Warning: political thread

[Winterclaw]

It's only 99 days until the election and I still haven't heard the canidates talk much about the upcoming financial crisis that the former US comptroller general (accountant) was warning us about. Basically it is this: because of the baby boom, by around 2040 or shortly after that the US is going to run out of money to pay for anything besides social security and medicare. There are ways out, some include a combonation of tax increases, spending cuts, and some kind of health-care reform, but not the type the democrats want. Unfortunately, all of the ways out are going to be pretty painful.

In the article I linked to below, he says we'd have to have about 8 trillion invested now in order to cover the costs then. We have zip squirrled away.

60 minutes article.



So don't you guys think it is irresponsible that neither canidate is stepping forward on this issue? I think we can all agree that the US needs a real leader right now, however I don't know if I can trust either with leadership if they can't come forward and be honest about an issue that needs to be addressed ASAP to minimize the pain.

Everyone is so worried about the short-term economy that no one seems to be looking at the bigger picture.

[Snow Bunny]

It'll come in 2040 and programs will be slashed.

I don't think it's irresponsible, I just think that there are issues that are more pressing than something 32 years in the future.

Herbert Hoover had a quote about trying to plan the economy (this was during the very start of the depression) around making sure the US was set for 1960 or something.

One of the largest public criticisms of his adminastration by the public at the time was thinking too far ahead and not about what was right in front of his nose.

So sure, think about it. But with the war and the economy, what the hell do you expect either candidate to do?

[I pwnd U]

While you are at it watch out for the Y2K bug!

Okay but seriously politicals and guru don't mix well. Better put on a flame suit because they are on their way.

The bigger picture is that while yes it is possible between now and 2040 ALOT could change. People would rather focus on the here and now rather then 32 years down the line.

[Winterclaw]

Snow Bunny, if you are only looking ahead, that is a bad thing. You need to have focus on the present as well. However you can't only be focused on the present because some things take a long time to do or to fix. If we reserve some energy to start fixing things now, it'll be easier later. Also look at the article. Assuming he is right the US is spending 50% more for health-care and we don't even get the best health-care in the world. Even if you don't think about the long term, this is a problem.

I pwnd U, yes things can change but how likely is that change to be. If we keep putting it off, 20 years from now medicare and social security might be taking up 50% or more of the budget and everyone is screaming about which taxes to raise and who's pet project isn't going to be cut. With today's politicians it might take 32 years of effort to get the ball rolling.

Take the fanny-freddy bail out. The US is going to throw away about 400 billion in order to protect 400,000 of the 11 million people who have seen their houses lose value because the bubble burst. 20-30 years from now how many bail outs are there going to be and can we afford them? Also if we have bail outs and people won't learn from their mistakes, will the economy then be as strong as it is now.

As I've said, even if you prefer to focus on the here and now doesn't mean you can't get away with ignoring the future all the time.

[Dante the Warlord]

Yea, social security is starting to fail and we don't have the money to pay people back. I think that winterclaw is right, we obviously need to look in the future, but in 2040, when I will be around my 50's -60's and looking for my retirement, I don't think it is fair to put such a hassle on people then... The entire U.S. economy is starting to belly up. However, addressing some present issues should help some future cost issues, such as energy dependency on oil (in which we should switch to hydrogen powered cars and nuclear powered homes).

But overall, I don't really like any of these candidates. I can't vote, so my opinion doesn't really matter, but I think people are paying too much attention to the status of the candidates, such as McCains too old, Barak Obama is black, Barak's middle name is Hussein...etc.

But by the way, its probably not a great idea to post this on a guru board since we are no all from the U.S.

[Kanyatta]

And then, if the candidates were talking about 2040, there would be mass hysteria about "ZOMG! NO IRAQZ?!?!!"

Being a politician, I'd imagine, is a lot more difficult than movies/tv would have you believe. To me, it seems everything you do as a politician is a lose-lose situation.

[Winterclaw]

Iraq is slowly settling itself. I think the surge is working and the iraqi government has met 15 of the 18 benchmarks we gave them. In the US, the near-term economy is going to be the big issue.

Yes there are a lot of lose-lose situations, but that's what differentiates a stateman, which we need, from a politician, which we don't. Sadly we have one definate politician in Obama, and one mostly politician in McCain.

[Chthon]

0. Interesting topic. I'm not too sure that you're going to get a whole lot of thoughtful comments here on guru, but let's give it a shot.

1. The current situation is so dire that it needs to be addressed now. There's no point in making sure SS is in good shape for 2040 if today's SS recipients are losing their homes, going bankrupt, and being forced to choose between buying food and buying medicine on a daily basis. (And I should know, I deal with them on a daily basis.)

2. You are right that the only solution to the problem is going to be painful. It's going to take a combination of tax hikes, spending cuts, and some tertium quid -- programs to make people less dependent on SS and Medicare so that it doesn't hurt as badly when the promised benefits don't materialize (since Snowbunny is probably right; Washington probably isn't going to move fast enough to stave off massive cuts in the future). Let's look at each of these in turn.

2a. Take Hikes.

First, you start by increasing the income tax on the super rich. That means rolling back the Bush tax cuts, and then probably even increasing taxes on the upper brackets above Clinton-era rates. This is the single largest source of income available to the government. (It should be noted that taxes on the rich was how Clinton balanced the budget near the end of his term, so there's some historical precedent for taxes on the rich working.)

It's also the alpha and the omega of the "who do I vote for if I care about SS and medicare not imploding before I get old?" inquiry. Obama would roll back the Bush tax cuts. McCain would make them permanent, then add even more tax cuts for the super rich. That's it. You don't have to look any further. If you care about the government's long-term ability to pay for Social Security (or anything else for that matter), then you should vote for Obama. No other issue has such a large impact on the long-term state of the government's finances.

Second, you probably will need to increase corporate taxes.

I don't believe either candidate has taken a stance on corporate taxation (at least not one that I'm aware of), but I'd wager Obama is more likely to do it than McCain.

Third, you eliminate the special capital gains rate. Treat capital gains as ordinary income. (But make sure to index the basis for inflation!)

Fourth, repeal the estate tax, BUT, AT THE SAME TIME, add a realization-on-death rule to the income tax. (More details: Give it an exemption around $1.5 million modeled after the estate tax's unified credit. Also add a provision that gives the IRS discretion to reduce, structure over time, or outright eliminate taxes due if the grantee can show that paying them would cause undue hardship.)

I don't think either candidate is going to go anywhere near these last two tax hikes. McCain because he's disinclined to do so. Obama because he understands that the general public is just too dumb to understand how these taxes operate, and the Republican party is just too good at convincing people that they're anything other than what they are -- taxes paid almost exclusively by the very wealthy. (Good God, thanks to the Republican propaganda, how many people are absolutely, positively livid about the "death tax" when neither they, nor anyone they know, will die with enough wealth to use up even 1% of the exemption amount?!)

2b. Spending Cuts.

First, begin by cutting earmarks. They're a shameful and wasteful sign of political corruption that deserves to be eliminated. Unfortunately, they're also small. Earmarks make up a tiny portion of the government's budget, so getting rid of them is only a small step towards fixing its financial affairs.

Every politician out there likes to rail against earmarks. But I do think that McCain is probably the most serious about it. Unfortunately, he also keeps insisting that eliminating earmarks alone is magically enough to balance the budget. (It's not even close.) That means that either he's not really serious about fixing the government's finances, or he's a total idiot -- and neither one of those is a good thing.

Second on the chopping block is military spending. (Actually, this should probably be first.) It is, by far, the biggest chunk of "optional" government spending, so it is the biggest target for cuts.

Of course, that means that we're going to have to stop invading foreign countries without good reasons. This doesn't fit too well with McCain's "stay in Iraq for 100 years" position (see particularly on-point cartoon) or his "bomb bomb bomb Iran" policy (sung to the tune of Barbra Ann). (Though, it seems that McCain may have recently flip-flopped to endorse Obama's withdrawal timetable... wtf?) Obama's consistent "get the hell out" position (as well as his diplomacy-before-bombs position) means he's more likely to keep us in a position where we can afford to cut military spending.

Third up are programs that are essentially "giveaways" to favored entities. The government land leased indefinitely to logging and oil companies for well below its value is a good example. As are "faith-based initiatives," which are little more than a handout to favored religious leaders (and an unconstitutional one at that!).

I expect a little better from Obama than McCain in terms of corporate giveaways. But, unfortunately, both candidates support "faith-based" giveaways.

Fourth, money can be saved by undoing silly privatizations. In particular, the Bush administration's privatization of Medicare plans is quite wasteful, costing 17% more than when the government just did it themselves. (Note: Not all privatization is bad; but privatization for privatization's sake usually is.)

Again, the advantage goes to Obama here, as he's more likely to dismantle wasteful privatization schemes while McCain is more likely to make more of them, since his party line is to privatize everything.

Fifth, we may be looking at across-the-board cuts to everything, since everything else I've mentioned may not be enough. (Yes, big tax hikes, plus big spending cuts, plus the make-it-hurt-less programs I'm about to describe all together may not be enough.) However, that's probably not going to happen on the next president's watch. I don't expect to see that until desperation sets in around 2035.

2c. Tertium Quid -- Programs to make the lack of SS and Medicare benefits less painful.

As for making people less dependent on SS:

First, reinforce pension plans so that retirees have more non-SS income available. Give tax breaks (like the old-school Roth IRA) to encourage people to put more into them, and dole out harsh penalties for corporations that try to renege on their plans (a disturbingly common practice recently).

Second, raise wages so that workers have more money to save in the first place. Raising the minimum wage is a start, but it's not completely on-target. The real issue is that corporate profits and executive pay have become "decoupled" from workers' wages. As we saw during the economic "recovery" between the two Bush recessions, we are in a state where the wealthy are able to reap and keep the benefits of general economic growth for themselves while their workers get nothing and lose ground to inflation. Unless this is fixed, even a fantastic economy is going to produce many retirees who were never able to save for retirement. Unfortunately, every way I can think of to "recouple" corporate profits and executive pay to workers' wages turns out a bit too socialist for my comfort. I'm open to suggestions.

Third, lower consumers' day-to-day expenses so that they have more money to save.

This starts be reigning in the credit industry. A sickening proportion of the average American family's income goes towards paying off interest at rates that would have gotten a lender thrown in jail for usury back before credit industry lobbyists got the usury laws abolished -- not to mention executed for usury in the middle ages. Usury laws need to be put back in place and the Truth in Lending Act needs to be given back its teeth (which were pulled by a Republican Congress several years back).

This continues by dealing with the prices for basic necessities -- food and fuel. Both of these topics deserve lengthy discussions that I don't have time to give them right now. (Interestingly, solving these problems helps not only with our immediate economic situation, but also with our long-term one.)

As for making people less dependent on Medicare:

Two words: "Hillary Care." OK, probably not Hillary Clinton's plan exactly, but we need some sort of universal single-payer system administered by the government. The idea of every American getting affordable healthcare is fundamentally incompatible with the idea of a for-profit insurance industry. The only ways a health insurance company can make a profit are (1) excluding people likely to get sick (which violates the "every American" concept) and/or (2) charging their customers more, collectively, than they pay out (which violates the "affordable" concept). A government plan could give people the same "amount" of healthcare they get from insurance companies and HMO's for a lower cost. (I'll admit that a single-payer plan would not make people less dependent on Medicare so much as simply obviate Medicare altogether.)

As an additional benefit, government healthcare would free industry of very heavy healthcare costs, which would allow for general economic growth (which means more tax dollars, which means fewer cuts in services would be needed) and higher wages for workers (which means they are more able to save for retirement, and therefore less dependent on SS). Just ask General Motors how nice that would be.

[imnotyourmother]

Am I supposed to follow that? I will try.

1) The Bankruptcy's have already started.
2) the rich never get more taxes taken out that is why the "Middle Class" is disappearing
3) Vote Obama? No way. Most Radical Views of any candidate for President EVER! He will take the country down the wrong path that is for sure.
4) Estate Tax? In Scotland (I was just there) they have a 79% death tax on all property when someone dies. What most people do is literally rip the roofs off of the old castles and homes so that the taxes are less so that the family can still live on the land and build a new home. That is Insane. Lets not go there.
5) Cut Military Funding? Just like an Obama supporter. The guy will not even Visit the troops and this is the Commander and Chief? what are you thinking? Get off of it. The American troops are AMERICANS. I do not care about Right or Left. If we send them in to Die then at lease send them in EQUIPT. Spend the money. The Muslims are KILLING our TROUPS with BOMBS strapped to their WOMEN. They are KILLING themselves to GET a CHANCE to KILL just ONE of US! You want that here on American soil? Superlative
(I am mad now)
6) Your an official CRACK POT. Faith Based? So INTO AFRICA should be dropped? The Cure for AIDS that the CHRISTIAN GROUPS are helping to fight. RIGHT. So then 1/4 South African women with Aids is fine with you. I understand you care about YOURSELF. Must be Liberal and not AMERICAN.
7) Heath Care is SIMPLE to solve. Follow the CANADIAN model. The insurance companies have a STRANGLE hold on Americans. How do I know...I AM CANADIAN.

My Health care cost me around 4% of my salary in Canada. Here in the States it is 14% of my salary. 10% more and the drugs are WAY more expensive here. Oh and for those of you with thoughts about lines in Canada with Universal health care, WAKE UP. You have lines here to for specialists. People in the States DIE of tooth aches. Not in Canada. Some health care system you have here. I am keeping my Canadian Cit so that I can retire there when my working days are done. You Americans are nuts to pay like that. No caps on doctors salaries. The drug companies and other interests control the policies. It is nuts
8) ECONOMICS - please use a dictionary to see that the meaning of the word is. it is called More money is HIGHER INFLATION! Like in GUILD WARS. IF X Ectos = Best Sword ever and ectos price drops you will need MORE Ectos to buy the SAME stinking sword, not less. (is this guy for real?)
9) The GOV does NOT control the price in the FREE Market. this is called SOCIALISM or COMMUNISM. Please restrain me. (Third, lower consumers' day-to-day expenses so that they have more money to save.)
10) OIL is tied to he U.S. DOLLAR. THE US CAN NOT CHAnGE ITS INTEREST RATE WITHOUT EFFECTING THE PRICE OF CRUDE OIL!!! Thank Nixon for this one. History people History. I am Canadian and I know this.
11) the GOV has a HEALTH CARE SYSTEM you just need to qualify.

THE INDUSTRY does not have HIGH Heath care costs, WE THE PEOPLE DO.
I am so mad.

Please remember that I am CANADIAN so my VIEWS are UNBIASED as I can not VOTE unlike you.

Here is how to fix the American System.

1) TAX everyone EQUALLY. No exceptions.
2) Buy American/Canadian OIL. Yes there is enough to go around.
3) Increase the HUMANITARIAN aid for Irac and Iran. Do not isolate them. If you do their leaders will say to the people, see the U.S. HATES us so we are JUSTIFIED by their god to KILL us. Geesh. Give them Doctors, train them here for free and send them back. Doing these things is CHEEPER than KILLING them do you not think? Keep the troops there. Understand their ways. They are not better nor worse than our ways they are DIFFERENT.
As for American the leadership is now tainted as there is no "God Head" here anymore. That means no Humility.

My last point in this ramble is to Vote for C. RICE for PRES. She is the Smartest one of them all. That's who gets my vote.

[Snow Bunny]

Originally Posted by Chthon

First, you start by increasing the income tax on the super rich. That means rolling back the Bush tax cuts, and then probably even increasing taxes on the upper brackets above Clinton-era rates. This is the single largest source of income available to the government. (It should be noted that taxes on the rich was how Clinton balanced the budget near the end of his term, so there's some historical precedent for taxes on the rich working.

Raise taxes proportionally on lower brackets as well.

If you care about the government's long-term ability to pay for Social Security (or anything else for that matter), then you should vote for Obama.

I don't care about their ability to pay for SS. I'm voting for Obama based on the fact that he's Kennedy-esque. His wife needs an attitude check though.

Second, you probably will need to increase corporate taxes.

Right because corporation's are doing so well right now.

I don't believe either candidate has taken a stance on corporate taxation (at least not one that I'm aware of), but I'd wager Obama is more likely to do it than McCain.

Obama will raise them slightly, but meh.

Third, you eliminate the special capital gains rate. Treat capital gains as ordinary income. (But make sure to index the basis for inflation!)

Terrible idea. You destroy investment in bonds, which is a backbone of the investment yield. Atrociously bad idea.

Republican party is just too good at convincing people that they're anything other than what they are -- taxes paid almost exclusively by the very wealthy.

Most Republican voters are in the $35000-$60000 tax bracket; not very wealthy in the slightest.

First, begin by cutting earmarks. They're a shameful and wasteful sign of political corruption that deserves to be eliminated. Unfortunately, they're also small. Earmarks make up a tiny portion of the government's budget, so getting rid of them is only a small step towards fixing its financial affairs.

Agreed.

Every politician out there likes to rail against earmarks. But I do think that McCain is probably the most serious about it.

He's a pretty honest guy, I'll give him that.

Second on the chopping block is military spending. (Actually, this should probably be first.) It is, by far, the biggest chunk of "optional" government spending, so it is the biggest target for cuts.

Don't bump up health care too much in addition. Keep them both down.

(Note: Not all privatization is bad; but privatization for privatization's sake usually is.)

Good thing you understand this.

since his party line is to privatize everything.

Stop polarizing the issue.

Fifth, we may be looking at across-the-board cuts to everything

Good. Hit welfare and the military hard. Military spending is way too high but I believe people should be responsible for themselves.

Give tax breaks (like the old-school Roth IRA) to encourage people to put more into them

No - if you tax "the very wealthy" you should tax the rest at the same percentage. I disagree with wealthy-tax breaks, but I disagree with targetting them as well.

dole out harsh penalties for corporations that try to renege on their plans (a disturbingly common practice recently

I don't understand why corporations should have to provide benefits in the first place. The military and police, sure, but why should your company have to take care of you? No responsibility?

Unless this is fixed, even a fantastic economy is going to produce many retirees who were never able to save for retirement. Unfortunately, every way I can think of to "recouple" corporate profits and executive pay to workers' wages turns out a bit too socialist for my comfort.

This all appears a 'bit socialist'. I'm a vowed moderate, but I hate partisanship.

Third, lower consumers' day-to-day expenses so that they have more money to save.

Start on this by attempting to curb speculation on oil prices.

idea of every American getting affordable healthcare is fundamentally incompatible with the idea of a for-profit insurance industry.

The problem is that so many people abuse it, and end up screwing the medical profession. Abuse of the emergency room rule is rampant. You should look at the pie chart for a doctor's bill.







This war's destroying our economy.

[MMSDome]

hmm now if we didnt give illegals (people who are not citizens of the US) all these government funded programs we may have a few trillion more dollars.

[Lord Sojar]

By 2040-2045, we will have a very advanced, technology centric economy, and we will be almost non reliant on oil and natural gas. The hydrogen economy should be flourishing by then, and many things will be quite different.

You are peering into the looking glass and seeing how it will be if nothing changes in the economy, and only looking at tax reform and government based initiatives.

[Nevin]

Originally Posted by Rahja the Thief

By 2040-2045, we will have a very advanced, technology centric economy, and we will be almost non reliant on oil and natural gas. The hydrogen economy should be flourishing by then, and many things will be quite different.

You are peering into the looking glass and seeing how it will be if nothing changes in the economy, and only looking at tax reform and government based initiatives.

You're very optimistic.

I'll be moving to Norway.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dz9SHy7tQVU

[Kanyatta]

Originally Posted by Rahja the Thief

By 2040-2045, we will have a very advanced, technology centric economy, and we will be almost non reliant on oil and natural gas. The hydrogen economy should be flourishing by then, and many things will be quite different.

You've either invented time travel into some parallel amazing future, i.e. the opposite of Back to the Future 2, or you're very optimistic.

Every major world power has sputtered out at some point, the Mongols, the Romans, the Ruskies, you all know, maybe America's time is up? Unless some radical changes happen, there could be an eventual peasant-esque revolution.

Also, Snow Bunny, you said most Republican voters are in the $35,000-60,000 range. This is skewed by the number of ultra-conservative Christians out there who vote solely on abortion and gay marriage, of which I belong to a church of about 300 of these. I used to think that way, then I wisened up and learned there's more important things to worry about in our country.

I'm not particularly endeared by any candidates. I would personally consider myself Libertarian, but I wouldn't vote that way, just because it's almost like throwing my vote out, when the Libertarian party is lucky to scrounge out 1% of the national election. I usually go with the lesser of the 2 evils, which in this case, appears to be Obama.

[Chthon]

First of all, thank you Snowbunny for a well-thought-through and civil response.

Originally Posted by Snow Bunny

Raise taxes proportionally on lower brackets as well.

1. Very egalitarian, but it won't work. If we tax the poor at the rates the rich can afford, they will starve. If we tax the rich at the rates the poor need to survive, the government will go bust. Aside from the policy position that "from each according to his ability to pay" is a good idea (which I happen to agree with), there's the plain mathematical truth that a progressive taxation scheme is the only way to fund a country like ours.

2. I'm not so much in favor of raising the rates on higher brackets (much) as I am in favor of adding new brackets at the top.

I don't care about their ability to pay for SS. I'm voting for Obama based on the fact that he's Kennedy-esque. His wife needs an attitude check though.

1. I thought OP's purpose in making this thread was specifically the fate of our ability to pay for SS and Medicare in 2040, or lack thereof.

2. Michelle Obama rubs me the wrong way too. But, (a) I'm hoping that it's just a bad first impression, and (b) I don't vote on the basis of the first lady anyway. (If I did, I'd be voting for Kucinich's hot wife )

Right because corporation's are doing so well right now.

Right now, no. They're doing almost as bad as the real live people are. This is more of a forward-looking fix for after the current situation is dealt with. And, remember, we both agree that there is no painless solution here.

Terrible idea. You destroy investment in bonds, which is a backbone of the investment yield. Atrociously bad idea.

1. That's kinda the point. Investment yield shouldn't be as high as it is as compared to wage income. There's nothing inherently "special" about capital gains that makes them worthy of a lower tax rate than income that you actually work for. If anything, they should be taxed at a higher rate because they are unearned income. However, I'd settle for taxing them at the same rate as ordinary income. Provided that, like I said before, we would need to index the basis for inflation so that we're not taxing "illusionary gain."

2. As for government bonds, there's a long history of special tax rules to encourage people to invest in them, and I'm sure that, should the capital gains rate go, more would be added.

Most Republican voters are in the $35000-$60000 tax bracket; not very wealthy in the slightest.

1. I was referring to Republican politicians and media figures, not rank-and-file Republican voters.

2. My point was that these politicians and media figures have convinced a whole lot of people to be extremely angry about the federal estate tax, even though they will not have to pay it -- and they probably don't even know anyone who will have to pay it. The current exemption amount is $2 million, and $4 million if you're married and set up a simple 2-lung bypass trust. That's so incredibly high that only the richest 0.62% of Americans have to pay it. It truly is a tax levied solely upon the super-rich. And yet, through aggressive (and often deceptive) politics -- and the loaded pejorative "the death tax" -- these politicians and media figures have got many people believing that this tax is just the worst thing ever, when they are personally better off (either in terms of lower taxes for themselves or more/better government services) because the super rich are paying the estate tax.

3. At any rate, I want to repeal it. I'd rather have a realization-on-death rule built into the income tax than the mismatched situation we have right now with some people avoiding large income taxes by delaying realization of their gains till they die, while others pay taxes on their gain during life, and the estate tax still hits the latter as hard as the former. That's unfair. Replacing the estate tax with a realization-on-death rule would fix it.

4. No discussion of the estate tax is complete without mention of Thomas Jefferson's letter to John Adams often referred to as Natural and Artificial Aristocracy. Before commenting on the topic, everyone should read it and think about it.

He's a pretty honest guy, I'll give him that.

Agreed. In fact, he's so honest, he makes a terrible liar. Unfortunately, he honestly holds a lot of very bad ideas.

Don't bump up health care too much in addition. Keep them both down.

Run properly, a single-payer system should have a net cost of zero. The sum of the fees charged should equal the sum paid to medical providers.

If there's any room for a Medicare- or Medicaid-like program, it would pay part of the fee on behalf of senior citizens or poor people. That would cost money. But it shouldn't be more costly than the current Medicare/Medicaid programs, and could potentially be cheaper.

Good thing you understand this.

Good thing you, too, understand this.

Stop polarizing the issue.

A spade is a spade. In this country we have one political party that does a lot of things for ideological reasons that just don't make sense at a practical level. (Privatization of Medicare plans, abstinence-only sex education, hardcore crackdowns on meatpackers in one-factory towns in Iowa, etc.) Privatizing government programs based on a preconceived position that "government is always bad and private industry is always good" with total disregard for the actual facts of the situation is something the Republicans do, a lot, and they shouldn't.

No - if you tax "the very wealthy" you should tax the rest at the same percentage. I disagree with wealthy-tax breaks, but I disagree with targetting them as well.

Huh? I was advocating a tax break for anyone willing to save for retirement.

I don't understand why corporations should have to provide benefits in the first place. The military and police, sure, but why should your company have to take care of you? No responsibility?

Well, they shouldn't. (Read this for a good example of why it's a terrible idea.) On a forward-going basis, I'm fully in favor of retirement and healthcare being handled by the government and not one's employer.

However. what I'm talking about are the corporations that already struck deals with their employees to provide benefits, and have already been taking money out of their employee's paychecks for years, now suddenly deciding that they don't want to honor their side of the bargain. Beyond merely breaching their contracts with their employees, and essentially stealing the money that these employees have paid in over the years, corporations that do this are virtually guaranteeing that their employees will spend their retirements in poverty. That's... unconscionable. And it should be punished very harshly.

This all appears a 'bit socialist'...

If you think that's a bit socialist, you should hear what the best ideas I've been able to come up with for "recoupling" are....

Anywho, neither capitalism, nor socialism (nor even communism) is inherently good or bad. They are good or bad only because the results they produce for society are good or bad. I'm perfectly willing to apply laissez faire capitalism to one situation and outright communism to another, if those are the policies that produce the best outcome for society as a whole. You could call me "anti-ideological."

Start on this by attempting to curb speculation on oil prices.

Unfortunately, there's no speculation to curb. Like Mulder, we want to believe. We want to believe speculators are responsible, because they are concrete villains, and it's much easier to defeat such a villain than to deal with the truth -- the price of oil is where price and demand say it belongs, and it's only going to go up. How do I know that speculators aren't behind it? Because there's no stockpiling. Speculators stockpile -- they have to. But there's been no increases in oil stockpiles anywhere in the world. And that means no speculators.

The problem is that so many people abuse it, and end up screwing the medical profession. Abuse of the emergency room rule is rampant. You should look at the pie chart for a doctor's bill.

A system where everything is covered passes the risk of fraud (and, as is much more common, the risk of sick people who simply don't have the money to pay) entirely off of the medical provider and onto the insurer -- the government in the case of a single-payer system.

I see this as a problem, since the government's track record on catching Medicare fraud isn't too great. But it's no bigger problem than the current fraud that gets perpetrated on medical providers, Medicare, and insurance companies. We aren't creating any new fraud; just moving it around.

This war's destroying our economy.

I agree. On this topic:

Originally Posted by imnotyourmother

If we send them in to Die then at lease send them in EQUIPT

1. Who's "we," kemo sabe? I'm not in favor of sending anyone to die.

2. I agree that, if we send soldiers to war, then we must send them fully equipped. However, I want to stop sending them to war unnecessarily. You don't need to pay to equip soldiers of you don't send them to war in the first place.

Originally Posted by MMSDome

hmm now if we didnt give illegals (people who are not citizens of the US) all these government funded programs we may have a few trillion more dollars.

Actually, you're wrong. It turns out that, on the whole, undocumented immigrants work hard and pay their taxes. In fact, they pay more in taxes than they cost the government in services. The government is actually making money off of having the undocumented immigrants here. See Jeffrey S. Passel & Rebecca L. Clark, Urban Institute, Immigrants in New York: Their Legal Status, Incomes, and Taxes; see also Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 228 (1982) (“[T]he available evidence suggests that illegal aliens underutilize public services, while contributing their labor to the local economy and tax money to the state.”) (I trust the US Supreme Court to get their research right.) If we want to look at illegal immigration solely through the lens of what's good for the government's long-term finances (ignoring a lot of other issues like fairness to people on the waiting list fro legal immigration, etc.), then the best thing to do with undocumented immigrants would be to give them all amnesty so their employers would be forced to pay them minimum wage and we could collect more taxes from them.

[Lord Sojar]

Originally Posted by Kanyatta

You've either invented time travel into some parallel amazing future, i.e. the opposite of Back to the Future 2, or you're very optimistic.

While I do frequent time rifts, I didn't bother to go only 35-45 years in the future. I can tell you that 2457 is going to be one hell of a year!


Actually, my post is based in fact. Those facts being that we are currently transitioning to a hydrogen economy, we are developing nanotechnology at a rapid pace, and the changes have already started.

[Winterclaw]

Kanyatta, how is it that the most liberal (progressive/socialist) senator based on voting record is a lesser evil than a moderate republican if you are a libertarian? This just seems odd to me and I'm curious.

Rahja, while I think we are developing a lot of great technologies, I don't see how hydrogen gas or nanotechnology is going to lower the cost of healthcare. Are you implying that there will be some huge economic growth that is able to counteract those rising costs?

[Snow Bunny]

Originally Posted by Chthon

1. Very egalitarian, but it won't work. If we tax the poor at the rates the rich can afford, they will starve. If we tax the rich at the rates the poor need to survive, the government will go bust. Aside from the policy position that "from each according to his ability to pay" is a good idea (which I happen to agree with), there's the plain mathematical truth that a progressive taxation scheme is the only way to fund a country like ours.

Sure, progessive taxation is fine. But what happens when you get around the 70,000 to 130,000 tax brackets? Assume a dual income household, with each making 35-60k a year. The household on the 130,000 end gets really screwed because of their tax bracket.

I remember watching "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire" and realizing that one contestant was in a very difficult spot. If they walked away with the money they had, they were put into the maximum tax bracket and would end up actually losing money and would have a total net income lower than if they had not played the game show. They fortunately ended up getting the next question right, which despite putting them into the maximum, gave them enough money that even with the tax rate at maximum they still made money.

People at the higher end of the 'very rich' don't get screwed, it's the households making 130-150k in the maximum tax bracket that get really housed by progressive taxation.

2. I'm not so much in favor of raising the rates on higher brackets (much) as I am in favor of adding new brackets at the top.

I agree completely.

1. I thought OP's purpose in making this thread was specifically the fate of our ability to pay for SS and Medicare in 2040, or lack thereof.

We're a debt society - we'd have to completely rework our financial approach to avoid this. Debt society mechanics + health care do not mix well. Not to mention that no one thinks of retirement until it's too late.

2. Michelle Obama rubs me the wrong way too. But, (a) I'm hoping that it's just a bad first impression, and (b) I don't vote on the basis of the first lady anyway. (If I did, I'd be voting for Kucinich's hot wife )

Despite the fact that I'm an Irish ex-pat, having lived 1/2 my life in the US has given me a sense of patriotism for the country. Her definitively negative remarks about the country are quite contrarion to her husband's rather spirited attitude (which I find to be quite refreshing). She rubs me very much the wrong way.

Right now, no. They're doing almost as bad as the real live people are. This is more of a forward-looking fix for after the current situation is dealt with. And, remember, we both agree that there is no painless solution here.

I'd say the corporation's are actually hurting more than most 'real people' are, but I'll agree that they have a tendency to bounce back more fluidly than individual citizens do.

1. That's kinda the point. Investment yield shouldn't be as high as it is as compared to wage income. There's nothing inherently "special" about capital gains that makes them worthy of a lower tax rate than income that you actually work for. If anything, they should be taxed at a higher rate because they are unearned income.

Who cares if it's unearned? If you tax the yield at the same rate, you discourage investment, which is one of the main factors hurting the index right now.

2. As for government bonds, there's a long history of special tax rules to encourage people to invest in them, and I'm sure that, should the capital gains rate go, more would be added.

Fair enough.

Agreed. In fact, he's so honest, he makes a terrible liar. Unfortunately, he honestly holds a lot of very bad ideas.

He does.

Anywho, neither capitalism, nor socialism (nor even communism) is inherently good or bad. They are good or bad only because the results they produce for society are good or bad. I'm perfectly willing to apply laissez faire capitalism to one situation and outright communism to another, if those are the policies that produce the best outcome for society as a whole. You could call me "anti-ideological."

I think my fundamental problem with communism is that it contradicts my desire to excel above other people. But Denmark has done socialism pretty well. And their women are so damn good looking!

We want to believe speculators are responsible, because they are concrete villains, and it's much easier to defeat such a villain than to deal with the truth -- the price of oil is where price and demand say it belongs, and it's only going to go up. How do I know that speculators aren't behind it?

The huge drops in oil prices recently seem to seriously contradict the non-existence of speculation.


This is fun for me.

[Winterclaw]

We're a debt society - we'd have to completely rework our financial approach to avoid this. Debt society mechanics + health care do not mix well. Not to mention that no one thinks of retirement until it's too late.

Agreed that this is one of the US's biggest problems both personally and nationally. The people at the bottom either don't know how to save or can't afford to. The government doesn't care enough about the taxpayers to learn how to save money and spends like there is no tomorrow yet it does everything possible to forbid people at the bottom from declairing bankruptcy.

No wonder congress has an 8% approval rating or whatever below W number they are getting. And just think, we are about to trade in a president with a 28% approval rating for one with a low-to-mid teens approval rating.

Her definitively negative remarks about the country are quite contrarion to her husband's rather spirited attitude (which I find to be quite refreshing).

That actually scares me about Obama, even though he comes off as really nice, a number of the people around him don't. For example his wife, his former pastor, and william ares (a 70s terrorist). They say that when you don't know the character of a man, look at the people around him and from what I see, I'm not that happy.

[Kanyatta]

Originally Posted by Winterclaw

Kanyatta, how is it that the most liberal (progressive/socialist) senator based on voting record is a lesser evil than a moderate republican if you are a libertarian? This just seems odd to me and I'm curious.

Mostly because of the trend the Republicans have been setting the last 20 or so years, allowing big corporations do to whatever they want under the radar and get away with it. How about Exxon gaining record profits this quarter (again) and yet their stocks are down 14%? Almost every large corporation is going the way of Enron, and the Republicans are encouraging it with more tax breaks. Many of the hardest working Americans in factories all over the US are getting paid shit while the people in front offices of corporations are making millions and paying next to nothing in taxes.

I'm not saying making a lot of money is bad, I'm just saying if your drapes cost more than the average American salary, you probably can afford to pay a bit more in taxes.