View Full Version : Rand Paul's Problem
montanadave
03-22-14, 20:53
I know there are more than a few Ron Paul and Rand Paul supporters amongst the membership and certainly more than a handful that embrace libertarian ideology, so I'm interested in what folks think about this recent article published on Politico's website: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/03/rand-paul-america-hates-liberterians-104858.html?ml=po_r
The author's takeaway is pretty simple: While a large number of Americans generally support many Libertarian ideas when they are condensed down to a sound bite, when those sound bites are expanded into actual policy, their support withers.
"Fiscally conservative but socially liberal" sounds reasonable but what does it mean when it gets right down to Social Security, Medicare, defense spending, foreign policy and foreign aid, abortion, gay marriage, equal pay, affirmative action, etc.?
It's a thought-provoking article and I'm curious what Paul supporters think about it.
I know there are more than a few Ron Paul and Rand Paul supporters amongst the membership and certainly more than a handful that embrace libertarian ideology, so I'm interested in what folks think about this recent article published on Politico's website: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/03/rand-paul-america-hates-liberterians-104858.html?ml=po_r
The author's takeaway is pretty simple: While a large number of Americans generally support many Libertarian ideas when they are condensed down to a sound bite, when those sound bites are expanded into actual policy, their support withers.
"Fiscally conservative but socially liberal" sounds reasonable but what does it mean when it gets right down to Social Security, Medicare, defense spending, foreign policy and foreign aid, abortion, gay marriage, equal pay, affirmative action, etc.?
It's a thought-provoking article and I'm curious what Paul supporters think about it.
Social Security and Medicare are the stumbling blocks for most people when if comes to conservative, much less true libertarian, philosophy. Most people believe that they are entitled to social security or Medicare because they think that they "paid into" these programs. Even if this was true, most Americans will receive far more in SS and Medicare benefits than they ever contributed. Only about 10% of American are prepared to suffer what must be done to these sacred cows and not have their standard of living plummet. As dumb as we have become, most are still smart enough to know how to vote their individual interest.
Belmont31R
03-22-14, 22:27
No one wants the programs they benefit from cut but they're fine with cutting programs other people benefit from.
Social Security and Medicare are the stumbling blocks for most people when if comes to conservative, much less true libertarian, philosophy. Most people believe that they are entitled to social security or Medicare because they think that they "paid into" these programs. Even if this was true, most Americans will receive far more in SS and Medicare benefits than they ever contributed. Only about 10% of American are prepared to suffer what must be done to these sacred cows and not have their standard of living plummet. As dumb as we have become, most are still smart enough to know how to vote their individual interest.
Agree, so give me all the money I put into Social Security and let me move on.
No one wants the programs they benefit from cut but they're fine with cutting programs other people benefit from.
True, except most of the people receiving put little or no money into the programs that fund their lifestyle. Lets cut Farm Subsidies to non-family farms, section 8 funds, SNAP payouts and see what happens.
Eurodriver
03-22-14, 22:48
Social Security and Medicare are the stumbling blocks for most people when if comes to conservative, much less true libertarian, philosophy. Most people believe that they are entitled to social security or Medicare because they think that they "paid into" these programs. Even if this was true, most Americans will receive far more in SS and Medicare benefits than they ever contributed. Only about 10% of American are prepared to suffer what must be done to these sacred cows and not have their standard of living plummet. As dumb as we have become, most are still smart enough to know how to vote their individual interest.
Bingo.
Libertarians can't win. Too many sacred things that no one can cut or you'd have a bullseye on your back from those on both sides of the aisle:
GI Bill - You want to cut education spending for our heros?!?
Military retirement - This is a promised contract for employment! It's not welfare!
SS - I paid into this program, I'm entitled to it!
Medicare/Medicaid - You want our poor and elderly to die?
Federal unemployment - You don't want to help your neighbors who have fallen on hard times?
Subsidized flood insurance - I'll lose my home if they don't keep the subsidy going!
Lesbian adoption parenting studies - We need to understand the dynamics of a liberal upbringing!
WIC - Really? You want women and infants going hungry?
etc etc
Of course, we all know programs like the VA are a joke and that private industry can do better. We know it's costing us more than we can afford. But think about the politician who signs a bill to defund VA Hospitals. He might very literally be a marked man for doing so. Everyone thinks they're special and "entitled" to free money. But nobody can be entitled to anything that requires stealing at gunpoint to get.
Disclosure: My dad is retired Navy, I'm using the GI Bill, I'm enrolled in VA Healthcare, and I live in a subsidized flood insurance home. I still say kill all of it. Every last dollar. It's unsustainable.
Agree, so give me all the money I put into Social Security and let me move on.
Please tell me that you don't actually believe in a social security lock box. That myth was dispelled ages ago - along with unicorns, Santa Claus, Big Foot, and a Magpul Massada that costs less than $1200.
First, social security was never designed to be a retirement benefit. It was a social insurance targeted at elderly widows that most people were never expected to receive. Second, SCOTUS long ago ruled that SS was like any other tax collected by the Feds; it could be spent on roads, armies, bailouts, thousand dollar toilet seats, and any other pet project that Uncle Sam wants to spend on your behalf. So, unless you can somehow show that you've led a life deviod of any government benefit (i.e. never used an interstate, visited a national park, flown on an airplane, ate food from a grocery store, etc.), then it is probably best that you release your grip on the belief that you are entitled to social security. That is because you already spent it.
Belmont31R
03-23-14, 00:56
Bingo.
Libertarians can't win. Too many sacred things that no one can cut or you'd have a bullseye on your back from those on both sides of the aisle:
GI Bill - You want to cut education spending for our heros?!?
Military retirement - This is a promised contract for employment! It's not welfare!
SS - I paid into this program, I'm entitled to it!
Medicare/Medicaid - You want our poor and elderly to die?
Federal unemployment - You don't want to help your neighbors who have fallen on hard times?
Subsidized flood insurance - I'll lose my home if they don't keep the subsidy going!
Lesbian adoption parenting studies - We need to understand the dynamics of a liberal upbringing!
WIC - Really? You want women and infants going hungry?
etc etc
Of course, we all know programs like the VA are a joke and that private industry can do better. We know it's costing us more than we can afford. But think about the politician who signs a bill to defund VA Hospitals. He might very literally be a marked man for doing so. Everyone thinks they're special and "entitled" to free money. But nobody can be entitled to anything that requires stealing at gunpoint to get.
Disclosure: My dad is retired Navy, I'm using the GI Bill, I'm enrolled in VA Healthcare, and I live in a subsidized flood insurance home. I still say kill all of it. Every last dollar. It's unsustainable.
The military is listed as a power of Congress under 1-8. Welfare isn't.
If he can be pragmatic about what can be accomplished on entitlements, but with a philosophical predisposition to reduce them. And, if he recognizes that the world is a more dangerous place without a robust US military and a strong influence in world affairs, he can be quite successful. If......
At the end of the day, if another demonrat wins the White House, the hope of restoring America diminishes greatly.
Singlestack Wonder
03-23-14, 06:34
If Rand Paul would refuse to receive the "Golden Health Plan" senators receive as well as the "Golden Parachute Retirement Plan", then I would take him seriously. Congressmen and senators are an elite group who have to suffer nothing from the laws they pass for the rest of Americans. The first congressman who gives up the above and accepts an 401k retirement plan and a health insurance plan that they have to contribute to receives my vote.
All it takes is transparency and straight, simple talk with the American public about where we are, where we are headed and what we need to do to start a new path. I've been there and done that and in an atmosphere of cooperation it can most certainly be done. It will require sacrifices across the board and as the article point out, no-one will be happy. But if they realize we are doing what needs to be done to improve this Countries situation, most will accept it.
All it takes is transparency and straight, simple talk with the American public about where we are, where we are headed and what we need to do to start a new path. I've been there and done that and in an atmosphere of cooperation it can most certainly be done. It will require sacrifices across the board and as the article point out, no-one will be happy. But if they realize we are doing what needs to be done to improve this Countries situation, most will accept it.
We must be living in different countries. Although you may hear talk of shared sacrifice, what I see every day is something very different. Take a look at the trends in disability payouts, food stamps, school lunch, unemployment benefits, Medicaid, and every other entitlement metric. Do you really see a country ready to pull itself up by the boot straps?
What I see is a country in deep decline led by a President and Senate that is content to play the fiddle while Rome burns. This country is about to experience a very hard landing and you had better have a parachute. If you must ask what I mean by parachute, then you are already screwed.
We must be living in different countries. Although you may hear talk of shared sacrifice, what I see every day is something very different. Take a look at the trends in disability payouts, food stamps, school lunch, unemployment benefits, Medicaid, and every other entitlement metric. Do you really see a country ready to pull itself up by the boot straps?
What I see is a country in deep decline led by a President and Senate that is content to play the fiddle while Rome burns. This country is about to experience a very hard landing and you had better have a parachute. If you must ask what I mean by parachute, then you are already screwed.
I'm not saying it has started for the Country.....I am saying there were several large Corporations who were forced to do this during the downturn for survival. It can be done.
ETA: In actuality, no-one in either party it seems is smart enough to realize the hole we continue to blast for ourselves, or worse, they don't care, as long as they're elected, get their benefits and leave a bigger problem for someone else to clean up.
montanadave
03-23-14, 11:42
At the risk of arousing a chorus of "there ya go again blamin' Bush," I sincerely feel this country missed a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity in the days and weeks following 9/11 to address some of the long-term issues confronting us as a nation. Our leadership squandered a moment when there was a sense of real community and willingness to sacrifice for the collective good. I'm not saying we should have passed on pursuing those responsible for 9/11, but the GWOT has yielded an abysmal return on our investment of both blood and treasure.
Rather than using that unique moment in history to ask the American people to demonstrate our resolve in the face of a terrorist attack by ensuring that the United States would enter the new century as the most financially solvent, powerful, best-equipped, and dynamic economy and society in the world, we squandered trillions of dollars trying to nation build halfway around the globe in countries which lacked the social structure and cultural basis to embrace even the most primitive democratic ideals. Imagine what this country might look like today if the effort expended over the last decade in wars overseas had been utilized here at home.
The Greatest Generation, no strangers to sacrifice, could have been called upon to once again show their commitment to this nation by agreeing to relatively modest adjustments to Social Security and Medicare. In doing so, they could have shamed the Boomers, the most entitled and wealthiest generation in history, to push back from the table and stop expecting Medicare to replace their shoulder so they can continue to play tennis or have Social Security cover their condo payment. And our young people, who were so willing to make the sacrifice of volunteering and serving overseas, could have been given an opportunity to channel that same desire to serve and sacrifice here at home, in their own communities, creating a better future for all of us.
Instead, we were told to "go back to the mall" and keep spending ourselves into deeper debt while we fought two wars financed on a Chinese credit card and the casino capitalists of Wall Street raped and plundered us into a financial abyss.
Coulda, woulda, shoulda. A tremendous missed opportunity which will have repercussions for decades.
Eurodriver
03-23-14, 11:50
The military is listed as a power of Congress under 1-8. Welfare isn't.
Where did I say Congress should not create or pay for a military?
At the risk of arousing a chorus of "there ya go again blamin' Bush," I sincerely feel this country missed a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity in the days and weeks following 9/11 to address some of the long-term issues confronting us as a nation. Our leadership squandered a moment when there was a sense of real community and willingness to sacrifice for the collective good...
I can see it now, Bush grabs a megaphone, stands on the rubble of the WTS, wraps his arm around a firefighter, and tells everyone that we need to cut domestic spending. Yeah, I'm sure that would have been as popular as a reggae band at a KKK rally.
Trust me, the post-9/11 Kum Ba Yah between Democrat and Republican was always going to last as long as their mutual interests were being served.
montanadave
03-23-14, 16:14
I can see it now, Bush grabs a megaphone, stands on the rubble of the WTS, wraps his arm around a firefighter, and tells everyone that we need to cut domestic spending. Yeah, I'm sure that would have been as popular as a reggae band at a KKK rally.
Trust me, the post-9/11 Kum Ba Yah between Democrat and Republican was always going to last as long as their mutual interests were being served.
I had in mind a slightly more nuanced approach. :laugh:
But you make a valid point. Pivotal moments also call for people capable of exercising the required vision and leadership in that moment. And our current crop of political leaders, regardless of party, have proven themselves sorely lacking.
If there is pain it needs to be "shared" by every swinging dick out there....PERIOD. No exceptions. You wanna cut SS and Medicare? Fine, but it applies NOW and to EVERYONE. That's right, Granny who's 85yo gets her check cut too. Gonna cut defense spending? Alright, but Shaniqua gets her food stamps cut off and she and her crotch fruit can freaking starve.
Not gonna fly, huh? Yep, 'cause there'll always be exceptions and I won't be one of them. Therefore, unless you can get this draconian (wahhh! :cray:) plan passed to apply to lawdy-dawdy-everybody I'll never vote for any politician proposing it. Either we ALL take a bite of the shit sandwich or no one does (until it all falls apart of course). I will not take it in the shorts so someone else can be an "exception". I will NOT shoulder "pain" while others skate it. Forget that shit right now.
The_War_Wagon
03-23-14, 20:52
I think if Politico came in hard copy, it would be more revered than the Sears catalogue in outhouses across Appalachia. :rolleyes:
If there is pain it needs to be "shared" by every swinging dick out there....PERIOD. No exceptions. You wanna cut SS and Medicare? Fine, but it applies NOW and to EVERYONE. That's right, Granny who's 85yo gets her check cut too. Gonna cut defense spending? Alright, but Shaniqua gets her food stamps cut off and she and her crotch fruit can freaking starve.
Not gonna fly, huh? Yep, 'cause there'll always be exceptions and I won't be one of them. Therefore, unless you can get this draconian (wahhh! :cray:) plan passed to apply to lawdy-dawdy-everybody I'll never vote for any politician proposing it. Either we ALL take a bite of the shit sandwich or no one does (until it all falls apart of course). I will not take it in the shorts so someone else can be an "exception". I will NOT shoulder "pain" while others skate it. Forget that shit right now.
While you might survive such a collapse of the safety net, would your family? Better yet, could you afford to pay cash for all of your healthcare needs since the insurance and hospital system would also collapse? I'd propose that the only way for America to extricate itself from the Medicare mess is a gradual reduction in government involvement as people take on more responsibility with health savings accounts.
"Fiscally conservative but socially liberal" sounds reasonable but what does it mean when it gets right down to Social Security, Medicare, defense spending, foreign policy and foreign aid, abortion, gay marriage, equal pay, affirmative action, etc.?
Perfect example of voters not understanding simple, basic things and why we will forever have retards for Presidents.
Social Security - Federal Ponzi scheme. It began with giving money to people who never paid in back when it started and requires more people to pay in than it pays out or else it collapses and the money has to come from somewhere else. We put guys like Madoff in jail for doing things like this. This is why everyone wants to amnesty illegals, because the baby boomers have the entire thing upside down like a adjustable rate mortgage. Needs to end with a full refund of those who paid in and scrapped. People can pay their social security money directly into any private retirement fund without involving the government. This was created for Depression Era handouts and we are still paying.
Medicare - Free health care to people with little or no money. Great deal if you are a person with no money, not a great deal for taxpayers. Even worse when non taxpayers like illegals from Mexico qualify for programs that US taxpayers can't even qualify for. How long do we fund this, how long can we afford to fund this. If we had a thriving economy and no deficit maybe we could afford to fund something like this.
Defense Spending - This one is easy. Be able to protect your assets or lose them. Ukraine can explain the perils of not meeting the needs of defense spending. The problem is defense spending is wasted on things like trying to fix Iraq rather than just determine the status of their chemical weapons arsenal and / or remove the threat of Saddam Hussein. It's wasted on trying to get the Taliban and Al Quida out of Afghanistan, that's kinda like trying to get weed smoking hippies out of California.
Foreign Policy - Not sure what there is to understand here. We form strong alliances with those who have traditionally supported us in the past and we reciprocate. We stop paying "protection money" (I'll give you my lunch money if you promise not to dunk my head in the toilet) to terrorists sponsoring nations who claim to be our "friends." We use the money saved to hunt down and kill terrorist groups in those countries.
Foreign Aid - See above. If you've helped us in the past we will help you in your time of need. If you are a decent country who doesn't harbor terrorists, screw us over on UN votes and the like and find yourself in need of assistance we will be there. If you are a country that routinely targets the US and you have a massive natural disaster, you should look to Allah for assistance.
Abortion - State issue. This one is muddied in that it isn't a person deciding for themselves. There are potentially three people involved. The mother, the father and the unborn. And the playing field is screwed. The mother can have the baby, even if the father doesn't want her to and then she can get child support from the father. At the same time, the mother can abort the baby over the wishes of the father who wants the child and wishes to raise it. This is a fascist feminist double standard. If men could dictate the terms of childbirth, who would get an abortion and who would not, people would lose their minds. Sure it's your body, but it's somebodies swimmer. Men should have equal say as to what happens to "their" child (except of course in situations of forced sex). But from a government standpoint all that matters is who pays for it. Generally abortions are cheaper than unwanted children.
Gay marriage - I can't even believe this is an issue. Just as their are non religious "go to the courthouse" marriages, anyone should be able to do the same. Homosexual civil unions should be available in any state. Now if you want a Catholic or Methodist wedding, you will have to take that up with your church. Homosexuals have the same rights to marry the wrong person and screw up their lives as the rest of us. And if they are very lucky, they might even find somebody who actually cares about them and will be with them to the end.
Equal pay - Doesn't get any simpler. Equal pay for equal work. That means of you are a female computer programmer and you do X amount of work as everyone else at the same skill level then you should have essentially the same paycheck based upon time employed at your workplace. But it works both ways, if you work construction and you carry half the stuff that everyone else does in a given week, you should earn about half as much as they do. It shouldn't be a matter of equal pay, it should be a matter of "performance based pay based upon demand" and that should be gender neutral. This is why women adult film stars will always make more money than male adult film stars. If you pass an equal pay act every male in the country is going to demand to make the same annual salary as the top Vivid Girl every time they have sex with anyone.
Affirmative action - Racism plain and simple. It needs to be ended and replaced by true equality. This may mean that 95% of the Ivy League college enrollment is now Asian and Jewish but if you do the work and study hard you should earn the rewards for your efforts. Same goes for getting a job. Nobody should be hired for skin pigment or for having a diverse group. And if you are going to continue with this than I want a 20 million dollar NBA contract and no I don't play basketball very well but I'm a middle age, slow white guy and I don't see that represented on the court.
This stuff is actually all very, very simple if you are willing to call "bullshit" on the stuff that is bullshit.
Socially liberal means an extremely permissive society for individual freedom, fiscally conservative means everyone pays for their own shit that society tolerates.
Entitlement will become just another word when all of the programs collapse due to government bankruptcy. A "see, I told you so" moment.
Perfect example of voters not understanding simple, basic things and why we will forever have retards for Presidents.
Steyr, there are 2 big problems with your analysis that ironically speak to the point of people not understanding the issues.
First, it is impossible for the government to simply repay people who contributed to SS. That is because those funds have already been spent on roads, wars, etc. just like every other tax that you pay. We are also 17 trillion in the whole as a nation, so SS repayments are as likely as monetary reparations for slavery. In addition, SS is not a Ponzi scheme unless everybody expects to collect a benefit. Well, social security was sold as a government run social insurance so that the elderly would not fall into poverty. It was never expected to be government subsidized retirement plan. A lot of people struggle with this, but a good way to approach the issue is to only expect to see your SS contribution unless something goes terribly wrong with your life at is sunset. While I'm not a fan of the SS concept, the program could easily made solvent if the eligibility age was raised to 85 which is what should have been done to maintain the concept of it being a form of insurance.
Second, Medicare is not for the poor; that would be Medicaid. Medicare is for the elderly and even rich people are entitled to this benefit. While Medicaid is a growing burden on most state's budgets (usually about 20% of state spending), Medicare is the single biggest national threat to our financial solvency with over 50 trillion in unfounded liabilities if we continue our current trajectory. Making matters worse, our healthcare system is dependent on those dollars and any sudden interruption will close most hospitals (especially tertiary referral centers, trauma centers, etc.). Thus, the solution to this one had better be very well thought out.
montanadave
03-24-14, 08:59
While not popular with a lot of people, a simple starting point for both Social Security and Medicare is raising the income level for which SS taxes are assessed, means testing, and raising the eligibility ages (incrementally over a decade or two). Assuming the goal is to maintain the fiscal solvency of these programs. If the goal is simply to spin out the clock until the whole shithouse goes up in flames, then carry on.
brickboy240
03-24-14, 10:29
The article has quite a bit of truth.
I have always believed that 90% of Americans ARE Libertarians....NOT Democrats or Republicans.
However the GOP establishment does not really like their Libertarian leaning counterparts and someone like Rand Paul will never get enough support from party insiders to get the nod for candidate. The GOP establishment is not really interested in leading, changing or reforming anything. They really like things they way they are...they can be a minority opposition party and are quite content just being that.
The GOP establishment loves to trot out their "conservative principles" nonsense during election season. They run commercials showing their establishment candidate with a gun or talking about the Bible and expect us to buy into this "I am one of you all..." nonsense. The GOP establishment sees the liberty minded voter as their "useful idiot" come election time. However...this tactic has worn thin and nobody came out for Romney in 2012...did they?
Karl Rove has a whole PAC devoted to keeping TEA Party/Libertarian types out of GOP primaries and away from ballots.
The GOP establishment types think they can win without the Libertarian leaning types but they are dead wrong. If middle of the road moderates were the ticket...McCain and Romney should have swept their elections.
-brickboy240
Please tell me that you don't actually believe in a social security lock box. That myth was dispelled ages ago...
You betcha. This article (http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/is-there-right-social-security) covers the subject of "SS being a right" pretty well and dispels the common myths surrounding it. SS is a payroll tax, simple as that.
Many people believe that Social Security is an “earned right.” That is, they think that because they have paid Social Security taxes, they are entitled to receive Social Security benefits. The government encourages that belief by referring to Social Security taxes as “contributions,” as in the Federal Insurance Contribution Act. However, in the 1960 case of Fleming v. Nestor, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that workers have no legally binding contractual rights to their Social Security benefits, and that those benefits can be cut or even eliminated at any time…
The Supreme Court disagreed, saying “To engraft upon the Social Security system a concept of ‘accrued property rights’ would deprive it of the flexibility and boldness in adjustment to ever changing conditions which it demands.” The Court went on to say, “It is apparent that the non-contractual interest of an employee covered by the [Social Security] Act cannot be soundly analogized to that of the holder of an annuity, whose right to benefits is bottomed on his contractual premium payments.”…
In an earlier case, Helvering v. Davis (1937), the Court had ruled that Social Security was not a contributory insurance program, saying, “The proceeds of both the employee and employer taxes are to be paid into the Treasury like any other internal revenue generally, and are not earmarked in any way.”
Personally, I like Rand, a lot. I hope he does well and I'll be lending him my support.
Personally, I like Rand, a lot. I hope he does well and I'll be lending him my support.
We'll see what kinda of attention he gets by the media or how much he gets ignored like his father in 2012, not to mention how the GOP establishment treats him.
Steyr, there are 2 big problems with your analysis that ironically speak to the point of people not understanding the issues.
First, it is impossible for the government to simply repay people who contributed to SS. That is because those funds have already been spent on roads, wars, etc. just like every other tax that you pay. We are also 17 trillion in the whole as a nation, so SS repayments are as likely as monetary reparations for slavery. In addition, SS is not a Ponzi scheme unless everybody expects to collect a benefit. Well, social security was sold as a government run social insurance so that the elderly would not fall into poverty. It was never expected to be government subsidized retirement plan. A lot of people struggle with this, but a good way to approach the issue is to only expect to see your SS contribution unless something goes terribly wrong with your life at is sunset. While I'm not a fan of the SS concept, the program could easily made solvent if the eligibility age was raised to 85 which is what should have been done to maintain the concept of it being a form of insurance.
It's hard to undo a Ponzi scheme, that is why Madoff is in jail. The problem isn't my understanding of social security, the problem is that social security funds have been spent on other things. Funding for roads needs to come from drivers licenses, property taxes and the like. Defense spending needs to come from income tax. And you are correct it was never intended to be a retirement plan, but that is what it has become. It's a mess and needs to go away.
Second, Medicare is not for the poor; that would be Medicaid. Medicare is for the elderly and even rich people are entitled to this benefit. While Medicaid is a growing burden on most state's budgets (usually about 20% of state spending), Medicare is the single biggest national threat to our financial solvency with over 50 trillion in unfounded liabilities if we continue our current trajectory. Making matters worse, our healthcare system is dependent on those dollars and any sudden interruption will close most hospitals (especially tertiary referral centers, trauma centers, etc.). Thus, the solution to this one had better be very well thought out.
I confused the two. Medicare is basically another social security ponzi scheme for your medical needs. The solution would be a free market health care with actual prices based upon what an individual would pay for a service vs. what you would bill an insurance company. The days of people buying insurance and having medical services bill those companies $20 for an tylenol are why we are in this mess.
Not long ago an average family could afford to have a doctor make house calls and pay him for the service. The whole thing is a giant mess. And ironically the only people getting as screwed over as those seeking health care are health care providers. The average doctor doesn't even begin to earn what his 1960s counterpart made in terms of money in his pocket at the end of the day.
I have always believed that 90% of Americans ARE Libertarians....NOT Democrats or Republicans.
The fact that articles are already coming out to point out what is wrong with Rand Paul tells me he's exactly what is needed in Washington.
The GOP can't get a win with milquetoast Republicans and most hard right conservatives come with too much religious baggage for popular support. I think guys like Rand Paul are really the only ones who can actually win. That is IF they could get through the primary.
brickboy240
03-24-14, 14:45
The "problem" with Rand Paul is that other than leftists and GOP establishment types...most Americans would have no "problems" with Rand Paul and would probably agree with most of his stances on the issues.
To the establishment in both parties....people like Paul ARE a "problem" and a threat to their beloved status quo.
-brickboy240
The "problem" with Rand Paul is that other than leftists and GOP establishment types...most Americans would have no "problems" with Rand Paul and would probably agree with most of his stances on the issues.
To the establishment in both parties....people like Paul ARE a "problem" and a threat to their beloved status quo.
-brickboy240
Not surprisingly, we are saying the same thing on the subject.
montanadave
03-24-14, 16:49
If you think "most Americans" are cool with doing away with Social Security and Medicare, I think you need to get out of whatever echo chamber you're living in.
If you think "most Americans" are cool with doing away with Social Security and Medicare, I think you need to get out of whatever echo chamber you're living in.
I don't think anything of the kind. I don't even think most Americans understand is a ponzi scheme. I don't even think most Americans realize it's THEIR MONEY they are getting. I bet 90% actually think the government does something for them by investing it on their behalf all those years.
I don't see anyone anywhere agreeing to a reduction in benefits(money), even though he may say otherwise. It's ok if your ox is gored but don't gore mine is a universal mindset. Let's say you or I were a cop or fireman, or teacher or corrections employee or some other worker whose salary is paid for with tax money. In this example we all live in the same city. Hard times have hit the city. We are asked to make sacrifices by foregoing pay raises, or taking pay cuts, or giving up certain benefits. All hell will break loose. People will whine, bitch, scream. Now draw an analogy from the city to the nation as a whole.
I don't see anyone anywhere agreeing to a reduction in benefits(money), even though he may say otherwise. It's ok if your ox is gored but don't gore mine is a universal mindset. Let's say you or I were a cop or fireman, or teacher or corrections employee or some other worker whose salary is paid for with tax money. In this example we all live in the same city. Hard times have hit the city. We are asked to make sacrifices by foregoing pay raises, or taking pay cuts, or giving up certain benefits. All hell will break loose. People will whine, bitch, scream. Now draw an analogy from the city to the nation as a whole.
To the contrary. For most of my life I've paid into the SS system. I'd be content with a simple refund of what they've taken and then scrap the entire system. The money would be worth more now than at retirement age anyway.
If the government would stop reaching into my pocket to create programs to help me, I probably wouldn't even need those programs in the first place. Hell even if they wanted to keep the programs and simply offered an "opt out / you're on your own" option that would be fine by me.
I don't see anyone anywhere agreeing to a reduction in benefits(money), even though he may say otherwise. It's ok if your ox is gored but don't gore mine is a universal mindset. Let's say you or I were a cop or fireman, or teacher or corrections employee or some other worker whose salary is paid for with tax money. In this example we all live in the same city. Hard times have hit the city. We are asked to make sacrifices by foregoing pay raises, or taking pay cuts, or giving up certain benefits. All hell will break loose. People will whine, bitch, scream. Now draw an analogy from the city to the nation as a whole.
The fix for Social Security is actually fairly easy compared to Medicare. All we must do is raise the age of eligibility to 75 or 80 and it stops being a Ponzi scheme and reverts back to being a social insurance. Another thing to remember about SS is that it ran surpluses for the first few decades. People had shorter average lifespans, and SS surpluses were an inticing source of funding for politicians. The problems came when the spending continued despite shirking surpluses due to an aging population.
As for Medicare, I agree with 35% of the population who beleive in a free market solution. The problem with our side is not that we control only 35% of the populace, the problem is that those of who want free market healthcare cannot agree on how to get there. On one hand, you have people who want to end all government involvement at midnight tonight no matter what it does to the country. All or nothing thinking permeats through this crowd. Now, most people who hold this view really want to maintain the status quo through division while looking cool among their anarcholibertarian friends. A minority are the survivalist nut jobs who have a mistakenly romantic view of a life in a destabilized nation, and their place in the food chain.
On the other hand, you have people who want a gradual transition to a free market solution. These people share more in common with progressives than the "end it now" crowd. Until these groups can reach common ground, there is no chance to chip away at the progressive choke hold.
The fix for Social Security is actually fairly easy compared to Medicare. All we must do is raise the age of eligibility to 75 or 80 and it stops being a Ponzi scheme and reverts back to being a social insurance. Another thing to remember about SS is that it ran surpluses for the first few decades. People had shorter average lifespans, and SS surpluses were an inticing source of funding for politicians. The problems came when the spending continued despite shirking surpluses due to an aging population.
As for Medicare, I agree with 35% of the population who beleive in a free market solution. The problem with our side is not that we control only 35% of the populace, the problem is that those of who want free market healthcare cannot agree on how to get there. On one hand, you have people who want to end all government involvement at midnight tonight no matter what it does to the country. All or nothing thinking permeats through this crowd. Now, most people who hold this view really want to maintain the status quo through division while looking cool among their anarcholibertarian friends. A minority are the survivalist nut jobs who have a mistakenly romantic view of a life in a destabilized nation, and their place in the food chain.
On the other hand, you have people who want a gradual transition to a free market solution. These people share more in common with progressives than the "end it now" crowd. Until these groups can reach common ground, there is no chance to chip away at the progressive choke hold.
If you're referring to my earlier post then let me interject here. I believe in "all or nothing" because the way "phasing it in" would occur is that there would be exceptions that I mentioned before. Louie the Loser who lived his life carefree while I sock beaucoup $$$ out of each check into a retirement account would get SS while I wouldn't. Same for Medicare and any sort of "means testing" (I despise the very thought of it as it only creates another welfare program). I don't live prudently so some other POS can benefit from it. I ain't my brother's keeper when it comes to my wallet....Louie the Loser can eat shit and die for all I care. I do not care one freaking iota about others when it comes to hosing me financially and they don't suffer too. I can't emphasize that enough.
FWIW, cutting SS payouts by 25% would keep it solvent almost indefinitely. Medicare ain't quite so easy.
This all kinda reminds me of the Carter years of 17% home loans...
The fix for Social Security is actually fairly easy compared to Medicare. All we must do is raise the age of eligibility to 75 or 80 and it stops being a Ponzi scheme and reverts back to being a social insurance. Another thing to remember about SS is that it ran surpluses for the first few decades. People had shorter average lifespans, and SS surpluses were an inticing source of funding for politicians. The problems came when the spending continued despite shirking surpluses due to an aging population.
As for Medicare, I agree with 35% of the population who beleive in a free market solution. The problem with our side is not that we control only 35% of the populace, the problem is that those of who want free market healthcare cannot agree on how to get there. On one hand, you have people who want to end all government involvement at midnight tonight no matter what it does to the country. All or nothing thinking permeats through this crowd. Now, most people who hold this view really want to maintain the status quo through division while looking cool among their anarcholibertarian friends. A minority are the survivalist nut jobs who have a mistakenly romantic view of a life in a destabilized nation, and their place in the food chain.
On the other hand, you have people who want a gradual transition to a free market solution. These people share more in common with progressives than the "end it now" crowd. Until these groups can reach common ground, there is no chance to chip away at the progressive choke hold.
Honestly, it doesn't matter what I, you or anyone else wants or how anyone thinks the problem would be best addressed. The reality is the government is making too much money to ever end these programs. It's just one more way for politicians to stick their hands in our pockets, claim they offer some kind of service in return...and then announce they aren't taking enough money from us to maintain those services.
If I had a magic wand I'd end 75% of this crap at midnight. But that isn't going to happen. Neither is your gradual reform to fiscal responsibility and accountability. The government simply has no incentive to stop paying themselves to administer the myriad programs they create for us anymore than they will ever vote against a pay raise. It just isn't going to happen. So my preferred solution isn't any more ridiculous than yours, neither will ever happen.
And that is because nobody is going to put anyone in place who will do anything dramatic. Rand Paul would be an incredibly valuable course correction. He wouldn't be perfect but he'd be better than any of the "status quo" nominees who will win the primaries who promise to not rock the boat and at best will give lip service to investigating gradual solutions to our economic problems.
There will never be a solution. It won't be fixed at midnight, it won't be fixed gradually. They will just kick the can down the road, declare another economic crisis (fiscal cliff, sequester, etc.) and use that as justification to drive us further into the hole and demand more money.
What we will get instead is new programs supposedly created to fix the problems associated with the old programs. This will actually cost us more money and the government will pay themselves to administer the new "corrective" programs.
Thieves never arrive at the point where they feel they have taken enough and stop stealing.
If you're referring to my earlier post then let me interject here. I believe in "all or nothing" because the way "phasing it in" would occur is that there would be exceptions that I mentioned before. Louie the Loser who lived his life carefree while I sock beaucoup $$$ out of each check into a retirement account would get SS while I wouldn't. Same for Medicare and any sort of "means testing" (I despise the very thought of it as it only creates another welfare program). I don't live prudently so some other POS can benefit from it. I ain't my brother's keeper when it comes to my wallet....Louie the Loser can eat shit and die for all I care. I do not care one freaking iota about others when it comes to hosing me financially and they don't suffer too. I can't emphasize that enough.
FWIW, cutting SS payouts by 25% would keep it solvent almost indefinitely. Medicare ain't quite so easy.
The way you phase it in would be to do something like this: those over 65 will get their benefits. They have little opportunity to accumulate more wealth at that age, so suspending their benefits would never fly. Then, younger people while be allowed to join the Medicare pool at progressively older ages (i.e. those 55 now can join at 67, those 40 now join at 80, those 30 now at 85, etc.), until you get down to age 21 and there is no pool. The use of expanded health savings accounts would cover the cost of care for those not working but not eligible for Medicare.
This would effectively end Medicare in 25 years with progressive saving every year and a real chance at solvency. Nobody is getting hosed because everybody who worked has paid Medicare tax. At this point, it the only mathematically viable solution; nothing else works when you are approaching public debt : GDP ratio of 1 with a 5-10% annual debt growth rate.
Young people don't show up to vote unless it's to elect a socialist so they can get free shit. Old people go vote and they use their vote to try to get free shit, namely SS and Medicare. The AARP is the largest interest group of it's kind, I believe, or damn close.
The way you phase it in would be to do something like this: those over 65 will get their benefits. They have little opportunity to accumulate more wealth at that age, so suspending their benefits would never fly. Then, younger people while be allowed to join the Medicare pool at progressively older ages (i.e. those 55 now can join at 67, those 40 now join at 80, those 30 now at 85, etc.), until you get down to age 21 and there is no pool. The use of expanded health savings accounts would cover the cost of care for those not working but not eligible for Medicare.
This would effectively end Medicare in 25 years with progressive saving every year and a real chance at solvency. Nobody is getting hosed because everybody who worked has paid Medicare tax. At this point, it the only mathematically viable solution; nothing else works when you are approaching public debt : GDP ratio of 1 with a 5-10% annual debt growth rate.
While I understand the economic goal of your plan, why should ANYONE pay into something where a significant number of them won't live long enough to enjoy the benefit?
There will never be a solution. It won't be fixed at midnight, it won't be fixed gradually. They will just kick the can down the road....
That's correct, we will NEVER tax or cut our way out of 17 trillion in debt. Ain't gonna happen. In fact, unless the federal government ceased to exist I doubt it's even possible.
I sincerely feel this country missed a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity in the days and weeks following 9/11 to address some of the long-term issues confronting us as a nation.........
Coulda, woulda, shoulda. A tremendous missed opportunity which will have repercussions for decades.
One of the best said things I have read here in a while. IDK how this never struck me, or in 13 years I have never heard this, but its so true.
At the risk of arousing a chorus of "there ya go again blamin' Bush," I sincerely feel this country missed a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity in the days and weeks following 9/11 to address some of the long-term issues confronting us as a nation. Our leadership squandered a moment when there was a sense of real community and willingness to sacrifice for the collective good. I'm not saying we should have passed on pursuing those responsible for 9/11, but the GWOT has yielded an abysmal return on our investment of both blood and treasure.
Rather than using that unique moment in history to ask the American people to demonstrate our resolve in the face of a terrorist attack by ensuring that the United States would enter the new century as the most financially solvent, powerful, best-equipped, and dynamic economy and society in the world, we squandered trillions of dollars trying to nation build halfway around the globe in countries which lacked the social structure and cultural basis to embrace even the most primitive democratic ideals. Imagine what this country might look like today if the effort expended over the last decade in wars overseas had been utilized here at home.
The Greatest Generation, no strangers to sacrifice, could have been called upon to once again show their commitment to this nation by agreeing to relatively modest adjustments to Social Security and Medicare. In doing so, they could have shamed the Boomers, the most entitled and wealthiest generation in history, to push back from the table and stop expecting Medicare to replace their shoulder so they can continue to play tennis or have Social Security cover their condo payment. And our young people, who were so willing to make the sacrifice of volunteering and serving overseas, could have been given an opportunity to channel that same desire to serve and sacrifice here at home, in their own communities, creating a better future for all of us.
Instead, we were told to "go back to the mall" and keep spending ourselves into deeper debt while we fought two wars financed on a Chinese credit card and the casino capitalists of Wall Street raped and plundered us into a financial abyss.
Coulda, woulda, shoulda. A tremendous missed opportunity which will have repercussions for decades.
You only left out taking the opportunity to form a better relationship with Russian and Putin with common issues like Islamic terrorism. We had a chance to get on the same page and put some crap behind us and start working together, instead Bush called Putin out on human rights violations in Chechnya. And look where that has gotten us today.
Belmont31R
03-25-14, 18:33
The only reason the Democrats supported the early period after 9/11 is because they're politically smarter than Republicans, and at the time there was not much of a libertarian bent to the GOP. no Tea Party or anything.
The GOP got caught with their pants down and the likes of McCain 'reach across the aisle' was prevalent. In fact, Medicare Part D was criticized for not going far enough.
The missed opportunity was increasing spending and not putting the brakes on the bubble that was being warned about. Like game of musical chairs but just the opposite, politicians who leave office before the music stops don't get the blame.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.