What SHOULD we do?

[Perotista]

I understand that logic but currently we receive ~enough federal revenue to cover SS, Medicare, Medicaid and interest on the debt. ALL other government activities are borrowed for. The reality is these entitlements will eventually break us. I realize that I/we paid into them but at some point many will have to relinquish their 'entitlement' to these or else...? And before you go down the 'raise taxes' road, the upper 30-40% earners just don't make that much collectively.



So I get a benefit just to give it away? Why not just leave it in the gov't coffers to be used by someone who NEEDS it?

Here is one of the problems, when SS and Medicare were first brought on line they were done so in a well thought out way with enough taxes/revenue to take care of each and to keep each program solvent into the unforeseeable future. But as time went by congress kept adding programs and more and more people to each, expanding those programs to provide more and more benefits to the people. But congress didn't do what was necessary for SS and Medicare to exist in to the unforeseeable future. They didn't add the cost in taxes/revenue. All these congress's added and added to SS and Medicare, but didn't provide any means to pay for what they were adding. So what they were doing is charging future generations for what we receive today. one of the reasons all these different congress's did this is if they say, raised the tax on whatever program to pay for it as we go, you might see as an example SS tax rise from 10% to 20% to pay for the additional coverage and people brought under the system. But chances were that most Americans would be hollering heck no don't add that, no way do I want to pay more than 10%.

In other words, it isn't these programs as originally designed that produced the problems, it is all the additions added on with no thought about paying for them that has caused us to be where we are today. these problems can be fixed by congress if it had the political will, but it doesn't. For SS, it came on line when the average age a person lived to was 65 and that was the age FDR and congress chose to be the age to start drawing SS benefits. I'm not sure what it is today, 77 or there abouts I think. One thing congress could do is move the age back say from 62-67 to 65-70. It could raise the SS tax itself, it could cut benefits a bit to everyone. But there is no political will to do so, everyone in congress is afraid if they do something to fix SS and or medicare, the voters will get mad and no re-elect them. So we continue on until one or the other or both go broke.

Do as you will, you ask what I would do or what I thought you should do. I say take it. Charities and other organization are better at taking care of the poor than the government is anyway. I am an old fart and I can remember neighbors, family, the local community taking care of its own when the only type of government program back then was SS. No welfare or medicare etc. This was the 1950's. Government give a credit card, EBT or a check to bank. Back then people gave of themselves, their time, their energy, their money, their heart and soul to help each other. Today those same people who did so much to help others now just tell someone in need, to go down to the nearest government office. My, have times changed.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

I'm sorry, but you can not demand I buy healthcare without violating my rights.

Um, you are not forced to purchase HI.

If you don't want stuck with my unpaid bills then don't pass stupid laws that make you stuck with them. :shrug:

The" laws" being "economics".

Sigh, what a waste of time.

 

[Dickieboy]

I'm not buying the load you're trying to sell

Ok, move on...

There are many things you use and own that you don't need.

Yes but we are not discussing 'many things' but rather health insurance subsidies...

If you're going to limit yourself to what you need, may I suggest you start by getting rid of your internet connection? :lol:

Again the discussion is not 'internet connection' but health insurance subsidies...please try to stay on topic.

 

[Perotista]

As stated previously I have no issue paying for the gov't I/we use thus those 'income tax, capital gains tax and go from there' taxes DO benefit us and we NEED those services.

I don't have any problem paying taxes either. I think my view of government is different than yours. You asked, I answered. Government is a necessity, but a very inefficient means of doing things and running programs.

 

[Henrin]

Because paying for something gives you ownership or entitlement. There is nothing wrong with using something you own or are entitled to

No, paying for something doesn't give you ownership by itself. For example, If you pay me to use something of mine you're just a renter. Now if the arrangement was an actual sale then you would own it, but in the above example you're just being permitted to use what is mine in exchange for money. When talking about government service you never own it no matter if you pay for it or not. It's a service provided by the state and up to them if they will continue to provide it. Saying you are entitled to the benefits that come about from others property is absurd and I will not bother with it.

This doesn't mean you have to use it, but please stop pretending this is a moral issue.

Actually, it is a moral issue. It can be nothing else.

 

[Summerwind]

Because paying for something gives you ownership or entitlement. There is nothing wrong with using something you own or are entitled to

This doesn't mean you have to use it, but please stop pretending this is a moral issue.

Actually I respect it, I've also been known when I was in a better position to simply use a 1040EZ when I could have itemized and gotten almost all my taxes back. I don't think there's anything wrong with choosing to donate to the government in this way of simply refusing to take what you don't need. For example, I got on EBT, they are for six month stints, I got the full amount after the collapse of my world, $200/month, at the time I had $13.89 in the bank. But though I've been unemployed effectively for 5 years, and homeless for 2.5-3, I still have as of dinner last night, $15.51 on my initial and only 6 month stint. I could have taken more, I paid taxes in Idaho for 20 years, nary took a dime. But I don't need to, I can eat cheap. Others have food issues I don't, I don't expect others to make the same choices of slimpickin's I have, hence I'm a liberal. But golly gee, don't go around beating someone up who is basically giving a donation to the cause and keeping the government spending down as he desires.

Let it go.

 

[sangha]

Ok, move on...


Yes but we are not discussing 'many things' but rather health insurance subsidies...


Again the discussion is not 'internet connection' but health insurance subsidies...please try to stay on topic.

You were the one who claims to believe that there is some kind of ethical dilemma in using something one has paid for but does not need.

However, I'm not surprised at your unwillingness to explain how it is unethical.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Here is one of the problems, when SS and Medicare were first brought on line they were done so in a well thought out way with enough taxes/revenue to take care of each and to keep each program solvent into the unforeseeable future. But as time went by congress kept adding programs and more and more people to each, expanding those programs to provide more and more benefits to the people. But congress didn't do what was necessary for SS and Medicare to exist in to the unforeseeable future. They didn't add the cost in taxes/revenue. All these congress's added and added to SS and Medicare, but didn't provide any means to pay for what they were adding. So what they were doing is charging future generations for what we receive today. one of the reasons all these different congress's did this is if they say, raised the tax on whatever program to pay for it as we go, you might see as an example SS tax rise from 10% to 20% to pay for the additional coverage and people brought under the system. But chances were that most Americans would be hollering heck no don't add that, no way do I want to pay more than 10%.

Good grief, FICA withholding has been increased many times.

Everyone knows that.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Some form of it...yes

You are dancing. We are talking about it as it exists.

Are you in favor of the PPACA mandate?

 

[sangha]

Actually I respect it, I've also been known when I was in a better position to simply use a 1040EZ when I could have itemized and gotten almost all my taxes back. I don't think there's anything wrong with choosing to donate to the government in this way of simply refusing to take what you don't need. For example, I got on EBT, they are for six month stints, I got the full amount after the collapse of my world, $200, at the time I had $13.89 in the bank. But though I've been unemployed effectively for 5 years, and homeless for 2.5-3, I still have as of dinner last night, $15.51 on my initial and only 6 month stint. I could have taken more, I paid taxes in Idaho for 20 years, nary took a dime. But I don't need to, I can eat cheap. Others have food issues I don't, I don't expect others to make the same choices of slimpickin's I have, hence I'm a liberal. But golly gee, don't go around beating someone up who is basically giving a donation to the cause and keeping the government spending down as he desires.

Let it go.

If you or Dickie want to give money to the govt in order to decrease the deficit, then by all means, go ahead and do it. I hope it makes you feel better about yourself. Truly

However, doing so is a lot different than arguing it is somehow unethical to do otherwise which is what the OP has been claiming.

 

[Dickieboy]

Here is one of the problems, when SS and Medicare were first brought on line they were done so in a well thought out way with enough taxes/revenue to take care of each and to keep each program solvent into the unforeseeable future. But as time went by congress kept adding programs and more and more people to each, expanding those programs to provide more and more benefits to the people. But congress didn't do what was necessary for SS and Medicare to exist in to the unforeseeable future. They didn't add the cost in taxes/revenue. All these congress's added and added to SS and Medicare, but didn't provide any means to pay for what they were adding. So what they were doing is charging future generations for what we receive today. one of the reasons all these different congress's did this is if they say, raised the tax on whatever program to pay for it as we go, you might see as an example SS tax rise from 10% to 20% to pay for the additional coverage and people brought under the system. But chances were that most Americans would be hollering heck no don't add that, no way do I want to pay more than 10%.

In other words, it isn't these programs as originally designed that produced the problems, it is all the additions added on with no thought about paying for them that has caused us to be where we are today. these problems can be fixed by congress if it had the political will, but it doesn't. For SS, it came on line when the average age a person lived to was 65 and that was the age FDR and congress chose to be the age to start drawing SS benefits. I'm not sure what it is today, 77 or there abouts I think. One thing congress could do is move the age back say from 62-67 to 65-70. It could raise the SS tax itself, it could cut benefits a bit to everyone. But there is no political will to do so, everyone in congress is afraid if they do something to fix SS and or medicare, the voters will get mad and no re-elect them. So we continue on until one or the other or both go broke.

Do as you will, you ask what I would do or what I thought you should do. I say take it. Charities and other organization are better at taking care of the poor than the government is anyway. I am an old fart and I can remember neighbors, family, the local community taking care of its own when the only type of government program back then was SS. No welfare or medicare etc. This was the 1950's. Government give a credit card, EBT or a check to bank. Back then people gave of themselves, their time, their energy, their money, their heart and soul to help each other. Today those same people who did so much to help others now just tell someone in need, to go down to the nearest government office. My, have times changed.

ALL of this is the underlying point of my position (entitlement solvency based on 'want'). My, like your, times have changed also...but around here there is still much of be bolded above going on.

 

[Summerwind]

If you or Dickie want to give money to the govt in order to decrease the deficit, then by all means and go ahead. I hope it makes you feel better about yourself. Truly

However, doing so is a lot different than arguing it is somehow unethical to do otherwise which is what the OP has been claiming.

Then attack that, not his choice. It certainly reads like you're trying to force him to take a subsidy.

 

[Henrin]

Um, you are not forced to purchase HI.

Again, what is the punishment for? You don't punish people when they do what you want unless you're flat out retarded.

The" laws" being "economics".

Sigh, what a waste of time.

What do think the mandate was trying to resolve? Maybe the consequences of a government mandate.

 

[sangha]

Then attack that, not his choice. It certainly reads like you're trying to force him to take a subsidy.

I'm trying but so far he has refused to discuss it.

 

[Perotista]

ALL of this is the underlying point of my position (entitlement solvency based on 'want'). My, like your, times have changed also...but around here there is still much of be bolded above going on.

Good, good luck on your decision.

 

[Dickieboy]

You are dancing. We are talking about it as it exists.

Are you in favor of the PPACA mandate?

No.....

 

[Summerwind]

I'm trying but so far he has refused to discuss it.

Of course. That's how they play. Drive you nuts til you look ....

 

[Dickieboy]

Good, good luck on your decision.

It was made way before this thread...

 

[The Man]

I'll PM you my address and you can take the subsidy and send the money to me since you don't need or want it.

 

[Henrin]

I don't use medical services at all since 1991, but y'know, I'm just a bitch that doesn't want to be tripping over sick and dying people, I don't want an epidemic (a real one, not these pansy little panicky crap we get hyped about these days) because sick people who aren't dying also can't get well. Y'know I'm just that kind of bitch. I don't want their or your sickness in my space, I want it where it belongs, at a doctors, in a hospital, or better yet, healthy enough they don't get sick and can f'ing go to work.

Yeah, whatever. Tell me when that happens..

I'm not bleeding heart liberal. Get over that idea. No heart to bleed, trust me.

You don't need to be a liberal to support the welfare state.

 

[Summerwind]

Yeah, whatever. Tell me when that happens..



You don't need to be a liberal to support the welfare state.

Well it certainly isn't going to happen if they sick and dying in the streets, the chances are still much better that 50% or more will go to work, or even be able to keep their job. What about who are losing jobs because of illnesses and cancers and such who then have no healthcare (if you have your way) and no job, and no likelihood of getting a job, until they finally check into the ER and cost us even more than they would have, had they gotten over the bronchitis before it became pnuemonia, y'know back when they were working.....

 

[Dickieboy]

You were the one who claims to believe that there is some kind of ethical dilemma in using something one has paid for but does not need.

However, I'm not surprised at your unwillingness to explain how it is unethical.

I'm sorry have you asked for my opinion on 'how it is unethical' prior? I must have missed it.

It's really quite simple. IMO, national/social ethics encompass one obligation to society to contribute willingly and to withdraw based solely on need. As I don't NEED the subsidy it would be nationally/socially unethical to take something I don't need.

Example...I may WANT more police presence around our property but without any history of crime or eminent threat there is no NEED. By getting an increase in police presence based on WANT reduces limited resources available to those who NEED it thereby promoting an unethical social behavior.

 

[sangha]

I'm sorry have you asked for my opinion on 'how it is unethical' prior? I must have missed it.

It's really quite simple. IMO, national/social ethics encompass one obligation to society to contribute willingly and to withdraw based solely on need. As I don't NEED the subsidy it would be nationally/socially unethical to take something I don't need.

Example...I may WANT more police presence around our property but without any history of crime or eminent threat there is no NEED. By getting an increase in police presence based on WANT reduces limited resources available to those who NEED it thereby promoting an unethical social behavior.

There is no obligation to contribute to society (or not withdraw) based solely on need.

Where did you come up with that idea?

 

[Dickieboy]

I'll PM you my address and you can take the subsidy and send the money to me since you don't need or want it.

That would be unethical...what makes you MORE special?

ps: sarcasm noted

 

[Summerwind]

Yeah, whatever. Tell me when that happens..



You don't need to be a liberal to support the welfare state.

You misunderstand, I am a progressive liberal, it simply has nothing to do with a bleeding heart. It's cold and it's self-oriented, just like it was when I was stupid enough to buy into the Republican agenda back in the day. Guess what, you've had 30+ years, and the Republican agenda is a failure for all but the top 10%. That's not acceptable. Your agenda costs me tires because the roads aren't getting fixed. It costs me higher prices on utilities where they've been privatized, it costs me more in property taxes, it costs me more in state taxes, it costs me more in public higher education, it costs me more to go to the park, ... comparatively, I paid less in taxes and inconveniences when my tax rate was over 50% than I pay now for all the crap that isn't being tended by federal tax dollars. The human aspect is just a portion of that agenda, the agenda as whole is a failure.