|
Post by indy2003 on Sept 4, 2008 8:03:42 GMT -8
I'm hardly an expert on our national budget, and I suppose I could be wrong... but I get the sense that we're simply not going to be able to cut taxes if we want to preserve our country's future. One very critical issue that needs to be addressed by Washington are the voluminous, unnecessary programs they have created. It's about time they slashed the unnecessary ones... all ten billion of them. Just as new, extraneous laws are pointless and counterproductive, so too are all these idiotically extraneous government programs. Cutting taxes to get money back in the hands of the people and into our economy as well as Washington curbing its spending via proper budgeting, paying back the national debt in the process, are the surest ways to get this country back track for being closer and closer to becoming debt free. Yes, I agree that there are pointless government programs that could probably be trimmed. However, at this point, I sincerely doubt that we can have our cake and eat it, too. Can we cut some programs, cut taxes, try to come up with a balanced budget (something we've never had during the Bush years), and still manage to save social security/medicare and pay off our national debt? I certainly hope so, but I sincerely doubt it. We've got to do something quickly. Just look how quickly the national debt is growing. It's going to take a mighty effort just to bring our enormous debt to a standstill, much less start paying it off. P.S. Did anyone watch the convention last night? I thought Huckabee and Palin handled themselves pretty well, but what on earth happened to Romney and Guiliani? Those guys were supposed to be frontrunners at one point? Scary. Back at ya later
|
|
|
Post by Brendan Anderson on Sept 4, 2008 9:31:41 GMT -8
It's worrisome because the marriage seems to be a little forced. "Hey, you got a kid. Get married, now!" Anyway, I just don't think marriage is something that should be rushed into to atone for a (sexual) mistake. Personally, I view marriage as a big step, See that's the problem - people will see marriage as a 'big step' but they don't see having sex as a 'big step'. BOTH of those life decisions are of equal weight and until people engage their brains and start equating the two again, we're going to continue to have some serious problems in our society. If two 17 year olds think they're old enough and responsible enough to be having sex, then they better consider themselves responsible when the consequences of their actions come to fruition (i.e. a baby). Own up, be an adult, and provide a good home and life for that kid! Sorry to sound like a prude, but this is one of the primary reasons for the decline of our culture - people are not taking responsibility for the lives they create and therefore the kids then have no moral guidance growing up and turn into even LESS responsible people - then they have illegitimate kids and the spiral continues. Again, I think we need to look at the root of the problem, not just the current state of the problem. The majority of Social Security was set up to provide a financial bed of security for people when they reached retirement age, but it was never meant to be someone's SOLE source of retirement income - but that's what it has become for 1/3rd of Americans because when government starts to give hand-outs, a society will become dependent on those hand-outs. Again, I'm talking about normal, working, able-bodied Americans (we'll get to the disabled in a second). Social Security could perhaps have functioned better as a self-directed savings program sponsored by the federal government - people could choose put away their own money (up to a certain amount) tax-free for their own retirement and then get access to it when they reached retirement age, but they would be responsible for how much, when and how. Put people back in control of their own finances. This country should always provide support for people with disabilities - and if we had a more reasonable and stable Social Security system that didn't need to babysit the ENTIRE population of U.S. retirees, perhaps it would be able to do even MORE than it currently does for the disabled. The government can't take responsibility for everyone's situation. A government that tries to make up for every single person's situation will be a government with far too much control over its citizens no matter how benevolent it might try to be. If someone (again, normal, able-bodied, non-disabled person) doesn't have any 'disposable income', the government should not be who they look to. The only thing the government really should need to provide is the freedom for those people to pursue whatever business they need to to be successful. The rest is up to the individual. There are other countries which will give you all the social hand-holding you could ever want, but that's not what the U.S. was built to be. America doesn't promise success and a good life. America promises the opportunity to make yourself a success. It's up to the individual, not the government. And Indy, as for the debt, it's a big problem. But in most cases you can't tax your way into clearing it out. Lowering the debt will be a result of increased American productivity and commerce which actually occurs when taxes are cut. Look at the last few years - the U.S. Treasury has taken in MORE money from taxes since Bush cut taxes. Why? Because people are keeping more money, investing it and buying things resulting in more income which results in more sales tax paid and higher income tax paid. The tax rate gets lowered thereby resulting in richer citizens who then pay more money to the government in taxes. When corporations and businesses in America succeed, the economy succeeds and the debt will be reduced. The other factor in reducing the debt is, like Jocko said, getting rid of the staggering amount of over-spending and unnecessary government programs. Are some of those programs 'good' and useful? Sure. But like I'm saying to Carlton, many of those programs are not what the government should be in the business of doing. That's not its job and we're paying the price for it. Thus ends the conservative report. -Brendan
|
|
|
Post by Jon Broxton on Sept 4, 2008 10:08:27 GMT -8
Again, I think we need to look at the root of the problem, not just the current state of the problem. The majority of Social Security was set up to provide a financial bed of security for people when they reached retirement age, but it was never meant to be someone's SOLE source of retirement income - but that's what it has become for 1/3rd of Americans because when government starts to give hand-outs, a society will become dependent on those hand-outs. Again, I'm talking about normal, working, able-bodied Americans (we'll get to the disabled in a second). Social Security could perhaps have functioned better as a self-directed savings program sponsored by the federal government - people could choose put away their own money (up to a certain amount) tax-free for their own retirement and then get access to it when they reached retirement age, but they would be responsible for how much, when and how. Put people back in control of their own finances. The government can't take responsibility for everyone's situation. A government that tries to make up for every single person's situation will be a government with far too much control over its citizens no matter how benevolent it might try to be. If someone (again, normal, able-bodied, non-disabled person) doesn't have any 'disposable income', the government should not be who they look to. The only thing the government really should need to provide is the freedom for those people to pursue whatever business they need to to be successful. The rest is up to the individual. There are other countries which will give you all the social hand-holding you could ever want, but that's not what the U.S. was built to be. America doesn't promise success and a good life. America promises the opportunity to make yourself a success. It's up to the individual, not the government. I really don't know which of these arguments I disagree with the most. Let's just say I utterly disagree with pretty much every single thing you said in these paragraphs.
|
|
|
Post by Brendan Anderson on Sept 4, 2008 10:38:04 GMT -8
I really don't know which of these arguments I disagree with the most. Let's just say I utterly disagree with pretty much every single thing you said in these paragraphs. I don't know what to say Jon, but I just don't see a government that tries to be all things for all people being successful. French President Nicholas Sarkozy actually said it better than I could ever. Check out his speech to congress from last year...you don't need to watch the whole thing, just take special note of 5:00 - 8:00. -Brendan
|
|
|
Post by Jon Broxton on Sept 4, 2008 11:18:29 GMT -8
I can't watch the video right now (I'm at work and can't access Youtube), but I will quantify my comments by saying this... it absolutely staggers me that the shameful "every man for himself, me first" attitude that made the 80s such a terrible decade continues to have support as a valid political ethos. Your statement about "There are other countries which will give you all the social hand-holding you could ever want, but that's not what the U.S. was built to be" actually made me upset.
Do you honesty believe that a working, honest social security system is "hand holding"? Because I certainly don't. I think it's my moral and ethical responsibility as a member of the human race to help support the elderly people who ran the country I live in for so long. I would gladly pay another 3-4% in taxes if it meant that my parents and grandparents, and the pillars of my community, were guaranteed a decent standard of living in their retirement.
There's a guy I work with who is 2 years from retirement. He and his wife had saved all their life, worked diligently, been upstanding members of their community. They had a nice little nest egg tucked away for their later years. Then his wife got cancer, and because the lack of a universal health care system, all their savings were eaten away by medical bills, and he has had to start drawing money against his pension to pay for his wife's treatment. It's highly likely that his wife will die, and afterward he will either have to continue working for many more years, or be forced to live on the pitiful social security payments the Government will allow him, simply because his wife had the audacity to contract a serious illness. With a comprehensive social security system he - and I'm sure millions of others like him - would have the comfort of knowing that they would be financially secure in their old age, and would not be forced to make a choice between spending their money on heating, food or medicine.
I honestly don't understand how people can NOT want this. IMHO, not having a system like this is verging on the inhumane.
|
|
|
Post by Southall on Sept 4, 2008 11:50:05 GMT -8
The impossible forthcoming problem which will affect all of us when we reach retirement age is one which no government seems to be making any attempt to tackle, but which is going to be the biggest tests that most countries will ever face - the ageing population. I don't know about the US, but I can speak about the UK and assume the US is similar. The state-run pensions system was set up at a time when most people died before they retired. Similarly, most people started work when they were 16 years old (or younger). So you had people making contributions to this state system from the age of 16 and most of them would die before they saw any benefit of it. Today of course, most people don't start work until they're 21 (with more than 50% of people now going to university) and they live, typically, 30 years after they retire. So you've got this great big gap. Most national pension schemes are funded on a "pay as you go" basis, meaning the people who are currently claiming are getting the money directly from the people who are currently paying in. It's not going to be far into the future (by the time we retire, probably) that the number of people who are claiming state pensions is going to be higher than the number of people paying in. What on earth is going to happen then? In order for post-retirement income to be similar to pre-retirement income, every single person would need to be paying 35-40% of their income into the state pension fund - and then paying a lot on top of that for all the other social services. It's unworkable. It's got to change. Who's going to be brave enough to do something about it NOW before it's too late? People of our generation need to be saving 15-20% of our income throughout our working lives if we are to avoid living in poverty when we retire. I wonder which of us on this board could claim to be doing so? I certainly couldn't. But whether it's through tax relief on pension savings, or simply making them mandatory, if we are to maintain the standard of living we have come to enjoy then drastic action needs to be taken. The longer it goes without taking that action, the worse the problem is going to be. Anyway, here's my favourite Palin moment: www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMKCLyhBBwI
|
|
|
Post by Brendan Anderson on Sept 4, 2008 12:59:04 GMT -8
I can't watch the video right now (I'm at work and can't access Youtube), but I will quantify my comments by saying this... it absolutely staggers me that the shameful "every man for himself, me first" attitude that made the 80s such a terrible decade continues to have support as a valid political ethos. Jon, the U.S. is the most generous country on the planet. The vast majority of Americans care greatly about helping their fellow man. The argument is not whether or not it's good to help those in need, but rather what role the government should take in providing that help. If the U.S. Social Security system was not tied down to providing benefits to every single retiring person and vastly reduced the amount of money it took from the pockets of every working person, some great things would happen: - Americans would boost funding to private humanitarian and community organizations designed to help the people in the very situation you pointed out
- The government would be freed up to provide for those we've been talking about: the disabled, mentally challenged, etc. in a need-based system
- More money would be infused into the economy through commerce resulting in higher tax revenue to the government resulting in better funded programs for those in need.
I believe the Social Security system we currently have is largely hand-holding and ineffective. The pay-out is barely enough to live on if you rely solely on that as your income, so it's ineffective in that respect...and at the same time, it's so paralyzed by funding issues, it can't always effectively help those who really need it due to circumstances beyond their control. So it's floundering in this ambiguous middle-ground. Here is my ideal: - Instead of Social Security taking the large chunk of our paychecks it does now and then providing a payout to ALL Americans, that amount would get greatly reduced to a very small percentage taken out for a new Social Security which would provide for the disabled, mentally ill, or those who otherwise absolutely cannot provide for themselves (while this would still create a ridiculous amount of procedure and bureaucracy, I can't think of a better way) - personally I would also make this social security available to non-preventable cancer patients to help their medical costs, but that's a debate for another time and won't matter once we cure cancer.
- The government would provide retirement savings incentive by creating FDIC-insured accounts all working Americans can contribute to with their own PRE-TAX dollars up to a certain dollar limit. Further contributions could be made to the account of course, but using after-tax dollars.
- Funds from the retirement savings account could only be withdrawn after a certain retirement age (or in the event of a catastrophic life event)
- There would be no payout to regular, working, non-disabled Americans when they retire - each American would be responsible for his/her own retirement plans
To me, a system like this is absolutely compassionate (helps the terminally ill, disabled and mentally challenged), but also upholds the principles of this country that all citizens should be free to pursue their own happiness without the interference of a controlling federal government. And the federal government would be reduced in size as it is refocused to provide help to those in need instead of playing the part of Americans' sole-provider. While it might be great to think that a society would be able to appoint a central government that would take care of all the financial needs of the entire population, it doesn't work. Socialism and communism have not been successful in human history. -Brendan
|
|
|
Post by Chris Tilton on Sept 4, 2008 13:12:22 GMT -8
I can't watch the video right now (I'm at work and can't access Youtube), but I will quantify my comments by saying this... it absolutely staggers me that the shameful "every man for himself, me first" attitude that made the 80s such a terrible decade continues to have support as a valid political ethos. Your statement about "There are other countries which will give you all the social hand-holding you could ever want, but that's not what the U.S. was built to be" actually made me upset. Do you honesty believe that a working, honest social security system is "hand holding"? Because I certainly don't. I think it's my moral and ethical responsibility as a member of the human race to help support the elderly people who ran the country I live in for so long. I would gladly pay another 3-4% in taxes if it meant that my parents and grandparents, and the pillars of my community, were guaranteed a decent standard of living in their retirement. There's a guy I work with who is 2 years from retirement. He and his wife had saved all their life, worked diligently, been upstanding members of their community. They had a nice little nest egg tucked away for their later years. Then his wife got cancer, and because the lack of a universal health care system, all their savings were eaten away by medical bills, and he has had to start drawing money against his pension to pay for his wife's treatment. It's highly likely that his wife will die, and afterward he will either have to continue working for many more years, or be forced to live on the pitiful social security payments the Government will allow him, simply because his wife had the audacity to contract a serious illness. With a comprehensive social security system he - and I'm sure millions of others like him - would have the comfort of knowing that they would be financially secure in their old age, and would not be forced to make a choice between spending their money on heating, food or medicine. I honestly don't understand how people can NOT want this. IMHO, not having a system like this is verging on the inhumane. While it is unfortunate that your co-worker's wife's cancer is draining their funds, you are entering a whole other aspect of debate here, outside social security. You are now asking for universal socialized medicine, a terrible idea. For, if the government started controlling all aspects of healthcare, you will no longer have the market for R&D to fund new and breakthrough cancer treatments. The US has the best treatments and highest percentage of cancer survival in the WORLD. The UK, with their free heathcare, has the lowest surviving rate in all of Europe. If the US started losing the private sector for researching and developing the world's best cancer treatments, then the highest survival rate will go to someone else, and I can bet you that your co-worker would do everything in his power to make sure his wife survived as long as possible. He'd leave the country and pay for treatment somewhere else, and he'd still be eating into his retirement fund.
|
|
|
Post by Jon Broxton on Sept 4, 2008 13:32:00 GMT -8
While it is unfortunate that your co-worker's wife's cancer is draining their funds, you are entering a whole other aspect of debate here, outside social security. You are now asking for universal socialized medicine, a terrible idea. For, if the government started controlling all aspects of healthcare, you will no longer have the market for R&D to fund new and breakthrough cancer treatments. The US has the best treatments and highest percentage of cancer survival in the WORLD. The UK, with their free heathcare, has the lowest surviving rate in all of Europe. If the US started losing the private sector for researching and developing the world's best cancer treatments, then the highest survival rate will go to someone else, and I can bet you that your co-worker would do everything in his power to make sure his wife survived as long as possible. He'd leave the country and pay for treatment somewhere else, and he'd still be eating into his retirement fund. See, I disagree with this too. Before I came to the US I worked for an organization called the Trent Institute for Health Services Research, which later became Trent RDSU (http://www.trentrdsu.org.uk/). We recieved our funding DIRECLY from government sources, amounting to many millions of pounds each year, and were directly responsible for significant developments in the treatment of cystic fibrosis, the Beta Interferon drug for the treatment of multiple sclerosis, as well as major research projects on Alzheimers disease, early-onset dementia, and new technology in cardiac stents. The idea that a system of universal socialized medicine cannot support a comprehensive and successful R&D program is totally wrong. In fact, the fact that a universal socialized medicine system was funding the research meant that drug companies and healthcare/insurance providers had no influence over our work, meaning it concentrated solely on providing the best possible patient care irrespective of the financial bottom line. Of course the NHS has its flaws; waiting times are horrible, certain facilities and aspects of the service are desperately under-funded, and there is a lack of doctors and nurses coming through the system to provide the care itself - but at its core, the idea of a centrally funded healthcare system which provides the best quality of healh care it can to all citizens free of charge is one I subscribe to 1000%. In fact, I would say that the establishment of the NHS is one of the greatest things any British government has done in the last 100 years.
|
|
|
Post by TJ on Sept 4, 2008 13:34:13 GMT -8
Don't we already pay that in the section of the paycheck stub that says "Disability'? I think its like 0.5%. Maybe its a state thing.
|
|
|
Post by Jon Broxton on Sept 4, 2008 13:52:21 GMT -8
By the way, I just wanted to say thank you to everyone who has contributed to this thread, and kept the discussion friendly, intelligent, and civil. I welcome all sorts of discourse here and, of course, different members of the board have different political ideologies - but I have faith in all of you that we can all voice them strongly and passionately here, but remain friends afterwards
|
|
|
Post by Jon Broxton on Sept 4, 2008 13:58:20 GMT -8
While it might be great to think that a society would be able to appoint a central government that would take care of all the financial needs of the entire population, it doesn't work. Socialism and communism have not been successful in human history. In an absolute ideal world, socialism and communism are probably the most perfect systems of government. Unfortunately, as you rightly said, they have not, and will never be successful, simply because the central tenet - that a small group of people are responsible for the welfare of everyone else - is too open to corruption and the abuse of power.
|
|
|
Post by Hook on Sept 4, 2008 16:09:50 GMT -8
While it is unfortunate that your co-worker's wife's cancer is draining their funds, you are entering a whole other aspect of debate here, outside social security. You are now asking for universal socialized medicine, a terrible idea. For, if the government started controlling all aspects of healthcare, you will no longer have the market for R&D to fund new and breakthrough cancer treatments. The US has the best treatments and highest percentage of cancer survival in the WORLD. The UK, with their free heathcare, has the lowest surviving rate in all of Europe. If the US started losing the private sector for researching and developing the world's best cancer treatments, then the highest survival rate will go to someone else, and I can bet you that your co-worker would do everything in his power to make sure his wife survived as long as possible. He'd leave the country and pay for treatment somewhere else, and he'd still be eating into his retirement fund. There's a misconception about socialized health care here. I live in a place with universal health care and not once have I been treated within the system. No lines, no waiting, no smelly guy sitting next to me. I go to private clinics, hospitals, doctors, etc. I don't leave the country (though I would if I needed to, obviously). Personally, I don't see how universal healthcare (tailored for the U.S.) would interfere with research and development of new treatments. That's another "known truth" nobody cares to explain how it works, but it just is. I guess if the people in charge were forced to explain in detail why health care for everyone is a mistake, they would have to explain (in detail) just what kind of reform we're talking about. Think about it, they would, in the process of pointing out the flaws of that which doesn't exist, come up with a plan of health care reform! And they would be talking about issues that are actually important. Imagine that.
|
|
|
Post by Hook on Sept 4, 2008 16:22:40 GMT -8
Of course the NHS has its flaws; waiting times are horrible, certain facilities and aspects of the service are desperately under-funded, and there is a lack of doctors and nurses coming through the system to provide the care itself - but at its core, the idea of a centrally funded healthcare system which provides the best quality of healh care it can to all citizens free of charge is one I subscribe to 1000%. In fact, I would say that the establishment of the NHS is one of the greatest things any British government has done in the last 100 years. I know Brendan was talking about social security, but to me, this: ...is the argument I would advocate for government-sponsored health care. It's a line in the constitution (and yes, I know that because of the Will Smith movie) that tells me the government's duty is to provide you with the essentials to live the life of your choosing. Isn't health one of those essentials? Just like roads, water supplies, fire and police departments, the mail (the friggin' mail), it's something I don't only see the government perfectly able to do, but something it should do for its citizens. You can't pursue happiness if you're sorting out all kinds of bills because you had a bicycle accident and your insurer doesn't cover random chance.
|
|
|
Post by muckle dabuckle on Sept 4, 2008 18:46:00 GMT -8
Population: Costa Rica - 4 million United Kingdom - 60 million United States - 300 million People seem to forget the fact that the government already pays for health care to those who can't afford it. If you don't have insurance you get an extremely large no insurance discount from both the doctor who treats you and the hospital. Hospitals have aid programs where they work with you and the county to get your medical bills paid for if you cannot afford them. Everything is working just fine now actually. And since we were kinda talking about the national debt, etc. here is what Minnesota did: Two years ago we had a $2 billion dollar surplus. The legislature proceeded to spend $1 billion taxpayer dollars on two new sports stadiums (one of the new stadiums is for the Twins whose owner just happens to be the 78th richest person in the U.S. worth around $3 billion. Of course he gets to keep all the revenue from the Twins though). Now we have a billion dollar debt so they decided to raise taxes by $6 billion dollars and there will be a box on the november ballot to change the state constitution to raise the sale's tax to get $275 million more a year. Guess what excuse they used to raise the taxes: we have a deficit! Yeah, I live in California without the sun. I'm convinced legislators PURPOSELY keep a debt to control the citizens. One place we could cut the budget immediately would be the salaries of the U.S. House and Senators (that's assuming most of them accept their salaries, which I have no doubt most do ). Both make around $170,000 per year. House members get permanent benefits after five years, which would include social security type-benefits and pension. So with about 535 member of the U.S. legislature, slashing at least $120,000 a year from each member, you save: $64 million a year. I've also read somewhere that the pension for retired U.S. representatives and senators is from around $35,000 to $65,000 a year depending on what pension plan they chose. The question is why are they getting a pension at all? Politics is supposed to be a temporary thing, not a job.
|
|