimmed, at least, to healthier, more manageable sizes.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

First, to this... the wealthiest 10% pay 70% of America's taxes; this is a higher ratio than the wealthiest 10% pay in any other nation on earth. The wealthiest 1% pay about 50% of America's taxes. This, too, is a higher ratio than the wealthiest 1% in any other nation pay on their taxes. The bottom 49% didn't end up owing *ANYTHING* in income tax, and a sizable chunk received back *MORE* than they paid. History has shown that trying to squeeze a higher percentage out of the rich just leads to creativity or hording. The former leads to them taking more risks to avoid paying taxes, and the expense of the lawyers to get them out of those risky binds is no where near the amount they'd end up paying. History has also shown that reasonable tax rates (read: close to what the mainstream pay in pure % terms), tends to get paid, particularly as the risk of cheating gets less worth the potential benefits.

The bottom 49% make less than $35,000 a year and have exemptions for raising families....

edit: But I should have clarified by saying "rarely pay the full amount of taxes they should be paying." Also, that stat about America having a higher ratio than the 1% in any other nation... America is the leading country in generating wealth so our wealthiest are generally leaps and bounds wealthier than the wealthiest of other nations.

By the by, for a country that has the highest tax rate how do we have the worst social programs? I guess we should model France and Britian and have more social programs, which lower market costs, and save the rich in taxes. That just happened.

[Marootsoobutsu]

We have the worst social problems because we are trying to micro-manage Europe from London. The EU model isn't a bad one for interstate trade, but comparing the US in any way, shape, or form to ONLY France or ONLY England is retarded. There is no nation on Earth that compares to America in terms of population, infrastructure, geography, and wealth. Most of the EU has a state that it is comparable to.

While the Federal government does have very legitimate, necessary roles, its scope of top-to-bottom power has far exceeded the ability of a single central government to organize to effectively meed the very different, very specific needs across the several states. In turn, the states (which have the ability to respond to local population needs), continue to try and force authority and power on a federal system so they don't need to man up and solve their own damned problems.


The last major reason that we have (arguably, depending on your perspective), the worst social welfare programs, is because we basically built up a military strong enough to protect our allies to the point where there own military budget can be a fraction (relatively) to what ours is for their needs. America took on the role of Super Power, and as such eased the military needs of her allies. Our wealthiest pay more, but the needs of our defense are likewise substantially higher.

[Kuya]

Might you cite some sources on the US's tax rate both in general and on the wealthiest? Also, could you clarify where you got the idea that the US military's purpose, when considering its size, is to protect US allies? That's a new one.

edit: would also like to know from what the US is protecting these allies

[Tythera]

The thing is, Defense is the only place literal real cuts can happen. The US is ridiculously ahead in capability, we can afford to dial back hardware spending. But of course, like the if you hit business with a stick they turn around and take it out of the customers, if you cut military budget they don't stop spending on toys it gets passed to the grunts, and that's bad.

Small anecdotal story but one of the projects within my division has gotten three different cuts in it's budget this FY. Altogether they've lost ~51% of their original budget worth something like $70 million. This is for development of a system; they haven't even finalized what will end up being produced yet.

The whole point of that was they do in fact cut into development projects, not just the people/fielding end of things. I do realize though that it's just a drop in the hat in the big picture (also this cut still affects the grunts very badly down the road but that's beside the point).