Goodbye, middle class

[msm859]

General welfare - at the time of the founders this was generally assumed to be constrained by the powers specifically granted to the federal government, meaning they are to create money, regulate trade amongst the states (interstate commerce), and raise an army in order to promote the general welfare clause. When the government is creating welfare programs they do so under their authority to regulate interstate commerce although most reasonable constitutional scholars see that as a big stretch, but it doesn't matter to those that promote that kind of thing, they jsut don't care. This was never meant to be a country of majority rule, it was meant to be a nation of laws, with the constitution being the supreme law, unfortunately it has been trampled on by majority rule. The constitution was meant to protect minority rights, and right now, we have a minority of the people paying for social benefits for the majority. Almost half the wage earners in this country pay ZERO federal income taxes. We continue to move towards more and more people taking the wages of fewer and fewer people to pay for their stuff.
The weasel word there is "income" tax. It is true that about half of the wage earners do not pay any "income" tax. However, they pay a lot of other type of taxes. Social security, medicare, property, sales etc. And in a relative sense those taxes are a greater burden to many of them then the income tax. Also, and more importantly the bottom 50% of wage earners only earn @ 12% of the total income
As for the fatty food, I am mixed on this one, if I have to pay for the health care of obese people, then yes, perhaps it should be taxed, but not for everyone, just the overweight people. Maybe we can just tax people by bodyfat percentage, that would be far more effective. The truth is, if I had my way I would not be paying for anyone else's healthcare, so I would not need to get involved in how they choose to eat. I should not pay for anyone's healthcare, so I should not get involved in what they eat or whether they choose to wear a helmet, wear a condom, go skydiving, have homosexual relations, or any other high risk behavior, its would not be my business if we weren't so involved in their healthcare.
So MSM859, I don't object to taxing people to pay for their healthcare, as long as it doesn't favor some choices over others, I object to having a system where we pay for their care at all. I don't believe there is any moral authority for the government to force me to hand over tax money to pay for someone else's care. Why fatty foods, liquor, and cigarettes, why not extra-marital sex? Why not living in a high crime area? Driving or riding in a car without airbags? It never ends, but it could end if we just stopped getting involved in providing for the health care (really disease care, but that is a different issue) of others.
I don't think we could fine tune it as much as you might like - and what I might agree with. That is why I proposed a tax on the clear and easy targets. As a civilized society we cannot simply turn away someone who needs medical care. And if it would help you from a moral standpoint perhaps you should think of it as part of the costs of government keeping law and order. I suspect we would soon have complete anarchy and riots if there was no government involvement and people were dying and starving on the streets

I think the anti-smoking debate if focusing on the freedom of the wrong people. I don't give a damn about people coming to eat in a restuarant or go into a store, ITS NOT THEIR STORE, smoker or non-smoker, it doesn't matter to me. I care about the owner. The owner should get to choose whether they have a smoking section, non-smoking section, all smoking, all non-smoking, etc. I would choose to go to place that are non-smoking only, I can't stand smoke. But the choice should be left in the hands of the property or business owner!, not you, not me, not smokers, not non-smokers. If people don't like smoking, then the businesses that don't allow it will prosper and more will choose to switch. That is free market, and that is freedom for the person that matters in all this, the business or property owner And what about the employees? .

The biggest problem with the whole taxes question is that the government is not bringing in enough money, hence the budget deficits. The New York Times has a "puzzle" that allows you to adjust spending and taxes to balance the budget. The budget can not be realistically balanced without raising taxes -- spending cuts alone will not do it. Extending the Bush tax cuts for the next 10 years will add $4 trillion to the deficit. At 3% interest it will costs $120 billion a year just to service the debt -- in perpetuity -- since we are not going to pay it off. Unless hard decisions are made soon the national debt is going to reach critical mass were it consumes so much of the budget we will have irreversible problems.

[chrisdfw]

The biggest problem with the whole taxes question is that the government is not bringing in enough money, hence the budget deficits. The New York Times has a "puzzle" that allows you to adjust spending and taxes to balance the budget. The budget can not be realistically balanced without raising taxes -- spending cuts alone will not do it. Extending the Bush tax cuts for the next 10 years will add $4 trillion to the deficit. At 3% interest it will costs $120 billion a year just to service the debt -- in perpetuity -- since we are not going to pay it off. Unless hard decisions are made soon the national debt is going to reach critical mass were it consumes so much of the budget we will have irreversible problems.

I agree hard decisions need to be made. Where are we going to cut is my question. Lets start with the biggest budget item, social security. We can then go after defense, and then gut the rest. Pretty easy without tax increases really if you ask me. Cut SS and defense by 25%. Make other countries defend themselves instead of having us pay to defend the rest of the world. Let Japan pick up the tab for keeping N. Korea at bay, let S Korea pay too.

Where can I find the calculator?

[msm859]

I agree hard decisions need to be made. Where are we going to cut is my question. Lets start with the biggest budget item, social security. We can then go after defense, and then gut the rest. Pretty easy without tax increases really if you ask me. Cut SS and defense by 25%. Make other countries defend themselves instead of having us pay to defend the rest of the world. Let Japan pick up the tab for keeping N. Korea at bay, let S Korea pay too.

Where can I find the calculator?

Here it is. I don't suspect you would get much support for gutting social security. My fix was @ 63% taxes and 37% spending cuts.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html

[chrisdfw]

I was 85% spending, 15% taxes, largely the taxes come from my belief that the bowles-simpson plan is good.

The tax system we have now distorts economic activity by rewarding some activity with credits and loopholes.

I would probably further make cuts and stick with the taxes, paying down the debt, not just eliminating the deficit.

I know nobody would support it, we have half the country taking handouts at the expense of the other half, why in the
world would the half with the handouts support cutting anything.

It really doesn't take that much to fix SS, retirement is a horrible thing to support anyway, economically people who could
be contributing are taken out of the labor pool to sit aside and rot. I'd prefer to give credits and matching for old people to
work. Maybe they can't earn big money anymore, but just because people are old doesn't mean they have no worth. I'd propose
giving people a match on earning, or something in lieu of small checks at least until they can't anymore. No matter how old you
get you can still do things. Retirement is too much like waiting to die.

[jacko]

Social Security over the decades has been subsidizing the gov't business with the surpluses. SS ain't the problem.

I agree hard decisions need to be made. Where are we going to cut is my question. Lets start with the biggest budget item, social security. We can then go after defense, and then gut the rest. Pretty easy without tax increases really if you ask me. Cut SS and defense by 25%. Make other countries defend themselves instead of having us pay to defend the rest of the world. Let Japan pick up the tab for keeping N. Korea at bay, let S Korea pay too.

Where can I find the calculator?

[jacko]

Are you for real?

With all due respect to the ones holding the opposing opinion from my own, "nationalized healthcare" as seen in most of the Europe and Canada just plain sucks.

I've lived in more than one of these countries and I've witnessed it first hand. Let me elaborate just a bit.

Accessibility of high-cost treatments is all the rage with proponents of such systems. Here, an insurance company will simply drop you like a hot potato in certain cases and call it a day. Over there, you'll end up on a waiting list that is long enough for you never to receive a timely treatment.

Here in the U.S. you might be lucky enough to be able and put a second or third mortgage on your house to pay for such a treatment. Should you recover, you'll either repay the debt or file BK. If you have access to funds, the treatment becomes accessible.

No such option exists across the pond if you're to stay within the system. Namely, you may be able to replicate the above scenario, but you'll still end up spending that second mortgage on a treatment in private clinic, wherever it may be located...


Now, why on earth would you want to tax junk foods, tobacco and alcohol to pay for such a lame scheme? Unless you're Mike Bloomberg and use your wealth to impose your beliefs and personal views on ten million other people...

Secondhand smoke is a stunning example of junk science at its worst, as is global warming in Al Gore's rendition. The only difference is that smokers don't share as many grounds with rich special interests willing to fight an expensive battle required...

[jacko]

Private property owners do not have the right to drive up the cost of government. Dispensing fatty foods also drives up the cost of government, so these fatty food place should be taxed and or pay a health impact tax. Its been done with tobacco and alcohol to defray the cost.

I hate smoke for the record, but most of the so called public places are not public places at all. Like most restuarants, they are privately owned, and the decision of whether or not to allow smoking should be made by the property owner. If I don't like their choice (I hate smoke) I don't eat there. But people who dislike smoke should not get to tell a PRIVATE property owner what they can or can't allow ontheir property as long as it is legal (lets not have an illegal explosives manufacturing debate).

Smoking should probablynot be allowed in true public places like courthouses, public schools, etc. But for private property (that people consider public places) the property owner or lessee (subject to the terms of the lease) should get to decide, and we get to decide whether or not to go there. That is how the free market and private property is supposed to work. I have to tolerate things I don't like, that is the price of freedom. In exchange I get to decide what I do on my property.

That is the fundamental difference between those who believe in freedom and those who do not.
I believe that if I don't like smoke, I don't smoke or go to places that allow it, but the anti-freedom people want smoking banned.
I believe if you don't like guns, don't buy one, anti-freedom people want guns banned.
If I want to help the poor, I donate to the poor, anti-freedom people want the government to force me to give my money to the poor (and rich banker, large corporations, public radio, .......)
If I don't like Rush Limbaugh, I don't listen, the anti-freedom people want to have "equal time doctrines" to get him off the air.
If I don't like pornography, drinking, prostitution, etc, I don't buy it or watch it, anti-freedom people want it banned.
If I don't like fatty food, I don't eat it (mmmm bacon), anti-freedom people want it taxed, banned, and regulated.

This isn't partisan, obviosly there are anti-freedom people in both parties (almost all of them). But if you want the government to step in and support your cause, you need to consider what happens when power may shift, and the things you enjoy are the next things banned. Republicans that want to push morality need to be prepared when the double edged sword of government steps in and attacks their sacred items. Liberals that want to tax and ban fast food, need to consider when the head of censorship may attack those things they hold dear.

Everyone should think about whether they want freedom, Most of the talk I see suggests people here do not. (which makes this place much like the rest of the country)

[msm859]

I tried it again being more "conservative" and the best I could do was 43% tax and 57% spending. I agree with you though on paying down the debt. I would call it the 100 year plan. Think about it, the current debt is $14 trillion so we would need a surplus of $140 billion per year to pay off the debt in 100 years!. Show me a politician that is talking about balancing the budget AND paying down the debt and you might have a real conservative.

[WhatMoney]

Are you for real?

No Jacko, none of the Libertarian extremists here are for real, not even close to real, hardly imaginary in fact. I have to laugh at the debate with these hard-core Libertarians. Their number one religion is personal greed (and making all drugs legal). They are mostly rebellious teenagers who read Ayn Rand and unlike the rest of us adults, never grew up.

The constant attack on Social Security for the retired by chrisfw has to be a troll tactic. Except this isn't the AARP forum, so few will take the bait. Let's send Grandma and Grandpa back to work at age 85 - they could repair potholes and drive long-haul trucks until they die. To hell with retirement, those lazy old bastards.

[WhatMoney]

The Trouble With Liberty
Libertarians, of both left and right, haven’t been this close to power since 1776. But do we want to live in their world?

http://nymag.com/news/politics/70282/

For all you naively debating the Libertarians with a capital L here on this forum, please read the above six page article. They sure won't read it, but at least YOU will have a better understanding of what these folks are all about. It is a good witty but accurate article on the Libertarian movement - something you don't see often, since Libertarians are mostly ignored by the majority.

It’s clear why he played coy. For all the talk about casting off government shackles, libertarianism is still considered the crazy uncle of American politics: loud and cocky and occasionally profound but always a bit unhinged. And Rand Paul’s dad is the craziest uncle of all. Ron Paul wants to “end the Fed,” as the title of his book proclaims, and return the country to the gold standard—stances that have made him a tea-party icon. Now, as incoming chairman of the subcommittee that oversees the Fed, he’ll have an even bigger platform. Paul Sr. says there’s not much daylight between him and his son. “I can’t think of anything we grossly disagree on,” he says.

There’s never been a better time to be a libertarian than now. The right is still railing against interventionist policies like TARP, the stimulus package, and health-care reform. Citizens of all political stripes recoil against the nanny state, which is nannier than ever, passing anti-smoking laws, banning trans fats, posting calorie counts, prohibiting flavored cigarettes, cracking down on Four Loko, and considering a soda tax in New York. All that, plus some TSA agent wants to handle your baggage.

Ayn Rand has been called the “gateway drug” to libertarianism, but many converts keep toking well into adulthood. Her novels, including 1943’s The Fountainhead and 1957’s Atlas Shrugged, sell more than 800,000 copies a year. Other libertarians credit their conversion to Hayek, fellow Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises (Ron Paul’s personal fave), American free-marketer Milton Friedman, or Austrian-influenced American anarcho-capitalist and father of modern libertarianism Murray Rothbard. Ever since its publication in 1944, Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom has been the anti-regulatory Ur-text. Hayek wrote the book in response to the spread of socialism—including National Socialism— which at the time was a genuine existential threat to Western society. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, though, socialism isn’t the menace it used to be. Hitler is long gone. Yet libertarians still cite Hayek and Rand with the same urgency. Ron Johnson, the newly elected senator from Wisconsin, called Atlas Shrugged, which tells the story of a group of creative capitalists who retreat from an overregulated society to form their own Utopia, a “foundational book” that serves as “a warning of what could happen to America.”

Consider the social side of Libertopia. It’s no coincidence that most libertarians discover the philosophy as teenagers. At best, libertarianism means pursuing your own self-interest, as long as you don’t hurt anyone else. At worst, as in Ayn Rand’s teachings, it’s an explicit celebration of narcissism. “Man’s first duty is to himself,” says the young architect Howard Roark in his climactic speech in The Fountainhead. “His moral obligation is to do what he wishes.” Roark utters these words after dynamiting his own project, since his vision for the structure had been altered without his permission. The message: Never compromise. If you don’t get your way, blow things up. And there’s the problem. If everyone refused to compromise his vision, there would be no cooperation. There would be no collective responsibility. The result wouldn’t be a city on a hill. It would be a port town in Somalia. In a world of scarce resources, everyone pursuing their own self-interest would yield not Atlas Shrugged but Lord of the Flies. And even if you did somehow achieve Libertopia, you’d be surrounded by ass*****s.

[Meatstick]

No Jacko, none of the Libertarian extremists here are for real, not even close to real, hardly imaginary in fact. I have to laugh at the debate with these hard-core Libertarians. Their number one religion is personal greed (and making all drugs legal). They are mostly rebellious teenagers who read Ayn Rand and unlike the rest of us adults, never grew up.

The constant attack on Social Security for the retired by chrisfw has to be a troll tactic. Except this isn't the AARP forum, so few will take the bait. Let's send Grandma and Grandpa back to work at age 85 - they could repair potholes and drive long-haul trucks until they die. To hell with retirement, those lazy old bastards.

Yawn............................

[chrisdfw]

No Jacko, none of the Libertarian extremists here are for real, not even close to real, hardly imaginary in fact. I have to laugh at the debate with these hard-core Libertarians. Their number one religion is personal greed (and making all drugs legal). They are mostly rebellious teenagers who read Ayn Rand and unlike the rest of us adults, never grew up.

The constant attack on Social Security for the retired by chrisfw has to be a troll tactic. Except this isn't the AARP forum, so few will take the bait. Let's send Grandma and Grandpa back to work at age 85 - they could repair potholes and drive long-haul trucks until they die. To hell with retirement, those lazy old bastards.

Not a troll tactic at all, I don't believe retirement is a right, or even a good thing. Nobody really proposes raising the retirement age to 85, but why not 70? Retirement is a relatively new concept in human history and I don't believe it is a positive one. While I am not suggesting that 85 year olds fill potholes, they can certainly house sit, baby sit, answer phones, talk, and many other things, just because people are old does not mean thay cannot be productive contributing members of society. Maybe they can tutor children that need help in school, I see many requests for tutors that are willing to pay. I know people who are constantly looking for responsible people to babysit. I have plenty of work that I am sure elderly people would do if they weren't being supported by social security.

I believe social security has contributed to the decline of morals in our society by taking the elderly and thier wisdom away from their children and grandchildren, and creating a rift in families. Just my opinion.

I don't see anything positive about paying an entire population of people to not work if they are capable of doing so. If they are not capable, that is what disability insurance is for.

If someone wants to save their own money and retire, then go for it, I still don't think it is a good way to go through life.

That is just my opinion. But social security is cash flow negative and will pay out more than it takes in, creating a budget strain. Yes it was raided for years (wrongfully in my opinion) but we are here now and something needs to be done, and more taxes on the young are not the answer. Many older people paid in at very low rates over their working careers and are recieving disproportionatly large benefits. It is an intergenerational transfer of wealth.

Don't get me wrong, medicare is a much larger problem, as is medicaid. We need to get health care under control. I think perhaps the "death panels" are not a bad idea, the fact is that we go to heroic ends to save people near the end of their lives, spend too much, cause them more pain, and evidence shows we generally shorten their lives. Removing tumors from people of advanced age is jsut one example of a procedure that shortens their lives, causes them more pain, and uses up resources. We need to fix this. I think the democrats might have had a good idea on that one.

I'm not a troll, I think my ideas have merit, and are the views of someone who favors liberty, and disfavors government playing the role of distributing resources from one group to another.

[chrisdfw]

The Trouble With Liberty
Libertarians, of both left and right, haven’t been this close to power since 1776. But do we want to live in their world?

http://nymag.com/news/politics/70282/

For all you naively debating the Libertarians with a capital L here on this forum, please read the above six page article. They sure won't read it, but at least YOU will have a better understanding of what these folks are all about. It is a good witty but accurate article on the Libertarian movement - something you don't see often, since Libertarians are mostly ignored by the majority.

Pretty fair article really, and the reason libertarian politicians are so weak.

I am willing to see the end result, if we end welfare programs, and charity doesn't make up the difference, then people might starve. I am willing to accept that in the name of freedom. More willing than I am to let people become leaches on the back of society. I would follow principle to its logical conclusion rather than see the force of government used to redistribute property from its rightful owners to welfare leaches.

I am in a tiny minority that would like to see more freedom and not more slavery.

Personal greed is very different from personal freedom. Freedom is allowing someone to choose to be greedy, not necessarily choosing greed for oneself. I am a charitable person, but I do not believe anyone has the right to take one dime of one person's labor to provide for some other human being.

[dneil]

Pretty fair article really, and the reason libertarian politicians are so weak.

I am willing to see the end result, if we end welfare programs, and charity doesn't make up the difference, then people might starve. I am willing to accept that in the name of freedom. More willing than I am to let people become leaches on the back of society. I would follow principle to its logical conclusion rather than see the force of government used to redistribute property from its rightful owners to welfare leaches.

I am in a tiny minority that would like to see more freedom and not more slavery.

Personal greed is very different from personal freedom. Freedom is allowing someone to choose to be greedy, not necessarily choosing greed for oneself. I am a charitable person, but I do not believe anyone has the right to take one dime of one person's labor to provide for some other human being.

Wow----- and would you feel that way if it were your child, or grand child??? Willing to accept a small child going hungry? Seriously.... I am not all for people leaching off the system, but I am all about helping them to get on track to a better productive life. My husband lost his job and was out of work for 3 years. 3 YEARS!! He finally got a job this past June. The job loss is why I am at a bankruptcy forum. We had to rely on the state to help provide medical care for our small daughter. He looked and looked applied and applied to jobs during those 3 years. Just when we felt that we were going to lose our house he finally landed a job. But let me tell you... we had nights where we weren't sure what we were going to feed our family. His unemployment was enough to put us just over the allowance to get help with food. We were absolutely desperate. Thank God he hunts deer because he was able to get 2 that year and that helped. I don't think the problem is that we have welfare available to people in need. The problem is that the people in the income bracket that gets it, stays on it and doesn't want to work otherwise they lose their benefits. THAT is a problem because they make their living living off from the state. Please, don't get me going on this. lol

Social Security---- who ever was wanting to do away with that.... you wont think that when you are in your mid 60's or maybe in my mother's situation who had to go on Social security disability because a drunk driver hit her and broke her neck in two places. She had 35 year in at Sara Lee (manufacturing factory work).... and she had to trade her big checks for a piddly amount. People on Social Security (like those disabled) don't choose to be in that situation, at least my mother didn't. So before people are so quick to want to do away/ or make cut backs on Social Security... think again. Who knows who will be driving that car in the other direction of you in the other side of the lane.

The cuts need to start at the top..... if only the corruption would stop...... again, I wont even get started....

[chrisdfw]

Social Security---- who ever was wanting to do away with that.... you wont think that when you are in your mid 60's or maybe in my mother's situation who had to go on Social security disability because a drunk driver hit her and broke her neck in two places. She had 35 year in at Sara Lee (manufacturing factory work).... and she had to trade her big checks for a piddly amount. People on Social Security (like those disabled) don't choose to be in that situation, at least my mother didn't. So before people are so quick to want to do away/ or make cut backs on Social Security... think again. Who knows who will be driving that car in the other direction of you in the other side of the lane.

The cuts need to start at the top..... if only the corruption would stop...... again, I wont even get started....

I agree, they need to START at the top, but the big expenses for government are social security, medicare, medicaid, and defense. You can't do much if you are unwilling to tackle those items.

Cutting back on social security doesn't mean that people couldn't have disability insurance in case they were in an accident (like a drunk driver). I would never want to depend on social security if I was hit by a drunk driver... so I have disability insurance. Everyone else should and could as well. I think we need to do more to promote disability insurance, life insurance, etc.

But retirement for those able to work... not so much. If someone really can't work... that is one thing. If they just get old... that is another. I believe people would probably be happier and healthier if the option of sitting at home was not there. I just don't see a purpose to having a low retirement age. If someone can work to 70, who not. If they can't... that goes back to disability insurance.

I can't understand why so many people are so opposed to raising the retirement age... is this country so spoiled that people can't work. Throughout human history people worked as long as they were able. Retirement is an invention of the 20th century... and a horrible one at that. Especially when it is subsidized by others. (lower income workers payments are subsidized by realtively stingy payouts for higher income workers, benefits are not proportional to income)

I am a big advocate of saving for old age, so people can afford to pay for their medical bills and such, but people want to have others pay for their care. Why just their health care... who not have others pay for your cable tv, lawn service, massages, food, ? Why not. If someone is gonna take money from someone else through government, why stop at only taking a little? Why not demand all their wages? Why not just force them to live in your barn and whip them if they don't provide enough? I remember we had that once, slavery... now we just have fractional slavery.