4 ms·

Why don't we focus on using government bulk and "peace"-time military support to provide some of the services that "social security" (tax the young now to suppo

Why don't we focus on using government bulk and "peace"-time military support to provide some of the services that "social security" (tax the young now to support the retired now) provides; directly, instead of as money or vouchers?

ahoy 8y ago
That'd be because a lot of US politicians are ideologically opposed to any welfare program.
- magduf 8y ago
  As are the countless people who elect them, even though those same voters as a bloc rely far more on Social Security than those who vote for the other party.
  - ahoy 8y ago
    If you poll those same voters on individual social welfare programs, particularly Social Security, you'll find they support them. It's really upsetting.
    - magduf 8y ago
      If the voters are so dumb that they're voting directly against their own stated interests, then maybe they shouldn't have those programs.
      - mjevans 8y ago
        Maybe we should actually have a meaningful test that is based on scientific evidence of understanding things like consequences and the current (at the time) structure of the government. Failing the test, BTW, doesn't mean an individual can't vote (ever, just until they re-pass "high school"): it means society has failed them and they now qualify for extended schooling to correct their lack of education. Including provided room and board while they are studying as well as medical care to correct for sources of learning defects (such as poor vision, etc). If someone is too impaired to be able to pass high school in that supporting environment then they should be 'retired' the same way someone with a more obvious disability is.
Avshalom 8y ago
Right now Social Security is paid for from it's own special tax. The idea then is that it isn't subject to yearly budget concerns, it just keeps ticking along regardless of congress' priorities. If we start using the military, whether budget, personnel or infrastructure, then as soon as a war starts up or if we ever get a congress' that has the spine to cut back on military spending then those services get cut and we have to have a giant argument about how to replace them before settling on "do nothing and hope we get elected anyway".

ahoy 8y ago

That'd be because a lot of US politicians are ideologically opposed to any welfare program.

magduf 8y ago
As are the countless people who elect them, even though those same voters as a bloc rely far more on Social Security than those who vote for the other party.
- ahoy 8y ago
  If you poll those same voters on individual social welfare programs, particularly Social Security, you'll find they support them. It's really upsetting.
  - magduf 8y ago
    If the voters are so dumb that they're voting directly against their own stated interests, then maybe they shouldn't have those programs.
    - mjevans 8y ago
      Maybe we should actually have a meaningful test that is based on scientific evidence of understanding things like consequences and the current (at the time) structure of the government. Failing the test, BTW, doesn't mean an individual can't vote (ever, just until they re-pass "high school"): it means society has failed them and they now qualify for extended schooling to correct their lack of education. Including provided room and board while they are studying as well as medical care to correct for sources of learning defects (such as poor vision, etc). If someone is too impaired to be able to pass high school in that supporting environment then they should be 'retired' the same way someone with a more obvious disability is.

Avshalom 8y ago

Right now Social Security is paid for from it's own special tax. The idea then is that it isn't subject to yearly budget concerns, it just keeps ticking along regardless of congress' priorities. If we start using the military, whether budget, personnel or infrastructure, then as soon as a war starts up or if we ever get a congress' that has the spine to cut back on military spending then those services get cut and we have to have a giant argument about how to replace them before settling on "do nothing and hope we get elected anyway".