5 ms·

Social security and medicare are "welfare" by any reasonable definition. So the welfare state is a big issue.

timr 16y ago
You can define "welfare" however you like, but it doesn't change the reality that no politician -- on either side of the aisle -- is seriously proposing cuts to Social Security or Medicare. Old people comprise the base of both political parties.
- xenophanes 16y ago
  I agree with you that the Republicans aren't going to do much of what I want. I don't agree that all politicians are Democrats or Republicans, or that it's pointless to speak about issues where the parties in power aren't making good proposals.
  - timr 16y ago
    "I don't agree that all politicians are Democrats or Republicans, or that it's pointless to speak about issues where the parties in power aren't making good proposals." I didn't suggest that it was. I just think that if we're going to have an intellectually honest discussion about the matter, we have to disregard most of the Republican party rhetoric: the poor are not the problem. The elderly are the problem. As far as I'm concerned, nobody is saying that out loud. The Democrats are just as guilty of pandering to their base (which is also elderly), but at least they don't hang the poor out to dry in a cynical attempt to distract attention from the real problem.
    - mkramlich 16y ago
      I don't even think the elderly are the problem. I think Congress as a whole is the larger problem. And the structure of national elections, the existance/tactics of the Republican Party, as a close 2nd and 3rd.
      - jbooth 16y ago
        Different sorts of problems - the elderly are a financial problem - not because they're bad people for being old, but because their retirement represents a huge financial liability. The other problems you state are meta-problems - they're the reason we can't solve any actual problems. And possibly more concerning than actual problems.
    - xenophanes 16y ago
      It's not the elderly's fault that bad laws make them expensive. Elderly people aren't a problem, bad laws are. Obviously poor people aren't the problem either -- personally I want to see far more immigration of poor people who want American jobs (yes I want rich immigrants too ofc) -- but inefficient govt programs like food stamps and unemployment benefits do cost a lot of money. The problem is the govt and its mistaken idea that redistributing wealth can help people. It doesn't. It destroys wealth. We'd all be way better off if they'd never done it in the first place, including the poor and elderly. (Now we have transition issues. We need to abolish it in a way that doesn't screw people who are relying on it.)
  - philwelch 16y ago
    Nearly all federal politicians with a realistic chance of winning federal office are Democrats or Republicans, with the exception of one Socialist, and a couple Democrats and Republicans running as independents because they lost their primaries.
- kiba 16y ago
  Those elderly white men have families do they not? Maybe the family should take care of old white men instead? Or better yet, invest in technology so they rejuvenate old people to the point that they can enter the workforce and earn their living for the rest of their life(presumably several centuries).
  - kiba 16y ago
    I am not sure why people downvote the comment. I am merely suggesting that we should return the care of elderly to the families, who are in better position to know what their elders need. I am also suggesting that people should invest in anti-aging research so that social security would be entirely unnecessary.
  - natrius 16y ago
    I'm not sure how race got involved. Many people agree with you that people should take care of themselves, and that Social Security and Medicare should be, at most, a safety net for people who would otherwise be old folks on the streets without healthcare. Such a policy is usually referred to as "means testing" retirement benefits. Eliminating government retirement benefits altogether will never happen because no one likes seeing 70 year-olds suffering in poverty, but they don't dislike it enough to ameliorate the problem directly via charity. Humans are weird like that.
    - kiba 16y ago
      I'm not sure how race got involved. Ignore that. I was reading a parent's post and reply to the wrong parent comment. Many people agree with you that people should take care of themselves, and that Social Security and Medicare should be, at most, a safety net for people who would otherwise be old folks on the streets without healthcare. Such a policy is usually referred to as "means testing" retirement benefits. No, this is not what I advocated. I advocated that the family should resume the role of caretakers(or what been eroded by government) instead of leaving old folks alone in old people homes. Old people can then serve as babysitters, teachers, etc, to grandchildren. That is assuming, that they do have them. Eliminating government retirement benefits altogether will never happen because no one likes seeing 70 year-olds suffering in poverty, but they don't dislike it enough to ameliorate the problem directly via charity. Humans are weird like that. Maybe some. But this is ignoring the option of creating mutual aid societies. Fraternities organizations used to exists in large number and large number of Americans join them, regardless of their race and class. They provide orphanage, hospitals, and even home for elderly. Now the welfare state serve some of these functions, some said, poorly.
- yummyfajitas 16y ago
  no politician -- on either side of the aisle -- is seriously proposing cuts to Social Security or Medicare. Not true. Paul Ryan did, and even got into a fairly public fight with Paul Krugman about it [1]. http://www.roadmap.republicans.budget.house.gov/ http://www.roadmap.republicans.budget.house.gov/ [1] The fight was mostly over matters of little substance - Krugman told a few lies about Ryan which blogger Megan McCardle repeatedly debunked. The substance of the proposal was not discussed. http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/08/krugman-is-wrong-on-ryan-and-the-cbo/61110/ http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/08/krugman-... http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/08/paul-krugman-is-still-wrong-on-paul-ryan-and-the-cbo/61236/ http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/08/paul-kru...
  - jbooth 16y ago
    And then he walked it back - the way I saw that conversation was Ryan walking his statements back and Krugman trying to pin him to them, or, if you'd prefer, exaggerating them -- that's just more support for "noone will touch SS". If Ryan came out swinging and saying "YEAH i want to dismantle SS", that'd be different.
    - yummyfajitas 16y ago
      Krugman and Ryan never discussed matters of substance. The public fight I was referring to was bickering over whether Ryan specifically asked the right agency for a forecast. Stuff like this: Krugman: "...Ryan could have gotten JCT to do a 10-year estimate; [...] he chose not to get that 10-year estimate. " McCardle: "...I contacted Ryan's staff, who were happy to clarify that yes, they asked the JCT to do a forecast, and JCT said no." As I said, nothing of substance. Just Krugman dishonestly attempting to paint Ryan as a liar (I believe "flim flam man" was the term he used). On substantive matters, if you look at Table 1 of the CBO's score of Ryan's roadmap, you see that Ryan clearly proposes cutting medicare by just under 40% by 2040 (and even more drastic cuts after that). http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10851/01-27-Ryan-Roadmap-Letter.pdf http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10851/01-27-Ryan-Roadmap...
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]

timr 16y ago

You can define "welfare" however you like, but it doesn't change the reality that no politician -- on either side of the aisle -- is seriously proposing cuts to Social Security or Medicare. Old people comprise the base of both political parties.

xenophanes 16y ago
I agree with you that the Republicans aren't going to do much of what I want. I don't agree that all politicians are Democrats or Republicans, or that it's pointless to speak about issues where the parties in power aren't making good proposals.
- timr 16y ago
  "I don't agree that all politicians are Democrats or Republicans, or that it's pointless to speak about issues where the parties in power aren't making good proposals." I didn't suggest that it was. I just think that if we're going to have an intellectually honest discussion about the matter, we have to disregard most of the Republican party rhetoric: the poor are not the problem. The elderly are the problem. As far as I'm concerned, nobody is saying that out loud. The Democrats are just as guilty of pandering to their base (which is also elderly), but at least they don't hang the poor out to dry in a cynical attempt to distract attention from the real problem.
  - mkramlich 16y ago
    I don't even think the elderly are the problem. I think Congress as a whole is the larger problem. And the structure of national elections, the existance/tactics of the Republican Party, as a close 2nd and 3rd.
    - jbooth 16y ago
      Different sorts of problems - the elderly are a financial problem - not because they're bad people for being old, but because their retirement represents a huge financial liability. The other problems you state are meta-problems - they're the reason we can't solve any actual problems. And possibly more concerning than actual problems.
  - xenophanes 16y ago
    It's not the elderly's fault that bad laws make them expensive. Elderly people aren't a problem, bad laws are. Obviously poor people aren't the problem either -- personally I want to see far more immigration of poor people who want American jobs (yes I want rich immigrants too ofc) -- but inefficient govt programs like food stamps and unemployment benefits do cost a lot of money. The problem is the govt and its mistaken idea that redistributing wealth can help people. It doesn't. It destroys wealth. We'd all be way better off if they'd never done it in the first place, including the poor and elderly. (Now we have transition issues. We need to abolish it in a way that doesn't screw people who are relying on it.)
- philwelch 16y ago
  Nearly all federal politicians with a realistic chance of winning federal office are Democrats or Republicans, with the exception of one Socialist, and a couple Democrats and Republicans running as independents because they lost their primaries.
kiba 16y ago
Those elderly white men have families do they not? Maybe the family should take care of old white men instead? Or better yet, invest in technology so they rejuvenate old people to the point that they can enter the workforce and earn their living for the rest of their life(presumably several centuries).
- kiba 16y ago
  I am not sure why people downvote the comment. I am merely suggesting that we should return the care of elderly to the families, who are in better position to know what their elders need. I am also suggesting that people should invest in anti-aging research so that social security would be entirely unnecessary.
- natrius 16y ago
  I'm not sure how race got involved. Many people agree with you that people should take care of themselves, and that Social Security and Medicare should be, at most, a safety net for people who would otherwise be old folks on the streets without healthcare. Such a policy is usually referred to as "means testing" retirement benefits. Eliminating government retirement benefits altogether will never happen because no one likes seeing 70 year-olds suffering in poverty, but they don't dislike it enough to ameliorate the problem directly via charity. Humans are weird like that.
  - kiba 16y ago
    I'm not sure how race got involved. Ignore that. I was reading a parent's post and reply to the wrong parent comment. Many people agree with you that people should take care of themselves, and that Social Security and Medicare should be, at most, a safety net for people who would otherwise be old folks on the streets without healthcare. Such a policy is usually referred to as "means testing" retirement benefits. No, this is not what I advocated. I advocated that the family should resume the role of caretakers(or what been eroded by government) instead of leaving old folks alone in old people homes. Old people can then serve as babysitters, teachers, etc, to grandchildren. That is assuming, that they do have them. Eliminating government retirement benefits altogether will never happen because no one likes seeing 70 year-olds suffering in poverty, but they don't dislike it enough to ameliorate the problem directly via charity. Humans are weird like that. Maybe some. But this is ignoring the option of creating mutual aid societies. Fraternities organizations used to exists in large number and large number of Americans join them, regardless of their race and class. They provide orphanage, hospitals, and even home for elderly. Now the welfare state serve some of these functions, some said, poorly.
yummyfajitas 16y ago
no politician -- on either side of the aisle -- is seriously proposing cuts to Social Security or Medicare. Not true. Paul Ryan did, and even got into a fairly public fight with Paul Krugman about it [1]. http://www.roadmap.republicans.budget.house.gov/ http://www.roadmap.republicans.budget.house.gov/ [1] The fight was mostly over matters of little substance - Krugman told a few lies about Ryan which blogger Megan McCardle repeatedly debunked. The substance of the proposal was not discussed. http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/08/krugman-is-wrong-on-ryan-and-the-cbo/61110/ http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/08/krugman-... http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/08/paul-krugman-is-still-wrong-on-paul-ryan-and-the-cbo/61236/ http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/08/paul-kru...
- jbooth 16y ago
  And then he walked it back - the way I saw that conversation was Ryan walking his statements back and Krugman trying to pin him to them, or, if you'd prefer, exaggerating them -- that's just more support for "noone will touch SS". If Ryan came out swinging and saying "YEAH i want to dismantle SS", that'd be different.
  - yummyfajitas 16y ago
    Krugman and Ryan never discussed matters of substance. The public fight I was referring to was bickering over whether Ryan specifically asked the right agency for a forecast. Stuff like this: Krugman: "...Ryan could have gotten JCT to do a 10-year estimate; [...] he chose not to get that 10-year estimate. " McCardle: "...I contacted Ryan's staff, who were happy to clarify that yes, they asked the JCT to do a forecast, and JCT said no." As I said, nothing of substance. Just Krugman dishonestly attempting to paint Ryan as a liar (I believe "flim flam man" was the term he used). On substantive matters, if you look at Table 1 of the CBO's score of Ryan's roadmap, you see that Ryan clearly proposes cutting medicare by just under 40% by 2040 (and even more drastic cuts after that). http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10851/01-27-Ryan-Roadmap-Letter.pdf http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10851/01-27-Ryan-Roadmap...

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]