Doctor Fate wrote:As a caveat, that leaves out those who collect SS benefits because their parent(s) died and those who get SS disability (for too many reasons to list).

Hence the reason I specified SS old age payments.

Though I guess an argument could probably be made that orphan payments come out of the parent's payments since those are payments the parent's are not going to be getting.

Ray Jay wrote:I'm comfortable with some national response that includes limited social and medical insurance for those who are less fortunate. I don't know how much is right, but I do know that many good hard working Americans are totally dependent on it and not because they are lazy. Some people have less capacity, and some have no family, and some have addictions, and some have never had a break in their lives. For the most part, those of us posting on these sites are very fortunate. The issue for me is not primarily philosophical.

Yes, but the use of empathy isn't desirable. Who cares about the people who are receiving SS. They aren't as important as the people who kvetch about paying for it.

danivon wrote:

Ray Jay wrote:I'm comfortable with some national response that includes limited social and medical insurance for those who are less fortunate. I don't know how much is right, but I do know that many good hard working Americans are totally dependent on it and not because they are lazy. Some people have less capacity, and some have no family, and some have addictions, and some have never had a break in their lives. For the most part, those of us posting on these sites are very fortunate. The issue for me is not primarily philosophical.

Yes, but the use of empathy isn't desirable. Who cares about the people who are receiving SS. They aren't as important as the people who kvetch about paying for it.

I think your empathy comment is very unfair. Brad and others have demonstrated empathy in other posts. They are questioning the government mandate of empathy, and the particularly problematic ways in which it goes about it.

I also wonder whether this represents a blind side of the left. Conservative views are dismissed as being non-empathic; it may be a sort of cognitive dissonance. We can't go "there" because it represents a lack of empathy. End of discussion. However, there are problems with social security -- and huge problems with medicare -- that need to be examined by all sides of the political spectrum.

ray

They are questioning the government mandate of empathy, and the particularly problematic ways in which it goes about it.

That's an interesting description of a minimum standard of assistance for people. "Government mandate of empathy". How about society's aceptance of responsibility for our brothers?
If there is indeed an equal amount of empathy demonstrated by people who would do away with social security or Medicare than how is it demonstrated? By their claims to provide personal charity or their claims the destitute can always find charity? Thin soup.
At one time society didn't have programs like Social security or Medicare. But we did have charity.
Charity proved it wasn't up to the task of providing a minimal level of assistance for the poor or destitute. (Are there no work houses? Scrooge)
Is it empathetic to demand that we go back to a time when there was no safety net for those less fortunate other than proven inadequate charities ? Or perhaps its just denial of the evidence of the past failure of charity, and these caring people are simply unused to looking at the evidence of history and past failures.
I don't look at B or others as unempathetic. I just think they haven't realized that their solutions were tried before and failed. And would fail if tried again. I think they'd be disappointed by the results because most of them do care.
The govenrment run programs didn't deliver perfection either., But they generally performed better than what they replaced. (It may be why Medicare is so popular eh? Becasue the people on it have a memory of what it was like before?)
And I think its plainly a lack of institutional memory that can convince people that eliminating imperfect programs with an even less perfect system that proved a failure makes sense.

rickyp wrote:Is it empathetic to demand that we go back to a time when there was no safety net for those less fortunate other than proven inadequate charities ?

95% of conservatives aren't calling for this anymore than 70% of Democrats are calling for socialism. I don't believe even Brad would actually do away with the safety net (I could be wrong).

However, it is infuriating to see example after example of the "safety net" being abused and yet be told taxes have to be raised to meet "our obligations." It's also infuriating to have the President now say that "shovel ready wasn't as shovel ready as we expected." That's his justification for blowing nearly a trillion bucks? It is infuriating to have the President say, for the sixth time, he was going to appoint someone to wring out waste from government (this time it's "Nobody messes with" Joe Biden).

If I were President, I could cut $100B a day from the budget for the first 15 days--and then keep finding more places to cut.

This topic is about the budget. I would point out Democrats STILL don't have a budget they're willing to vote on--in more than two years!

The President was touting green energy jobs yesterday. How many green energy jobs have been created, with all the money he's dumped into it? He doesn't know. How does he know that Cree, the company he was at, isn't using stimulus money to create jobs in China? He doesn't know.

No one is opposed to empathy. But, the American people want accountability. Few are fully opposed to a safety net. Most are opposed to unconditional, indefinite welfare to the able-bodied. We want someone who protects our money like it's his/her money, not someone who acts like they've got Mom and Dad's charge card.

Ray Jay wrote:I think your empathy comment is very unfair. Brad and others have demonstrated empathy in other posts. They are questioning the government mandate of empathy, and the particularly problematic ways in which it goes about it.

However much empathy Brad displays elsewhere, he seems to be showing a lack of it here. I don't see pooled coverage as 'mandated empathy'. I see some of the arguments for it being empathetic (and some are practical, economic etc...).

I also wonder whether this represents a blind side of the left. Conservative views are dismissed as being non-empathic; it may be a sort of cognitive dissonance. We can't go "there" because it represents a lack of empathy. End of discussion. However, there are problems with social security -- and huge problems with medicare -- that need to be examined by all sides of the political spectrum.

And I've said you should reform. But that's not where Brad is coming from. He's calling for a total change of emphasis. However, the 'personal account' approach has some major flaws, not least of which is what do you do with all the poor senior citizens.

I see empathy in some conservative positions, and I see a lack of it in some left wing positions. That's not where I was coming from at all - I was addressing this part of the debate.

Doctor Fate wrote:95% of conservatives aren't calling for this anymore than 70% of Democrats are calling for socialism. I don't believe even Brad would actually do away with the safety net (I could be wrong).

As far as I can see, Brad has proposed a system which removes the existing Social Security safety net for people who are not able to collect enough credits. It would instead be basically the same as a money-purchase pension, where you invest into an individual account and then at retirement (or perhaps later) you buy an annuity. Unless I see him distancing himself from the view that if you put nothing in you get nothing out (regardless of why you couldn't put in, or what your circumstances are), that looks like removal of a safety net.

However, it is infuriating to see example after example of the "safety net" being abused and yet be told taxes have to be raised to meet "our obligations."

But the chances are that it's not the abuse that's the main contributor to the need to increase funding. Fraud can be targeted (to a point), and mitigated. But the real issue, for Social Security and Medicare at least, is not what's happening now, it's what will be happening in 30 years' time, when there are many more senior citizens living longer, with more expensive healthcare and other care needs, and a relatively smaller working population to fund it.

danivon wrote:[As far as I can see, Brad has proposed a system which removes the existing Social Security safety net for people who are not able to collect enough credits.

Dan,

I believe this is the way the current system works. Let me give an example of two people that a collegue of mine dealt with when I worked at the Senator's office. I am going to call them Harry and Dean. Harry and Dean are friends and they are both 65 years old. Harry spent his entire career as the employee to somebody else. He had 40 credits. He collected SS pension. Dean did not have his 40 credits for some reason (I think he was self-employed and failed to pay the payroll taxes). He was not eligible to collect the SS pension therefore he did not.

It used to be that Police did not pay SS taxes (not sure if it still is) so they would not be eligible to collect SS pension. That is why we would see a lot of police officers retire the day they were eligible for full pension (usually 30 years) and then spend another 10 years working another job so they would be eligible for SS Pensions.

danivon wrote:But the chances are that it's not the abuse that's the main contributor to the need to increase funding. Fraud can be targeted (to a point), and mitigated.

It may not be the main contributor, but it is far larger than generally attributed. Getting back to what I said before, there are a surprising number of people who are perfectly willing to live or spend a lot of time on the dole.

And, as has been mentioned on many occasions in different forums, there is little appetite among social workers for going after the fraud and the able-bodied who simply don't want to do anything.

But the real issue, for Social Security and Medicare at least, is not what's happening now, it's what will be happening in 30 years' time, when there are many more senior citizens living longer, with more expensive healthcare and other care needs, and a relatively smaller working population to fund it.

Well, in 30 years, SS will be broke and Medicare will have been losing money for about 20 years. That's why it is so cowardly to simply ignore the deficit--or pretend we can tax the rich enough to solve it. I'm not saying you have said the latter, but that is clearly the position of the Democratic party--ignore, lie, and demagogue.

For people who do not have the time to change from the current system to the new system, that I am proposing, I would keep them in the current system until death. Anyone over the age of 40 could apply? Sounds fair to me...

I prepare for uncertainty in life. Anyone can. I recommend they should. I think Danivon is the type of person to plan for uncertainty. I give him full marks for it. Do I think he is better than anyone else? Nope!

Do I think there should be a safety net? Yes, just not the government. It is called non-government charitable entities.

Brad, indeed. I am probably in a more comparable situation than you are in terms of my contributions vs benefits. Long may that continue, because I don't want to have to rely on state benefits. But I might need to, anything could happen.

In the meantime, I am aware of why people don't have the same position as me. Very rarely is it an unwillingness to prepare. It's more often an inability to, due to lack of resources.

And charity? Sure, it works. Sometimes. If you are the right religion. And they know what they are doing. And people are willing to give. If it works so well, why did we move away from it?

Danivon,
I don't have to contribute anything for my or my families medical care. The ambulance issue is one that is not covered (even in an emergency). My main issue is why is one class treated differently than another. Why is that acceptable? I think the poor should receive the same assistance as the rich. I think the poor should pay the same percentage of taxes as the rich. (also acceptable, every person pays a flat fee)

I think that there are several agencies that assist those in need that are atheistic. Look up Project Sisyphus. I think the same rules would apply. If it works, if they know what they are doing, and if people are willing to give. (you make it sound as if religious charities are bumbling, and non-caring about those that are not in that religion.)

Religious charities in Britain may be different, but most in the States are using charity as an outreach/mission to the people. Why would some choose to not accept the hand of charity if it is coming from a religious bent? That sounds really haughty. I don't see those needing the assistance in that light.

Leadership: calling the President!

CBO says "uh-oh"

However, the CBO's more likely scenario assumes that the tax deal is extended, that the alternative minimum tax would continue to be restricted, and that the “doc fix,” Congress’s annual decision to ease limits on Medicare physician pay, will occur as expected. Under this scenario, debt would rise to 187 percent of the economy in 2035.

While CBO does not provide policy recommendations, it urged policymakers to take significant action to reduce the deficit and debt by reducing spending, increasing taxes, or some combination of the two. While those changes will slow economic recovery, the agency warns, the sooner they are made, the more gradual they can be, easing the transition into new policies but likely requiring sacrifices from older Americans.

Everything I've heard suggests instead the President is leaning toward more stimulus and more quantitative easing. Now, THAT'S leadership!

bbauska wrote:Danivon,
I don't have to contribute anything for my or my families medical care. The ambulance issue is one that is not covered (even in an emergency).

Sorry, but I would see the ambulance that takes you to the healthcare as a part of it. The NHS runs ambulance services in the UK.

My main issue is why is one class treated differently than another. Why is that acceptable? I think the poor should receive the same assistance as the rich.

I agree, in that I think everyone should get the same basic healthcare provided under taxation, regardless of ability to pay. Ideally, more than the 'basic' would be covered.

I think the poor should pay the same percentage of taxes as the rich. (also acceptable, every person pays a flat fee)

Acceptable to the comfortable. I'm not sure that it works that well for the poor. Lower income households tend to have higher proportionate fixed costs (rent, food, utilities etc) and so are less able to afford the same rate of tax as the rest of us. If your idea were to take account of basic living costs and start tax above that, it may be more acceptable. Of course, the real issue is that while the rich nominally pay a higher rate, in practice they tend to pay less of their income in tax than do the middle classes and many of the working poor.

I think that there are several agencies that assist those in need that are atheistic. Look up Project Sisyphus. I think the same rules would apply. If it works, if they know what they are doing, and if people are willing to give. (you make it sound as if religious charities are bumbling, and non-caring about those that are not in that religion.)

Religious charities in Britain may be different, but most in the States are using charity as an outreach/mission to the people. Why would some choose to not accept the hand of charity if it is coming from a religious bent? That sounds really haughty. I don't see those needing the assistance in that light.

It's not the refusal, it's the provision. You appear to have assumed something from my words and run off with it. I've seen how religious charities can be.. selective. And the 'outreach/mission' sounds cool, but what happens when people ignore the missionary part?

I get that people don't like being at the 'whim' of the state, but the same 'whim' applies to charitable bodies. It's not that they are 'bumbling', but that coverage will vary greatly from place to place and from time to time. Also, sometimes what people like to give to isn't necessarily the areas of greatest need.

Are all charitable organizations "religious". Certainly not? I do agree that a large preponderance of them are. (One should ask themselves why, but I digress) While there are many who need assistance that have no problem accepting help from religious organizations, I stipulate that there are those who would feel "uncomfortable" doing so. those people can/should seek assistance where they are comfortable accepting assistance.

[quote=danivon]And charity? Sure, it works. Sometimes. If you are the right religion. And they know what they are doing. And people are willing to give. If it works so well, why did we move away from it?[/quote]

Your inference is what I questioned. Charitable organizations are fine if the "work" One could say the same about the Government. I don't think I need to bring evidence of Government misuse of funds, and letting people slip through the cracks, so I?

"IF they know what they are doing... Inference that they don't See above.

If people are willing to give. Shall I produce evidence of who gives more? A private citizen with religious values or an atheist? I would think the religious person gives more.

If it works so well why did "we" (I assume you mean the Government?) move away from it? Because they (note the opposite of "we") wanted more control of people's lives in order to create a dependence class of constituents. (IMHO)

http://www.mint.com/blog/trends/charity-who-cares/

Facts to back up above statements.