rickyp wrote:ray

Maybe. There have certainly been millions of people who have been helped by these programs; there are very few conservatives who want to end them. However, they are the reasons for our massive debt and deficits both recorded and projected. Certainly our inability to reform them in a fiscally prudent way represents a weakness of liberalism.

I agree with a lot of your posting but this is nonsense.
The fact that successful programs are contributing to incrasing debt isn't the programs fault. The programs have done what was intended, they've saved millions from living their old age in denigration and misery. Funding them properly is a different issue.
Its largely the irresponsibilty that started with Reagan's deficits. The programs would be in fine shape if people were willing to pay the appropriate level of taxation to support them. Before 1980, it was politcal suicide to run deficits in the US. After Reagan if became acceptable and politiicans OF BOTH STRIPES, refused to deal with the cold hard facts that deficits had to be dealt with....
Its been pandering to a populace to tell them that you can always lower taxation without pain that has actually caused the debt calamity.
And thats been largely propogated by Conservative politicians since 1980, though the left went along. Its hilarious how conservatives all harken back to Saint Ron without comprehending that its his attitudes to fiscal responsibility that started the snow ball to hell.
(Thats not to say that there are inefficiencies within programs that could be corrected. Mostly over administration and needless worry over fraud. And who's responsible for that over focus?)

The CBO forecasts assume that the Bush tax cuts expire on 1/1/2013 and include Obama's reductions in military spending; yet we still have deficits of about $1T a year for the next 10 years. Why is it nonsense to say that liberalism suffers from not being able to rein in spending when it has to? That's exactly what is happening. Any program (liberal or conservative or whatever) creates vested interests that fight tooth and nail to keep it.

Surely it's not 'liberalism' that's failed, so much as the overall system, if the problem is dficits. One failure is not collecting revenues to keep pace with spending.

Brad, I am not trying to important Christian values into government. What I am saying is that there seems to be an inconsistency between Christianity's value of supporting the poor and current Republican policy.

Monte, couldn't you have agreed with one thing I said?!

I think that I have said before that I agree that we should try to help small businesses to deal with regulations, getting rid of some of them, exempting them from others, and helping them to comply with the ones we need them to comply with. But when I say deregulate I am talking about the Republicans reducing needed regulations for big corporations and large banks. Allowing Savings and Home Loan Companies to invest in risky investments led to the Saving & Loan Crisis; getting rid of the barrier betwen commerical and investment banks led commercial banks to take risks which almost caused our financial system to melt down. Enron cost California several billion dollars. How? First electrcial utiilties were deregulated so that you could trade production of electritiy even though you were not in the business of producing electricty. Then California thought why don't we go away from public utilities producing power and deregulate. Enron then got control of the production of enough plants that they had some of them go off-line for a while, meaning that California had to pay huge amounts of money to Enron to get their power. Deregulation of electricity in California was a colossal failure.

, California is not doing too bad. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/money_c ... a-gdp.html

I don't think the projected deficits are as high as you indicate. I think the CBO says something like 6 trillion over 10 years. I also think we could cut a lot more in military spending. What exactly would you cut? And, remember, Republicans have developed an insane idea that they absolutely will not raise taxes no matter what. How can there be reasonable compromise when side refuses to budge

With regard to Social Security and Medicare, liberals are awfully averse to cutting these social net programs when two conservative presidents (Bush II and Reagan) both dramatically cut taxes and dramatically increased military spending. Obviously, that was a prescription for huge budget deficits. And now after creating the problem, they want to come to Democrats and say oh well, so sorry, there is no money for Social Security and Medicare. You know, there has been a theory in the conservative camp that the best way to cut social spending is not to do it directly (because it would be impossible) but do it indirectly by creating a situation where is no money for those programs.

Sociali Security is solvent until 2037. I am sure we can figure something out between now and 2037. Medicare is a more difficult problem, but I think the solution of Medicare lies in controlling health care costs. Of course, Republicans have no solution for this, because the one they had is the one Romney did (and they are running from that because anything that Obama does is bad)

.In any case, if you want to propose a plan that significantly cuts military spending, raises capital gains taxes and ends the Bush Tax Cuts, and cuts Social Security and Medicare in ways that do not hurt the poor and elderly--I am sure we can talk. I am not buying cutting loopholes (by the way, the actual effective corporate tax rate is something like 20-25% so it is not that high)--just raise rates. We need more revenue and we need to cut spending to get the budget in order. Until Republicans are willing to put raising rates on the table there is no reason to talk about any compromise.

b

The link you gave was from 150 years ago? Really? Do you think that is applicable? Don't make me laugh... At least me link was from last year.

You asked me to prove that Charity was never sufficient to alleviate the effects of poverty, and that government was forced to step in due to this inadequacy. I provided you a link to the period of limited governance in the US when govenrment was forced to step in becasue charity was not up to the task.
I could point to a 1,000 point in history for examples where charity failed the role you would have it fill.
Please point to one actual point in history where charity sufficed.


b

No answer on how much is too much? I guess your silence is agreement with my assertion that you believe 100% taxation is the right amount. So you believe all of any person's money belongs tot he government. I see your values showing.

Why don't you just stick your fingers in your ears and shout la la la. I can't hear you.

freeman2 wrote:
Sociali Security is solvent until 2037. I am sure we can figure something out between now and 2037.

Yes and no. We've spent the social security surplus on other stuff, so now to fund it we will have to take money from general funds. Also the Disability Insurance program is projected to be out of funds in 2016.

Of course, Republicans have no solution for this, because the one they had is the one Romney did (and they are running from that because anything that Obama does is bad)

I don't think it's fair to blame the Republican party for the Massachusetts health care law. Our legislature is overly Democratic. I live with the Mass health insurance laws which mandate that insurance companies cover all sorts of things that I have to buy even though I don't want them, or face a penalty of $2,500 per year. I can tell you some stories on what some people do to take advantage of this law.

I think that the Republican plan is the Ryan plan. It has problems, but it is better than anything that the Dems have put forward to reduce health care costs. What have the Dems put forward to reduce health care costs?

Doctor Fate wrote:Because when you work there is no risk involved. Being a big shot, you probably get, what, $200/hr? Whatever your rate, at the end of the day, that's what you get paid. On the other hand, most investments are not locked in at a particular return. To encourage investment, it is taxed at a lower rate.

Wild. I didn't know people still thought of work this way in America. "Whatver your rate, at the end of the day, that's what you get paid." Maybe if you're a civil servant you can have this attitude about work, but most people have to sell their product, or their time, or their service, so that they actually get paid to work or continue to have a job. If they are unable to do that, they don't work, or don't have a job. This means that for the vast majority of people, their earnings is at constant risk. If they don't think so, they are merely fooling themselves (and you apparently.)

Interest earned on your tax exempt bonds? Yeah, not so much.

geojanes wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Because when you work there is no risk involved. Being a big shot, you probably get, what, $200/hr? Whatever your rate, at the end of the day, that's what you get paid. On the other hand, most investments are not locked in at a particular return. To encourage investment, it is taxed at a lower rate.

Wild. I didn't know people still thought of work this way in America. "Whatver your rate, at the end of the day, that's what you get paid." Maybe if you're a civil servant you can have this attitude about work, but most people have to sell their product, or their time, or their service, so that they actually get paid to work or continue to have a job. If they are unable to do that, they don't work, or don't have a job. This means that for the vast majority of people, their earnings is at constant risk. If they don't think so, they are merely fooling themselves (and you apparently.)

Indeed. Even a salaryman should be aware that there is always a risk. Especially in where the oddly named 'right-to-work' rules make it easy to sack people. And the last three years or so have shown that all kinds of 'safe' industry can be threatened if banks start freezing up credit (or if a bank lilke Lehman Bros suddenly disappears in a puff of derivatives). Perhaps there are some people in more 'stable' employment who are inured to the effects of the market. Those of us in the real private sector are not.

In order to keep my job, in the past 7 years I've had to apply for positions - within the same company, doing the same work) three times, and relocate to another part of the country. In the past year, about 400 people who work in the same building as me have been laid off. Many of the jobs at the place I worked from 1997-2008 have been outsourced to India in the past three years.

That's the reality of salaried work. Rate work, sales-based work, stuff like that, is even less secure.

Interest earned on your tax exempt bonds? Yeah, not so much.

What's more, you can't pretend that such income is the result of hard work. At least not on the part of the bondholder anyway.

danivon wrote:

bbauska wrote:I believe that the people who are not able to take care of themselves (i.e. your cousin for example), will be taken care by charities, family (I am sure your and your assist admirably), and government lastly, if all else fails.

Umm, the bolded part is option 'a'.

By the way, Brad, I've just realised that there's been a conflation here. I brought up those not able to take care of themselves not because they need looking after (because clearly they do), but because of your assertion that anyone can work hard (or 'HARD') and get where you got. There then comes the point that even many people who are able to get by are still not capable of the kind of hard work and commitment that it seems you think is all it takes to be comfortable (and able to look down on those who failed).

And, of course, hard work isn't actually enough. I saw a quote today:

"If hard work was all that was needed to be successful, the women of Africa would all be millionaires". It's a little hyperbolic, but there's a point there: subsistence living is hard work, and you don't usually get much left over once you've fed a family and traded with others for essential good.

Owen,
I truly want to take care of those who cannot take care of themselves. However, due to the large number of those who have not put forth the effort, it is difficult to take care of the truly needy. Does it not frustrate you to see the people use the system who are not in a position that requires it? It takes away resources from the truly deserving. You mentioned your cousin. Is it not infuriating to see resources go to those who do not deserve it as much as your cousin.

That is my main difficulty. You want to ensure that the system does not miss anyone and there are people who do not deserve benefits getting them. I want to see the truly needy get assistance, and the rest of them can put forth the effort to make money and provide.

How do we reconcile this? I know that one extreme of no assistance will not work any more than full unrestricted assistance will. There has to be a medium. What is that medium ground?

See RickyP?
Owen and I are looking for middle ground about benefits. I am sure that you could give me a number to start with regarding taxation...

bbauska wrote:Owen,
I truly want to take care of those who cannot take care of themselves. However, due to the large number of those who have not put forth the effort, it is difficult to take care of the truly needy. Does it not frustrate you to see the people use the system who are not in a position that requires it? It takes away resources from the truly deserving. You mentioned your cousin. Is it not infuriating to see resources go to those who do not deserve it as much as your cousin.

I don't agree that it does take away resources from my cousin. He gets what he needs, with assistance from family and from the state. Why should I bother about whether other people are getting stuff as long as he gets what he needs? Why should I be driven by the politics of envy?

That is my main difficulty. You want to ensure that the system does not miss anyone and there are people who do not deserve benefits getting them. I want to see the truly needy get assistance, and the rest of them can put forth the effort to make money and provide.

How do we reconcile this? I know that one extreme of no assistance will not work any more than full unrestricted assistance will. There has to be a medium. What is that medium ground?

The 'medium' surely is (if we both agree that we want to help the needy), to help the needy, and put in place rules that make fraud harder, while accepting that human nature means that there will be fraud (we have laws against all kinds of things, but that doesn't eliminate them).

Now, the problem with too onerous a set of rules is that it can dissuade the truly needy from coming forward.

As ever, Brad, there is not an simple answer. I know you'd like there to be one. I wish there could be, but society ain't simple.

b

See RickyP?
Owen and I are looking for middle ground about benefits.

d

As ever, Brad, there is not an simple answer. I know you'd like there to be one. I wish there could be, but society ain't simple.

what he said.

ray

Why is it nonsense to say that liberalism suffers from not being able to rein in spending when it has to

First, in the US, spending was often in control of republican administrations from 1980. And it was only with the advent of the radical conservatism of reagan that spending began to be larger than revenues.
So how's that Liberal?
Second: Can we look to nations more liberal or socialist and notice that many run far more generous social programs for years, and run surpluses? AND have very healthy economies? (In part becasue of the social programs...)
Sweden for example: http://www.thelocal.se/38424/20120110/
If you don't want to look, they are running surpluses this year...

Fiscal prudence has to do with citizens understanding that if they want a government to provide certain services and benefits they have to pay for them. That you can't run away from the responsibility of paying for what you recieve.
But from 1980 the US through most of the next 30 years ran deficits as if they didn't matter. No matter who was in charge... And "conservatives" were dominant.

Ray, you want to make this a matter of Liberal v Conservative when its neither. Its a citizenry who understand responsibility and accountability includes accepting the tax burden required to operate their govenrment. Whether that government is limited or expansive.
Pandering for votes by lowering taxes consistently but not reining in spending is neither Liberal nor Conservative. But it could be called American. Or Greek.