Pentagon cuts aircraft carrier presence in the Gulf due to budget

[phrogdriver]

This is all fine and good if Social Security was a choice that someone in their early working years was able to make. Alas, it is not a choice. It is mandatory for every working person to contribute to this fraud of a system. Social Security is nothing more than a tax on your earnings that is collected and then redistributed to others. It IS social welfare. Government cannot give anything to anybody without first taking from someone else. I have the same level of disgust for Social Security as I do property taxes and eminent domain. Like Social Security, property taxes are not a choice and the same amount is not collected from each person. Is the fact that my house is worth more than my neighbors mean that I use more services than they do? Fact is....I do not own my property. I rent it from the government. Think that's a bit of an extreme view? Think about what happens if I don't pay my property taxes. And while certainly not as common, if the government thinks there is a better use for my property, they can seize it via eminent domain. Yeah, yeah, I know....the government would give me what it believes is "fair market value," but what if I don't want to sell. Too bad. Not a choice. Ultimately, it's not my property. Now mind you, I'm not opposed to local taxes provided they are not tied to my property in any way, collected fairly, and used to pay for necessary services. Subsidizing art festivals is not a necessary government service.

Bullshit. More capitalism and less socialism is what will keep the capitalist system more dynamic.

Again, bullshit. People don't take risks with their careers or new ventures because they believe there's a safety net that will catch them if they fail. People that take risks like this don't think they'll fail. Did you go to OCS or flight school thinking you were going fail?

That's a defeatist attitude. Yes, the reality is that not everyone will make it.....at least not at the same time. For many (and possibly most), they have to keep trying. Not everyone will get an A in their class. Not everyone will make it through flight school. But that doesn't mean we should level the playing field for these things.

No, that is the wrong reason to help someone. What you are describing is helping someone for selfish reasons. You help someone because it's the right thing to do, not because you may need their help someday. That's like helping your friend move furniture so that when it comes time for you to move, you can hold it over his head and he'll be indebted to you.

Well, that's a whole other issue altogether. You're talking about health care costs here. And that isn't solved by more or bigger social programs.

Sounds like someone who values ideological purity over reality.

Health care is the majority of the problem, and no matter how effective theoretical market based reforms could be, caring for someone who's basically a quadriplegic is not going to be cheap, to use an example which is personally relevant. I suppose all the really tough libertarian people will say,"Should have worked harder so she could have earned more money and saved up for a lifetime of nursing home care." And they'll probably tell me that yes, if I care about my family, I should devote all my money to caring for my elderly parents' medical care, even if that means my own kids don't have a future. Oh yeah, I need to work harder and get richer, because if I took responsibility and buckled down, this shit would be solved. Fucking fastasy land.

What's your plan if you have a catastrophic illness and can never work again? Oh, you have a sweet government job that has a disability plan? How about that? How nice for you. How about that dude working as a custodian? What do you think he'd do? Oh, yeah, I forgot, if he was a better, harder working person, he wouldn't have a shitty job. Are fucking robots going to clean the mall toilets for you? Somebody has to do those jobs. You really think that all that's standing between that janitor and a great future is a little better work ethic? Seriously? Ideology aside, someone has to have a plan for folks that stumble along the way, and that isn't always going to be filled by the private sector.

The other part of the "welfare" problem is Social Security. Fixing that is easy. Raise the eligibility age by a couple years and raise the ceiling for Social Security taxable income. Done. You can bitch about it all you want, but the train has left the station. Besides, extreme poverty used to be synonymous with growing old. Social Security changed that. It's easy to say these old people are freeloaders, but there are probably some 65-year-olds right now who are looking at their 401k portfolios and are glad there's at least a little backstop. Some of your parents might be some of them.

All the other programs we call the "safety net" are chump change in comparison to defense, Medicare/Medicaid, and Social Security. Complain about the teenage mom buying candy with foodstamps all you want, but she's not really the problem, no matter how superior it makes some of you feel to think so.

Here's the thing, I'd buy the tough-love approach, if it actually worked. If we actually had a nation of upward mobility in exchange for a weak safety net, I'd buy the concept. Unfortunately, the upward social mobility of the US has decreased to be lower than that of our Western industrialized social democratic peers, even as our inequality of incomes and wealth has increased to levels not seen since the late 1800s. A person born into poverty in the US will likely die poor. One born rich will likely die rich. That's not what the deal is supposed to be.

I know some of you are screaming "OOH, OOH, Mr. Kotter! Capitalism!" Seriously? I believe in capitalism, too, but it's not the magical fucking Easter Bunny some people make it out to be. Yes, I know that if you watch Fox News long enough, you will eventually learn that lowering taxes cures cancer, and causes jobs to spontaneously appear. Some taxation and some regulation is actually necessary to make sure the system actually benefits a wider range of people than just the people who own businesses.

 

[Steve Wilkins]

Sounds like someone who values ideological purity over reality.

Yeah, that Constitution thingy again is always getting in the way of "reality."

Health care is the majority of the problem, and no matter how effective theoretical market based reforms could be, caring for someone who's basically a quadriplegic is not going to be cheap, to use an example which is personally relevant. I suppose all the really tough libertarian people will say,"Should have worked harder so she could have earned more money and saved up for a lifetime of nursing home care."

And you would be wrong.

What's your plan if you have a catastrophic illness and can never work again? Oh, you have a sweet government job that has a disability plan? How about that? How nice for you.

Uhhh, I don't have a sweet government job. I work in the private sector and I pay over $7800 per year towards my benefits plan for me and my family. That aside, I assure you I will be either paralyzed from the neck down or blind, deaf, and have no arms or legs before you tell me that I will not be able to work again. Either that or dead. And to help mitigate those risks, there's short term and long term disability, and LTC insurance.

How about that dude working as a custodian? What do you think he'd do? Oh, yeah, I forgot, if he was a better, harder working person, he wouldn't have a shitty job. Are fucking robots going to clean the mall toilets for you? Somebody has to do those jobs. You really think that all that's standing between that janitor and a great future is a little better work ethic? Seriously? Ideology aside, someone has to have a plan for folks that stumble along the way, and that isn't always going to be filled by the private sector.

And if you think being a janitor is a smart long term career, you're smoking something.

All the other programs we call the "safety net" are chump change in comparison to defense, Medicare/Medicaid, and Social Security. Complain about the teenage mom buying candy with foodstamps all you want, but she's not really the problem, no matter how superior it makes some of you feel to think so.

Here's the thing, I'd buy the tough-love approach, if it actually worked. If we actually had a nation of upward mobility in exchange for a weak safety net, I'd buy the concept. Unfortunately, the upward social mobility of the US has decreased to be lower than that of more of our Western industrialized social democratic peers, even as our inequality of incomes and wealth has increased to levels not seen since the late 1800s. A person born into poverty in the US will likely die poor. One born rich will likely die rich. That's not what the deal is supposed to be.

I know some of you are screaming "OOH, OOH, Mr. Kotter! Capitalism!" Seriously? I believe in capitalism, too, but it's not the magical fucking Easter Bunny some people make it out to be. Yes, I know that if you watch Fox News long enough, you will eventually learn that lowering taxes cures cancer, and causes jobs to spontaneously appear. Some taxation and some regulation is actually necessary to make sure the system actually benefits a wider range of people than just the people who own businesses.

I was going to respond to this but as I thought about it, nothing you are saying actually makes any sense. You are making comparisons that are a bit silly and exaggerating.

 

[FrankTheTank]

I was going to respond but Steve summed up my thoughts quite well.. Thanks!

But I will add, with all government run benefits/entitlements/welfare, the money is not redistributed but shed. They take a dollar and when the money finally gets down the line, it is significantly less than that in actual services. And yes, I believe that there should be some assistance when other avenues are not enough. However, I think the first step should be and historical WAS community, church, family, charity, kindness of others, etc. The government is not just an inefficient middle man but an expensive one as well. And yes it does add up. Big cuts in spending start with little cuts in spending. So yes, fraud is a major factor. And buying candy with food stamps is fraudulent. It ALL adds to the bottom line, creative accounting or not!

 

[insanebikerboy]

This is one man's opinion.

The problem as I see it isn't that the government provides Social Security, etc, but that the people expect it.

Society needs to adjust their norms. People here are saying that someone can't eek out a living on disability, on social security, or food stamps. I'm an example of growing up on those programs. I lived on a dirt road, didn't have a phone in my house, and had to walk a mile to use a phone if I needed to. It was also a matter of pride to get our family off of those programs and because of it every one in my family was also working our asses off in tobacco fields, hauling hay, etc, just to have money. Ultimately we did get off the support, but I can say the support we received was invaluable.

The difference as I see it today (and yes I am drawing broad assumptions), is that more are just trying to live on the support alone and not work to improve themselves. I realize that's not 100% all cases but if more were trying to better their station instead of simply waiting on the weekly welfare check we might have a lot less of a problem than we do now.

 

[jtdees]

More to the point, the idea of being responsible for yourself and those around you only works if you and everyone around you buys in. If that one guy over there doesn't feel like contributing when someone's in need, the plan starts to fall apart. If that one guy over there decides to start riding instead of being prepared like everyone else, the plan starts to fall apart.

Take that for millions of iterations, up to the national level. If enough people become of the mindset that they're gonna hold back when someone is in need, the system will run out. If enough decide to receive more than contribute, the system will run out. The system used to be based on the goodwill and charity of decent human beings living together, understanding the positive effect of everyone doing their part and everyone helping when it is needed. It sounds a little utopian under the tincture of our experience, but the theory was there.

What happened was enough people went OFP in either direction, and enough external disaster struck, that folks decided to create an enforced society, beginning around the time of T. R. and culminating in the New Deal and its legacy. The problem is twofold: one, we've introduced the inefficient middleman, Uncle Sam; two, Americans don't like to be bossed around. Some reacted further and created ways to exempt their contribution, some exploited what was available, and began bankrupting the program. An entire industry has developed around either dodging or exploiting these services. Our whole culture has warped around this mindset, and that warp is a big contributor to the disparities in income and wealth that so many decry. Gaming the system has become the game for so many.

In the New Testament, Anannias and Sapphira were struck dead by God for lying about what they were contributing for the community (cultural values were a little different then, but that's another story). Theoretically, our culture has a lot of basis in being responsible for everyone, but not necessarily by force. When someone tries to screw everyone else, it's contemptible.

I'm not here to tell you to give away all your possessions and live in a commune, but to suggest that the New Deal is a problematic, inefficient, unfair way to force us to do things we used to believe in.

 

[SkywardET]

What happens when the 'community' can't support? Even if they have the will but not the means? The last time we relied on the 'community' without a government safety net was the Depression, when nobody could support the folks who were out of luck but the government.

"Community support" goes by many names. In most practical, market applications, one type of community support serves us well. It's called insurance. If even insurance can't handle it, then the risk was probably too big to begin with anyways!

There is a LOT of history surrounding the Depression, and many would argue that the support given to folks by both the Hoover and Roosevelt administrations significantly delayed the recovery, along with the actions of the Federal Reserve which acted for the first real time during a crisis. The Great Depression of 1920 wasn't a Great Depression, yet the Great Depression of 1929 was. What were the key differences?

Safety nets are only good if they enhance your safety. Social safety nets are only good for society if they actually do function to increase things we find useful. What have our social safety nets accomplished? The national savings rate is nearly nil in part because of the patronizing requirement to pay into Social Security and the moral hazard created by other safety nets, so almost the entire burden of everyone's individual future is borne by government. Is that really what we want from our safety nets? For them to actually carry us, instead of catching us when we fall?

 

[Spekkio]

And if you think being a janitor is a smart long term career, you're smoking something.

It is if you don't have the aptitude for much else. Not everyone is born equal, and implying that a guy busting his ass daily to clean a building is lazy or has a poor plan is elitist. Maybe he's not smart enough to be something else. Maybe being a janitor full time was "making it" in spite of his parents who are drug addicts living in a poor neighborhood, and he had no role models to help him learn to manage investment accounts because students sure as shit don't learn it in our public school system. In fact, in some they don't even have to learn math at all past 7th grade. Point is that he makes an honest living and the fact that Uncle Sam makes him put some money into a retirement account is a good thing for his future, as the avg janitor probably doesn't know a whole lot about investing and couldn't afford it if they did.

 

[Brett327]

It is if you don't have the aptitude for much else. Not everyone is born equal, and implying that a guy busting his ass daily to clean a building is lazy or has a poor plan is elitist. Maybe he's not smart enough to be something else. Maybe being a janitor full time was "making it" in spite of his parents who are drug addicts living in a poor neighborhood, and he had no role models to help him learn to manage investment accounts because students sure as shit don't learn it in our public school system. In fact, in some they don't even have to learn math at all past 7th grade. Point is that he makes an honest living and the fact that Uncle Sam makes him put some money into a retirement account is a good thing for his future, as the avg janitor probably doesn't know a whole lot about investing and couldn't afford it if they did.

Wait... who is the elitist in this scenario again?

 

[HuggyU2]

As usual, George Will hits it out of the park:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...2d4466-7c81-11e2-82e8-61a46c2cde3d_story.html

 

[Fog]

Actually, the AF looks pretty responsible & adult so far just cutting airshows. As far as I know, they haven't pulled back yet anywhere in Afghanistan & the Mideast. Get rid of the Thunderbolt II and they'll be drowing in dollars. Just sayin' . . .

 

[Random8145]

Well personally, I do believe in having a form of social welfare state because I have needed it and certain members of my family have needed it. But I do not believe in the Democratic party ideal of a social welfare state. I believe in the following:

1) Universal healthcare system. Now before everyone blows a fuse, by this I just mean a system that allows for everyone to get some basic form of healthcare. I do not believe healthcare is a "right," as someone, somewhere has to provide it and/or pay for it, but I think it is humane for a society to provide some base minimum of treatment for people if they cannot afford it. One major misconception is that universal healthcare = socialist healthcare. It doesn't. France is a quasi-socialist country, but does not have a socialist healthcare system. Nor does Germany, the Netherlands, or Switzerland. Their systems are combinations of public and private. The Democrats have this obsession with single-payer healthcare, but my understanding is that single-payer systems are not the best forms of universal healthcare system, that the best forms are the universal systems that are multipayer. The reason Britain has a socialist healthcare system is because at the time, Labor party wanted the UK to adopt a full-on Soviet socialist-style economic system, so multiple industries, including healthcare, were completely nationalized.

Now some may say, "Homeowner's insurance and housing is handled by the private sector, and car insurance and cars are handled by the private sector, so why can't health insurance and healthcare be solely the private sector as well? Why is any government needed?" The reason I would argue is that, unlike with cars and houses, humans can't buy new bodies or repair their existing body. If you own an old clunker of a car, the insurance company may not insure it at all or will only give you the base minimum of insurance. Same with a house. If your house is broken down, prone to having a pipe blow or the electrical wiring start a fire, the insurance company will not insure it or only minimally insure it.

So you either repair the car and/or home, or you buy a new car and/or home. But with an older human, while economics-wise, for the insurance company, things are no different (they don't want to insure the people who are "old clunkers") these are the people who most need healthcare. So because people can't redo their "plumbing" or "wiring" so-to-speak, and cannot buy a new body (if only!), they have to deal with the body they have. This thus adds an additional role for the government to play in healthcare that is not required with autos and homes.

Currently for example, we require all hospitals to treat a person regardless of whether they have health insurance. And we have two taxpayer-financed systems for healthcare, Medicare and Medicaid, so we already have a large government component in healthcare. Requiring people to pay a healthcare tax (claiming the Constitution lets the government mandate people purchase health insurance I do not agree with), and exempting them from said tax if they purchase health insurance, I think is okay. In addition, then do what countries like Germany do where you have the different health insurance providers compete with one another, so you have a market component to the system.

Some tort reform and also allowing health insurance companies to compete across state lines could probably really improve the system as well, but the Democrats will never do the first, and the second could lead to all the health insurance companies moving into the states with the most lax regulations, so I'm not sure if that could work. But more competition is definitely needed I think. The culture of the country however should not get into the attitude of the Germans in having the mindset that everyone should have equal healthcare (although purely private healthcare is available in Germany). But I mean if someone makes enough to afford a Cadillac healthcare plan, good on them. Not everyone should expect their healthcare plan to be the equivalent of a Learjet, or that will bankrupt the system (this is one problem with Medicare and Medicaid). The idea is for everyone to have the healthcare basics taken care of.

2) Old-age retirement system - Considering the volatility of the financial markets, I don't trust them for saving for retirement. A lot of people lost everything who had invested conservatively in this last crisis, so I do believe in some form of old-age pension system. This is a system in which everyone pays into it, and the government is not allowed to touch it, and then gets paid out in old age.

3) Unemployment insurance - This we have for when people become unemployed already.

The trick with establishing a social welfare state is:

1) How to pay for it? The European systems are bloated and too costly. The Euros have cheaper healthcare per person, lackluster defense spending, and higher taxes, yet many of them still cannot afford their social welfare states. The ones that can (Norway, Sweden, Denmark, etc...) tend to have very small, homogenous populations, and in Norway's case, 20% of their government revenue comes from oil. They also do not have to worry about defense spending. Germany has a large population, but still doesn't have to worry about defense spending.

2) How to make it where it's primarily safety nets and not a system that people can ride, where you end up with multiple generations of people who have been living on welfare as we had in the past.

3) You don't want it to structurally change the social fabric of society, where people start to become lambs who expect the government to do everything, but rather hard work and individualism and all of that are still respected (much of Europe has lost the cultural respect for hard work and business and so forth).

I think it was Irving Kristol who had outlined the conservative idea of a social welfare state when he wrote that it should be the following:

1) True safety nets and not a system that people can ride, not producing or contributing to the system
2) You make damned sure you can pay for such programs
3) Such programs function with a minimum of bureaucratic intrusion into people's livelihoods

Anyways, as a sidenote, I don't think Mitt Romney's 47% comment was meant to insult disabled veterans on disability, he meant people riding the system.

 

[Tycho_Brohe]

2) Old-age retirement system - Considering the volatility of the financial markets, I don't trust them for saving for retirement. A lot of people lost everything who had invested conservatively in this last crisis, so I do believe in some form of old-age pension system. This is a system in which everyone pays into it, and the government is not allowed to touch it, and then gets paid out in old age.

The people who lost everything are the people who weren't prudent enough to invest wisely. If you're anywhere near retirement, you shouldn't have the majority of your retirement savings in the stock market in the first place. People with a 50/50 blend of stocks and treasuries could've easily ridden out the recession, since the risk-off trade forced people to flood into government bonds, and then quantitative easing forced bond prices even higher.
As far as the pension system goes, I honestly fail to see the point. You could save the money you would otherwise put into Social Security, put it in CD's or gov't bonds or high-grade corporate bonds, and it'd save the government (and thus the taxpayers) a lot of paperwork and management fees without excessive risk.
The government shouldn't be forcing people to save for retirement, they should be passively encouraging it, incentivizing it. For example, they could let people deduct commissions on purchases in an IRA or 401(k), or they could increase contribution limits, or something along those lines. The point being, it should be up to the individual whether or not they want to be smart and

 

[Random8145]

If it could be done privately, I don't have a problem. However, not everyone realizes all of the above. Also you sometimes end up with a whoppter of a financial crisis where major companies that no one dreamed could fail end up failing.

 

[Tycho_Brohe]

If it could be done privately, I don't have a problem. However, not everyone realizes all of the above. Also you sometimes end up with a whoppter of a financial crisis where major companies that no one dreamed could fail end up failing.

Even so, diversification is the name of the game. People should invest in index funds rather than "blue chips" if they're looking But you're right, not enough people know these sort of things. Ideally, I think they should take some of the money they'd save from retiring the Social Security program, and use it to disseminate some financial advice to everyone who opens a 401k or IRA, or provide some free investing courses or something. It shouldn't cost that much, all the information is out there for free already, sites like Investopedia and Fool.com for example are great resources. The government could simply subsidize one of those guys to provide the information for a lot less money than it costs them to manage the Social Security system. The corporate world is moving from defined-benefits to defined-contributions for the same reasons.

 

[BusyBee604]

3) You don't want it to structurally change the social fabric of society, where people start to become lambs who expect the government to do everything, but rather hard work and individualism and all of that are still respected (much of Europe has lost the cultural respect for hard work and business and so forth).

Pardon me, but it appears the last election results show... that we're already there!
BzB