Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
I was extrapolating from ScottW's post.
He's probably like my father who believes he's paid into something with the assumption he's going to get a return in the form of income stability when they retire. He's made a deal with the country and believes the country has an obligation to make good on that contract.
-spence
|
Here's is what my father, and you, don't get.
Yes, he paid into SS and Medicare.
HERE IS THE PROBLEM...
What they have paid into these programs, combined with interest income, is nowhere near enough to pay for the promised benefits. The ony way to pay for those benefits, is to borrow, meaning future generations will be burdened with that much more debt. Please tell me if I'm wrong anywhere?
Spence, when those programs were founded, there were more workers-per-retiree, retirees lived only a few years in retirement, medical costs were low, and interest rates were high. That made it feasible. Now, the math has turned upside down.
Do you deny that? Or are you just unable to grasp the mathematical reality? Those programs are underfunded by, according to some estimates, $100 trillion.
I conclude that if those programs are underfunded by $100 trillion, then the promised benefits are too rich. What other conclusion is there?
"He's made a deal with the country and believes the country has an obligation to make good on that contract."
That's one way of looking at it. Another way is to say that he was duped by Democrats who promised that if he voted for them, he would never let those mean Republicans take away his social security. That political tactic has been around for 70 years, because it works. It worked on my Dad. And sure as hell it worked on you.
Spence, I have asked you this many times, and I can't recall that you have ever answered. Let's try again. Since your side are the self-appointed guardians of all that is noble...how are you going to come up with the tens of trillions of dollars that are needed? Flower power? Electric cars? If you can propose a way to do that, which doesn't involve tax increases that even you would have to admit are crippling, I will support it. I truly will.
In summary, it doesn't matter what my Dad, or anyone else, feels they are entitled to. What matters is, we cannot begin to pay for the promised benefits.
This is why George Will says that liberals are actively hostile to arithmetic. You talk about how mean it is to propose cutting these popular programs (all Ponzi schemes are popular with those who cash out before it implodes), but you don't offer fixes to the problem.
Spence, exactly how much pay are you willing to confiscate from future generations, to pay for current benefits? Should our kids be levied 25 federal income tax points to pay for benefits for their grandparents' generation? That's not immoral, in your opinion?
It's a lot easier to criticize from the sidelines, than it is to offer solutions to the problem. For proof of that, see what happened when Paul Ryan proposed changes to Medicare. The reaction from your side speaks for itself.