[Zeeb]

In a report released Tuesday, the World Economic Forum said Washington's huge defense and homeland security spending commitments, plans to lower taxes further, and long-term potential costs from health care and pensions were creating worrisome fiscal strains.

U.S. drops to sixth place in world competitive rankings - Sep. 26, 2006

I sure hope all this spending pays off someday as all this war mongering is costing us. 6th place still isn't bad, but how far will we fall if the war machine turns it eye toward Iran?

[marden]

Originally Posted by Zeeb

U.S. drops to sixth place in world competitive rankings - Sep. 26, 2006

I sure hope all this spending pays off someday as all this war mongering is costing us. 6th place still isn't bad, but how far will we fall if the war machine turns it eye toward Iran?

When you become a real intellectual force to be reckoned with you will add one process to your political deliberations:

You will ask yourself what might possibly happen if the other side (in this case, "American patriots") is correct in it's assertions.

[Lateralus]

Originally Posted by marden

it's

its*

[BRussell]

But just look at how good an investment the Iraq war has been! It's providing stability to the region, nay, the world!

The truth is, we could have payed for this war and post-9/11 security spending, and deal with social security and health care. But the wealthiest people really needed more money, so we definitely did the right thing by running the country's finances into the ground with tax cuts for them.

[Kevin]

That's it. I am moving.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by BRussell

The truth is, we could have payed for this war and post-9/11 security spending, and deal with social security and health care. But the wealthiest people really needed more money, so we definitely did the right thing by running the country's finances into the ground with tax cuts for them.

The Dems killed social security reform. They took credit for it.

[Zeeb]

Originally Posted by marden

You will ask yourself what might possibly happen if the other side (in this case, "American patriots") is correct in it's assertions.

They haven't been "correct" so far. So we spent a great deal of money on Iraq for nothing--at least officially nothing since as we now know there are no WMD. Even from a pragmatic standpoint -- outside of moral considerations--controlling the oil supply in Iraq is a big plus, but not if there is so much unrest in the newly occupied country that production is impossible.

I'm not saying war is never justified, but we need an administration that is able to more carefully and economically choose which wars to fight or we'll all go bankrupt eventually.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Lateralus

its*

I guess I shouldnt be such a moran.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

The Dems killed social security reform. They took credit for it.

Well the Dems were opposed to it, but Republicans did have a majority in Congress. And I know we've talked about this before, but the reform that Republicans proposed would have worsened the financial state of social security, not improved it. There's no debate about that - Bush admitted that his plan wouldn't improve its fiscal situation. It would have taken money out of social security and put it into private accounts, which might have been ideologically preferable to some people, but the problem is that the money to be set aside for private accounts is supposed to pay for current retirees, and yet, in typical Republican-government style, they said they wouldn't cut their benefits or raise their taxes.

If you're concerned about our fiscal situation, you'd also oppose the Republican plan.

[Big Mac]

I favor the abolition of Social Security for those a number of year from retirement. It's a pyramid scheme that cannot be repaired, but no one wants to address its impending failure because they fear the backlash of an uninformed public. They are cowards (and that includes the Republicans who stood in the way of reform). At least Bush had the courage to state the obvious.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Zeeb

They haven't been "correct" so far. So we spent a great deal of money on Iraq for nothing--at least officially nothing since as we now know there are no WMD. Even from a pragmatic standpoint -- outside of moral considerations--controlling the oil supply in Iraq is a big plus, but not if there is so much unrest in the newly occupied country that production is impossible.

I'm not saying war is never justified, but we need an administration that is able to more carefully and economically choose which wars to fight or we'll all go bankrupt eventually.

You make that assumption almost without thinking about it. Why is it that I can think of so many valid, real reasons why the Administration was very well advised and quite justified in invading and you can't recognize a one?

Am I that smart or are you just overlooking the real considerations of that time?

We know NOW there were no WMD's. But what was known THEN?

Was our intelligence sufficiently reliable to risk leaving Israel open to WMD attack?

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

I favor the abolition of Social Security for those a number of year from retirement.

See, now THAT would save some money, unlike the Republican plan which would cost extra money. The Republican plan basically would have added a second, costly retirement program.

[itai195]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

I favor the abolition of Social Security for those a number of year from retirement. It's a pyramid scheme that cannot be repaired, but no one wants to address its impending failure because they fear the backlash of an uninformed public. They are cowards (and that includes the Republicans who stood in the way of reform). At least Bush had the courage to state the obvious.

Yet that plan is not what Bush proposed. You deserve credit for coming right out and saying you want to abolish the program, but it'll never happen. There's a difference between reforming SS and abolishing it, and to blame Democrats for not wanting to essentially abolish a program that's a cornerstone of their ideology is a little silly.

[Kerrigan]

Liberals care about capitalism and competitiveness? News to me!

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by itai195

Yet that plan is not what Bush proposed. You deserve credit for coming right out and saying you want to abolish the program, but it'll never happen. There's a difference between reforming SS and abolishing it, and to blame Democrats for not wanting to essentially abolish a program that's a cornerstone of their ideology is a little silly.

Okay, perhaps I should have been clearer. I support Social Security reform because any reform is better than no reform with this situation. But, I'd rather see abolition. That's the point I was making.

[BRussell]

But Big Mac, whenever we've discussed this, it always seems to me that you don't quite get at the heart of the issue. You say you want reform because SS is too expensive, and criticize Dems for opposing the Bush plan. But then you don't ever address the point I make that the Bush plan would have cost more than SS does now. Do you disagree with that, not care, or what? Is "any reform" really better than no reform, even if the reform adds costs to the current situation?

I don't doubt that itai is right, that Dems largely opposed Bush's plan because it is central to their ideology, rather than because it cost more. But how can you explain your support of it, and your criticism of Dems for opposing it, given the fact that it would have cost more?

[Spliffdaddy]

There is no way to reform Social Security without it costing more. The problem is that there isn't enough money to pay future retirees.

I'm all for stopping the program altogether. Your retirement isn't the responsibility of government.

[olePigeon]

Learn Mandarin Chinese.

[Zeeb]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

There is no way to reform Social Security without it costing more. The problem is that there isn't enough money to pay future retirees.

I'm all for stopping the program altogether. Your retirement isn't the responsibility of government.

The stability of the country is the responsibility of the government. Cutting off social security to all the boomers out there will not make a stable nation.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

There is no way to reform Social Security without it costing more.

Well you could cut benefits. That would make it cost less.

[Spliffdaddy]

Good luck getting support for a benefit cut. I'd love to see it happen, but the old folks and the AARP are a tough challenge.

re: Zeeb's comment -

Citizens depending on the government for their financial well-being does not make a stable nation.

[Zeeb]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Good luck getting support for a benefit cut. I'd love to see it happen, but the old folks and the AARP are a tough challenge.

re: Zeeb's comment -

Citizens depending on the government for their financial well-being does not make a stable nation.

Well, those citizens have been contributing to Social Security for their entire working lives. If the government didn't want citizens to depend on it for retirement, they shouldn't have deducted all that money from their paychecks.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by marden

When you become a real intellectual force to be reckoned with

Wow, that sure does sound like abe, though - on meds that make him a total asshole, but still...

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

There is no way to reform Social Security without it costing more.

Means testing and raising the retirement age would increase the funds available to current and future retirees without adding costs to the program.

[Millennium]

What exactly is being ranked? What are they competing in? The report is very short on details here, and frankly appears to use some indicators that I would consider invalid.

[macintologist]

Originally Posted by BRussell

See, now THAT would save some money, unlike the Republican plan which would cost extra money. The Republican plan basically would have added a second, costly retirement program.

Funny how Republicans say they are for smaller government but then do the exact opposite when they get in power

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

Means testing and raising the retirement age would increase the funds available to current and future retirees without adding costs to the program.

Those are temporary measures: they do not solve the underlying problems, ensuring that the problem will be raised again in the future. They also have the disavantage of turning Social Security into a program where some -perhaps many- of the people who pay into it will never benefit from it (except through multiple bogus levels of indirection): hardly a democratic ideal.

[macintologist]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

I'm all for stopping the program altogether. Your retirement isn't the responsibility of government.

Amen. I started my roth IRA almost a year ago and I'm just 20

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Millennium

Those are temporary measures: they do not solve the underlying problems, ensuring that the problem will be raised again in the future. They also have the disavantage of turning Social Security into a program where some -perhaps many- of the people who pay into it will never benefit from it (except through multiple bogus levels of indirection): hardly a democratic ideal.

It's not a one-time fix. It's a permanent re-formulation of who can receive, and under what conditions, Social Security benefits.

And what is with the questioning those who pay into it but don't get anything out of it? That scenario happens all the time in this country. Do you think the little old lady who doesn't drive a car gets her fair share of tax dollars spent on highway development? Does the young, child-less couple use their fair share of tax dollars in the municipal property assessments that fund the local school districts? Absolutely not on both counts. Should they be allowed to stop contributing to the general fund for these areas because they use less than they contribute? I don't think so. Do you?

I am really surprised that you would think there has to be equivalence between what gets paid into the Social Security system and what someone gets out of it. It is NOT a system guaranteed to provide one with a retirement. It is there to help support those who, for whatever reason, have insufficient money to fully support themselves in retirement. What if you save and plan for your retirement and then a devastating illness strikes in your 50s or 60s which depletes much of that savings? Should you be forced into penury as a result of that? I think not. And even if you have insufficient retirement funds due to negligence or lack of foresight I think it is better still to help those without the funds than to let them suffer in poverty and depravity.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by analogika

Wow, that sure does sound like abe, though - on meds that make him a total asshole, but still...

You two must be taking the same thing then.

ZIIIIIIING.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally Posted by Zeeb

Well, those citizens have been contributing to Social Security for their entire working lives. If the government didn't want citizens to depend on it for retirement, they shouldn't have deducted all that money from their paychecks.

I must have lost my government issued guarantee of recieving SS benefits.

Perhaps somebody would be kind enough to find their copy and post the text here.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Kevin

You two must be taking the same thing then.

ZIIIIIIING.

Let them think I'm abe and whoever they want, but the advice to Zeeb was something that might help him become a better thinker and poster. I don't know if it would help analogical.