Why do people believe in Ayn Rand?

[Guy Incognito]

Whatever you think you know about Mother Theresa is probably false, Please look up Christopher Hitchens' The Missionary Position.

Bah. While I do not want to go off on a tangent as to the worthiness of Mother Teresa, I am aware of Hitchens character assassination of her, and I do not find it convincing. Suffice to say, Hitchens misunderstands Mother Teresa in the same way he misunderstands all people of faith.

 

[reefedjib]

Think about Heinlein's principle of TANSTAAFL, financial success necessarily comes by the deprivation of another.

Guy, where are you getting this from? An economy is not a zero sum game. All participants can increase their financial wealth. To be real, this doesn't always happen - recent recession hurt everyone. More people out of work means they can't be productive. I don't think the recession was intentionally caused by the greedy; it was a side effect they couldn't predict. In other words, there are deprivations in a market economy, but I object to the idea that its source is success.

TANSTAAFL means that we all must work for what we receive. This is violated with formal systems of assistance. Charitable giving can be sufficient to help the truly needy. We are far from a TANSTAAFL world now.

It was posted:

Humans live in a social world; in order to maximize the value of their interactions with others, they should cultivate a firm commitment to the virtues of rationality, justice, productiveness, and benevolence. A commitment to these virtues naturally precludes such brutish behavior.

I think where Ayn Rand goes off the rails is that people will act rationally. Perhaps they should act as described above but they often don't. They serve themselves and perhaps their family. Well, I don't think it can be generalized as I think many serve their community and their state/nation. For real, there is a range of service, some of it rational. Can Ayn Rand's Objectivism work among a population with mixed rationality and mixed measures of justice and benevolence? If the answer is no, then we should expect a big government solution to helping the needy.

 

[Hoplite]

One shouldn't necessarily prevail over the other, and with a productive society of people who have the character to maintain a free and uncorrupt system, there shouldn't be a case where that choice was even necessary. I realize it's highly idealistic and requires a minimum level of honesty, integrity, and ethical behavior on the part of the population. I don't expect it anytime in the near future.

I dont think you can ever reach a point where there needs to be no discernment between practicality and humanity. These kinds of "needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" decisions are made on a daily basis in our society and I dont really see how you can get around making them. We have a standard by which me measure these decisions, screwed up though it may be. What I dont see in Objectivism is the same kind of standard and thats pretty important.

It's only a terrible idea because we allow our society to function in such a dysfunctional manner.

We use rules to correct dysfunctional behavior, we impose limits on the economy and Capitalism to prevent these things from happening because anyone with a small enough conscience to abuse the system for his own gain WILL step up and do so.

I don't expect nor want thanks.
Yes, self-interest overshadows other things, whether out of desperation, necessity, or plain old human nature, which is merely an extension of nature itself.

And I dont feel that people should be scorned for reacting in a very human way

Courtesy of the Atlassociety page (and copyrighted):

Objectivism seems to be self-conflicting in a way I cant quite pin down.

 

[Regicollis]

The problem with libertarianism is that it is an utopian ideology. It requires a new and more moral kind of man in order not to create a hard and cruel society. A purely libertarian economy would require manufacturers to do their best to produce safe products just out of fear that the market might react negatively, even though we know that unsafe product exist even with market forces as well as government regulation. It also requires the wealthy to spend significant sums on charity although we know that the kind of "charity" often consist in capitalists building huge buildings named after themselves. The age of laissez-faire capitalism was not one of charity abolishing poverty. It was an age where extreme wealth co-existed with abject poverty and fiercely rejecting every attempt by working people to improve their own lives.

The appeal of objectivism or libertarianism in general is that it relieves its adherents of duty and moral obligation in any meaningful sense of the word. It makes vices like greed into virtues by issuing a false claim that "greed is good" and that the individual pursuit of personal gain will eventually be for the greater good of all. People have always liked being told that the things that further their own self-interest is the moral thing to do. Capitalist believing in libertarianism is no more surprising than monarchs believing in the divine right of kings.

 

[Goshin]

Note: I am not an Objectivist. I couldn't finish reading Atlas Shrugged, I read the Cliff's Notes. :mrgreen:

Some of our more left-leaning posters here surprise me with the assumption that capitalism inevitably means some prospering at the expense of others. Capitalism generates more wealth than any other economic system, and everyone in it benefits; just look at the per-capita GDP of the nations of the world. The nations with the most prosperous citizens are typically more capitalistic than others.

On to another matter: pure lassiez-faire capitalism doesn't exist today, to my knowlege, if it ever has. I will go on to say that, despite being somewhat libertarian-ish (which is not the same as Randism!), I have come to realize that some degree of market regulation by gov't is necessary. Market forces are generally pretty efficient at weeding out gross stupidity in producers, but sometimes greed or stupidity of a more subtle nature slide by long enough to create real problems. A little bit of regulation is probably a good thing... the point where I diverge from many is that I think market regulation should be very modest, and new regulations should only be considered after a great deal of study for Unintended Consequences and tested as to whether they are truly necessary by a very strict standard.

I suppose I'm a moderate libertarian, where I'm not conservative. :mrgreen:

Ideally, I'd like to see the government formed of Libertarians and Centrists. The Libertarians will keep gov from getting too big, the Centrists will maintain a level of pragmatism and humanitarianism that sometimes eludes Libertarians. :mrgreen:

People are neither angels nor demons, in a general sense. They need not be regimented by an all-powerful totalitarian State, but they do need some limits placed here and there to keep them from going off the cliff.

The social-welfare state, as presently concieved, is not sustainable. A third of our massive budget right now is debt; eventually that will do us in if something isn't changed. If we're going to do "government charity" at all (and I suppose we're going to have to), we need to be realistic about it and not bankrupt ourselves.... this is where letting reason temper humanity is vitally important.

One thing I do know about this, though: Both Objectivism and Libertarianism are based, not simply on self-intrest, but Enlightened self-intrest: on the assertion that most people understand that they are part of a society and that it is in their own best intrests to pursue their goals with a measure of humanity involved... if for no other reason than so it doesn't come back to bite them later when they are in need of someone's aid.

Henry Ford is a good example. When he built a plant to mass-produce automobiles, some people told him he was crazy, because there were not enough people in America who could AFFORD to buy all the cars he intended to produce. He went on to pay most of his workers enough that they could afford to buy the product, while at the same time using mass-production to dramatically reduce the price of the cars, creating his own market and starting a trend that revolutionized industry. The company he started is still around.


The problem with ideologically pure libertarianism, or Objectivism, (or indeed almost any pure "ism") is that not everyone is enlightened in this manner; you have to have enough gov't to deal with those who act in a purely self-ish way, as opposed to in enlightened self-intrest.

My two bits...

 

[Gina]

The appeal of objectivism or libertarianism in general is that it relieves its adherents of duty and moral obligation in any meaningful sense of the word. It makes vices like greed into virtues by issuing a false claim that "greed is good" and that the individual pursuit of personal gain will eventually be for the greater good of all. People have always liked being told that the things that further their own self-interest is the moral thing to do. Capitalist believing in libertarianism is no more surprising than monarchs believing in the divine right of kings.

Well said. I know Libertarians who practice it on that level, brutally so. They feel this philosophy utterly justifies and relieves them of any moral obligation to anyone other than themselves and their immediate family, until the kids have left home. At that point, they have cut them off as well.

Objectivism/Randian theory/Libertarianism in no way accounts for people like that.

Even in China, where capital punishment is a constant threat, there were manufacturers who put melamine in baby formula in order to maximize their profits. If the death penalty and potentially killing babies cannot prevent greed, there is no way to safely implement a Libertarian laissez faire society.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

I've always been perplexed by this question. What causes people to become adherents of Objectivism? I pose this question to all on these boards alike, both the Objectivists and everybody else can feel free to answer.

As a philosophy Objectivism seems facile; as a guiding principle for political beliefs it seems distasteful to the point of being inhuman. I, for one, do not see anything praiseworthy about selfishness, nor anything heroic about being born rich. What is it people find so convincing about Objectivism?

Most people don't understand the concept of "selfishness" that Objectivists use.

It's a deeper understanding than, "I only care about me."

 

[Geo Patric]

people don't "believe in" Ayn Rand. They like her philosophy. She's not a prophet or a god.

excellent.

as for Rand, she loved tyranny, essentially. Her heroes were romantically glossed fascists. Her love for misogynists puts her 'philosophy' far beyond the pale of humanism. Her 'selfishness' was a belief in greed, not 'self interest' which, except in complete isolation, involves the interest of the community and the environment upon which the community depends.

but your clarification in the matter of belief is exceptionally well taken.

geo.

 

[Geo Patric]

dp....

geo

 

[lizzie]

It is not inherently evil to be self-preserving. It is inherently evil to be self preserving at the expense of the innocent.

If you work hard, do all the right things, and earn your own success, how is that at the expense of the innocent, and who are these innocent?

Abhorrence of "selfish" behavior (Gordon Gecko selfishness, I mean) is literally hard wired into our brains, and you don't have to subscribe to a theistic ideology to recognize that.

From what I can see they are not hard-wired, but ingrained into our brains by religious institutions, government institutions, and personal/family environment. The instance where benevolence is hard-wired is probably evident in the family unit, via maternal instincts and paternal protective instincts, but most of it seems to be learned by observation and exposure.

Think about Heinlein's principle of TANSTAAFL, financial success necessarily comes by the deprivation of another.

Why?

If I expend my energy, time, and input to procure something, is it my duty to share it? If it is just enough to meet my needs, am I obligated to sacrifice my own work for someone who is not willing to put in their share of the energy required to produce it? Although I think many people do have a nature which makes them generous, I suspect it is due to their success. They feel good about themselves and their accomplishments, which contributes to their overall feeling of goodwill.

 

[lizzie]

Most people don't understand the concept of "selfishness" that Objectivists use.

It's a deeper understanding than, "I only care about me."

Definitely. It's more of a philosophy along the lines of the Army ads- "Be all that you can be". It is a philosophy that urges human creativity, productivity, and personal fulfillment, which, if applied with a good attitude and good cheer, brings about a transformation in the human psyche and quality of being.

 

[lizzie]

Note: I am not an Objectivist. I couldn't finish reading Atlas Shrugged, I read the Cliff's Notes. :mrgreen:

...

I am not a "pure" Objectivist either, but there are definitely elements of the philosophy that I find inspiring, and at the same time, so realistic that it holds a certain amount of truth which is undeniable to me and others who are pragmatists and who can live within the bounds of Nature as it was and will always be.

 

[lizzie]

I think where Ayn Rand goes off the rails is that people will act rationally. Perhaps they should act as described above but they often don't.

Now that cuts to the heart of the matter! This is one of the things I think many people find repulsive about the philosophy. She was highly idealistic and intellectual, but pragmatic and realistic, which are traits that often don't coincide in the same mind. As most "rationally-bent" intellectuals are inclined to do, they believe that others have the capacity to be rational. That was her mistake.

 

[Hoplite]

Some of our more left-leaning posters here surprise me with the assumption that capitalism inevitably means some prospering at the expense of others.

I think its naivety to the extreme to claim otherwise. In the ideal setting, business owners would be guided by their consciences to not screw people however we know the lengths people will go to if it means saving a buck. You CANNOT deny that private industry in the US has pulled some seriously world-class dick moves and the people that usually suffered were workers or consumers.

Capitalism generates more wealth than any other economic system

No one is disputing that.

and everyone in it benefits

THAT I disagree with.

just look at the per-capita GDP of the nations of the world. The nations with the most prosperous citizens are typically more capitalistic than others.

GDP is not indicative of quality of life.

The US is usually tracked as the first or second in the world in terms of GDP.

However, the US is about #45 on a world ranking of infant mortality rates, 37th in the world in terms of avalibility of quality healthcare. GDP is not a measure of quality of life.

Henry Ford is a good example. When he built a plant to mass-produce automobiles, some people told him he was crazy, because there were not enough people in America who could AFFORD to buy all the cars he intended to produce. He went on to pay most of his workers enough that they could afford to buy the product, while at the same time using mass-production to dramatically reduce the price of the cars, creating his own market and starting a trend that revolutionized industry. The company he started is still around.

That company also nearly went bankrupt due to short-sighted business decisions.

Ford ran his company with an iron fist, crushing labor unions (one famous incident being the Battle of the Overpass) and rigidly controlling the lives of his employees. How is this a positive model?

 

[Geo Patric]

She was highly idealistic and intellectual, but pragmatic

idealistic and pragmatic, to be sure. but, idealism bears only the merits of the ideal.... what were m. Rands, Ideals?

she was never shy about preaching them. She does the best job of this in her novels.

Rand characterizes her most famous character, Howard Roark, thusly: "He was born without the ability to consider others." Pretty profound, eh? I stand in amazement at all the good religious folks who idolize her.

because, you see, it was it was not an entirely original characterization. She had used it, or a frighteningly similar Nietzschean characterization elsewhere:

"Other people do not exist for him, and he does not see why they should, [he] has no regard whatsoever for all that society holds sacred, and with a consciousness all his own. He has the true, innate psychology of a Superman. He can never realize and feel 'other people.'".

nor was it entirely a fictional characterization. that latter description, in her personal diary, was of William Edward Hickman, the sociopathic killer responsible for the kidnapping, dismembering and murder of Marion Parker, a 12-year-old girl. According to m. Rand herself, the hero of her first novel (never finished or published) was intended to be "what Hickman suggested" - "A Hickman with a purpose.".

Hickman's own account:

""It was while I was fixing the blindfold that the urge to murder came upon me," he continued, "and I just couldn't help myself. I got a towel and stepped up behind Marion. Then before she could move, I put it around her neck and twisted it tightly. I held on and she made no outcry except to gurgle. I held on for about two minutes, I guess, and then I let go. When I cut loose the fastenings, she fell to the floor. I knew she was dead. Well, after she was dead I carried her body into the bathroom and undressed her, all but the underwear, and cut a hole in her throat with a pocket knife to let the blood out."

it gets worse - i will spare you the rest. not surprisngly, there was outrage across the country. Rand's response?

"The first thing that impresses me about the case is the ferocious rage of a whole society against one man. No matter what the man did, there is always something loathsome in the 'virtuous' indignation and mass-hatred of the 'majority.'... It is repulsive to see all these beings with worse sins and crimes in their own lives, virtuously condemning a criminal..."

worse sins. than kidnapping, murdering and dismembering a a 12 year old girl and suffering not a trace of remorse. Her great hero, Roark, whom she epitomizes as the Superman, rapes her heroine without a trace of remorse or recognition that what he has done might be viewed as not entirely socially responsible because he does not care for socially responsible. The 'heroine', of course, promptly falls in love with him because he raped her.... in pursuit of his own gratification which m. Rand saw as the only justification for ANY action.

sorry... she was one seriously sick woman.

geo.

 

[Goshin]

I think its naivety to the extreme to claim otherwise. In the ideal setting, business owners would be guided by their consciences to not screw people however we know the lengths people will go to if it means saving a buck. You CANNOT deny that private industry in the US has pulled some seriously world-class dick moves and the people that usually suffered were workers or consumers.

It has happened, sure. As I noted, a certain amount of regulation is necessary and I'm not against that. There are also countervailing forces like unions, and consumer opinion or boycotts. The fact that some companies have done some stupid or bad things at times isn't a wholesale indictment against capitalism in general.

No one is disputing that.


THAT I disagree with.

GDP is not indicative of quality of life.

The US is usually tracked as the first or second in the world in terms of GDP.

However, the US is about #45 on a world ranking of infant mortality rates, 37th in the world in terms of avalibility of quality healthcare. GDP is not a measure of quality of life.

GDP alone isn't a certain measure of quality of life, but it does tell us how much wealth is available per person in the nation, for those who will go out and work to obtain it.

Look at it... our middle-class have more money than almost anyone else's middle class. Our blue-collar working class make more money than many nation's "middle class". Our poor live better than most nation's average workers. That counts for nothing?

Nearly everyone does benefit... just not all to the same degree. What shall we do, allocate everyone a share of the nation's GDP, regardless of what they do for a living or whether they do anything at all? That would be equality-of-outcomes but by destroying incentive, it would destroy our economy and everyone would soon be suffering poverty.

How about opportunity? If you're smart enough or good at something, there are tons of scholarships floating around... lots of financial aid and student loans... any American who has some brains on the ball and is willing to work hard at it can manage to get a college education and improve their lifetime earnings dramatically. How many other nations in the world have this opportunity made so readily available to so many? If your father is a fisherman in North Korea, what are your chances of getting into college? Probably near zero. Potential upward mobility is a factor.

In so many nations, simply getting enough to eat is considered "prosperity". Most of those nations are afflicted with dictators, communism/socialism, central planning, tribalism or some combination thereof.

I've seen those ratings that claim the US isn't such a good place to live, and frankly I question them. Yes we don't rate so well in health-care related issues... but if you look at the actual stats, let's say on infant mortality, we're actually not that far from the top and WAY ahead of the bottom. That's why simple "rankings" can be deceptive. Also you have to look at the poll's biases. So we don't get free (poor quality long waiting lists) National Healthcare, and six weeks vacation time mandated by Government. A lot of nations that ARE giving away those freebies are starting to find that they can't afford to continue doing so long term... look at Greece for one example. Many other European "social-welfare paradise" nations are starting to feel the bite also.

Capitalism isn't perfect; nothing is perfect or ever will be. Yes, some degree of regulation is necessary, and yes sometimes businesses have to be pressured to do the right thing. So? China has a command economy, communist-in-name, and look at how their workers get treated and paid, and the quality of their products. It's not like there is a viable alternative to capitalism, or at least none with real-world-proven quality and success that would be somehow "better".


If you have an alternative to capitalism, that is proveably sustainable long-term and would provaeably be better for everyone, then by all means let's hear it.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Definitely. It's more of a philosophy along the lines of the Army ads- "Be all that you can be". It is a philosophy that urges human creativity, productivity, and personal fulfillment, which, if applied with a good attitude and good cheer, brings about a transformation in the human psyche and quality of being.

Exactly.

It's doing what is best for yourself and others that you care about.
Which still encompasses more than one word can fully explain.

 

[Hoplite]

It has happened, sure. As I noted, a certain amount of regulation is necessary and I'm not against that. There are also countervailing forces like unions, and consumer opinion or boycotts.

Consumer opinion and boycotts mean jack to a company that makes billions, forces that can be easily crushed by a multi-million dollar ad campaign such as the recent blitz for HFC. Unions are losing ground in the US because people are forgetting what unions fought and bled for when it came to the workers. That's on top of unions that have lost their way and are now more interested in self-preservation than protecting workers.

The fact that some companies have done some stupid or bad things at times isn't a wholesale indictment against capitalism in general.

It is when there is no effective means of policing companies or punishing wrongdoing.

GDP alone isn't a certain measure of quality of life, but it does tell us how much wealth is available per person in the nation, for those who will go out and work to obtain it.

Then why is so much of our wealth concentrated at the top of our society?

Look at it... our middle-class have more money than almost anyone else's middle class. Our blue-collar working class make more money than many nation's "middle class". Our poor live better than most nation's average workers. That counts for nothing?

You can bet your sweet ass that it doesn't.

Our middle class is quickly eroding under a mountain of debt and shrinking job opportunities. Our blue collar workforce is being paid next to nothing and what's left is being outsourced to countries with no labor protection. Our poor may live better than the poor in other countries, but that doesnt change the fact that they still cant get what they need. Having a dollar while everyone else has a penny is meaningless if bread costs two dollars.

How about opportunity? If you're smart enough or good at something, there are tons of scholarships floating around... lots of financial aid and student loans... any American who has some brains on the ball and is willing to work hard at it can manage to get a college education and improve their lifetime earnings dramatically.

What a load of high school bull****. Scholarships are shrinking and more and more people are applying for less and less money. Student aid and loans are also increasing in costs whereas the jobs to pay off those loans are shrinking. College education does not promise the life it once did. Many college degrees are now almost completely worthless due to there being so many other people with the same degree floating around.

How many other nations in the world have this opportunity made so readily available to so many? If your father is a fisherman in North Korea, what are your chances of getting into college? Probably near zero. Potential upward mobility is a factor.

Potentiality is not reality.

I've seen those ratings that claim the US isn't such a good place to live, and frankly I question them. Yes we don't rate so well in health-care related issues... but if you look at the actual stats, let's say on infant mortality, we're actually not that far from the top and WAY ahead of the bottom. That's why simple "rankings" can be deceptive. Also you have to look at the poll's biases. So we don't get free (poor quality long waiting lists) National Healthcare, and six weeks vacation time mandated by Government. A lot of nations that ARE giving away those freebies are starting to find that they can't afford to continue doing so long term... look at Greece for one example. Many other European "social-welfare paradise" nations are starting to feel the bite also.

Many of the Nordic countries are engaged in every program you decry and more. Their standard and quality of living is far higher than our own and their economic position is better than ours. What does that say?

Capitalism isn't perfect; nothing is perfect or ever will be. Yes, some degree of regulation is necessary, and yes sometimes businesses have to be pressured to do the right thing. So?

So? Read The Jungle by Upton Sinclair, that will paint you a picture a landscape where business gets to make the rules.

China has a command economy, communist-in-name, and look at how their workers get treated and paid, and the quality of their products. It's not like there is a viable alternative to capitalism, or at least none with real-world-proven quality and success that would be somehow "better".

China is a Fascist state with an entirely profit driven motive.

There are indeed viable alternatives to Capitalism. Solutions must be tailored to their country, but to simply throw up one's hands and take the TINA way out is intellectually lazy to the nth degree.

If you have an alternative to capitalism, that is proveably sustainable long-term and would provaeably be better for everyone, then by all means let's hear it.

First, we give the federal government the authority and charge of policing the private sector. We break the grip of the lobbyists and get private enterprise out of government. Political figures are restricted from spending more than a set amount on a campaign and are not allowed to receive more than a set amount from ANY source. Any income must be documented and is under the review of the IRS to ensure nothing is being sneaked under the door.

We also lay down a set of ironclad boundaries that private enterprise cannot cross without very serious repercussions that include seizure and disillusion of the company to pay back wronged public interests and we institute rules that make any managerial staff accountable for any and all wrong actions taken by employees. We also institute a "full disclosure" policy that requires any private enterprise to share any and all technological developments with the federal government for review, the information is to be kept proprietary except in extraordinary circumstances.

Next, we nationalize key industries; utilities, pharmaceuticals, production of basic foodstuffs, basic agriculture, healthcare, and extraction and processing of oil and fuels. These are to be run with the target of being self-sustaining at bare minimum with the end goal being putting profit into improving the services or paying off national debt.

We also institute a total overhaul of our tax and system of redress for the federal government. We make the federal government more subject to review by interested citizens being careful that someone cant curmudgeon the government into stopping totally.

Creation of a national database of DNA, fingerprint, and retinal images usable by and available only to law enforcement. We also explore the possibility of using a national ID card system whereby different methods of identification can be "stacked" in one card linked to your particular genetic profile to prevent theft or misuse.

Social safety net programs are to be overhauled and reworked to run at less cost and to cover as many people as need the program with severe punishments for any fraud or abuse of the system. This will be coupled with larger endowments for education, the arts, sciences, and improvement of public services.

Sound like a start?

 

[Goshin]

So? Read The Jungle by Upton Sinclair, that will paint you a picture a landscape where business gets to make the rules.

.

You seem to be under the impression that I support lassiez-faire capitalism with no gov't regulation at all. This is not the case. I thought I said very plainly that a certain amount of regulation was necessary.

There are indeed viable alternatives to Capitalism. Solutions must be tailored to their country, but to simply throw up one's hands and take the TINA way out is intellectually lazy to the nth degree.


First, we give the federal government the authority and charge of policing the private sector. We break the grip of the lobbyists and get private enterprise out of government. Political figures are restricted from spending more than a set amount on a campaign and are not allowed to receive more than a set amount from ANY source. Any income must be documented and is under the review of the IRS to ensure nothing is being sneaked under the door.

We also lay down a set of ironclad boundaries that private enterprise cannot cross without very serious repercussions that include seizure and disillusion of the company to pay back wronged public interests and we institute rules that make any managerial staff accountable for any and all wrong actions taken by employees. We also institute a "full disclosure" policy that requires any private enterprise to share any and all technological developments with the federal government for review, the information is to be kept proprietary except in extraordinary circumstances.

Next, we nationalize key industries; utilities, pharmaceuticals, production of basic foodstuffs, basic agriculture, healthcare, and extraction and processing of oil and fuels. These are to be run with the target of being self-sustaining at bare minimum with the end goal being putting profit into improving the services or paying off national debt.

We also institute a total overhaul of our tax and system of redress for the federal government. We make the federal government more subject to review by interested citizens being careful that someone cant curmudgeon the government into stopping totally.

Creation of a national database of DNA, fingerprint, and retinal images usable by and available only to law enforcement. We also explore the possibility of using a national ID card system whereby different methods of identification can be "stacked" in one card linked to your particular genetic profile to prevent theft or misuse.

Social safety net programs are to be overhauled and reworked to run at less cost and to cover as many people as need the program with severe punishments for any fraud or abuse of the system. This will be coupled with larger endowments for education, the arts, sciences, and improvement of public services.

Sound like a start?

It sounds like a start on being just like one of those Western European nations that are beginning to realize that they can't pay for their social-welfare paradise long-term, and they're going to have to cut back or go broke and watch the economy collapse.

About a third of our huge gov't budget is DEBT, right now, and the single biggest category is social spending/entitlements... and you want me to trust GOVERNMENT to run the economy???

 

[Hoplite]

You seem to be under the impression that I support lassiez-faire capitalism with no gov't regulation at all. This is not the case. I thought I said very plainly that a certain amount of regulation was necessary.

The problem is "some" regulation tends to get undermined by private enterprise. Our present situation helps illustrate that.

It sounds like a start on being just like one of those Western European nations that are beginning to realize that they can't pay for their social-welfare paradise long-term, and they're going to have to cut back or go broke and watch the economy collapse.

As I have pointed out before, many of these countries are in a better financial position than we are.

About a third of our huge gov't budget is DEBT, right now, and the single biggest category is social spending/entitlements... and you want me to trust GOVERNMENT to run the economy???

Guess again

Defense is our biggest expenditure. Something I feel should be modified.

 

[Goshin]

How much of "other mandatory" and "other discretionary" consists of various entitlements?

SS and medicaid already come to 39% when put together, which is much bigger than defense. If half of the above categories I mentioned are entitlements, then that would put social spending at 54%.

 

[Hoplite]

How much of "other mandatory" and "other discretionary" consists of various entitlements?

SS and medicaid already come to 39% when put together, which is much bigger than defense. If half of the above categories I mentioned are entitlements, then that would put social spending at 54%.

Other mandatory refers to things like spending on federal agencies, upkeep on federal property, etc etc.

Can you justify cutting social security and medicaid when there are probably tens of thousands of people who rely on these programs as a basic part of their lives and would be in very serious trouble if they lost access to them?

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Other mandatory refers to things like spending on federal agencies, upkeep on federal property, etc etc.

Can you justify cutting social security and medicaid when there are probably tens of thousands of people who rely on these programs as a basic part of their lives and would be in very serious trouble if they lost access to them?

Yes you can because only 1/3 of people rely on Social Security as their primary source of income.
Increasing Medicare co pays and premiums could fall on most of the other people with no horrible fallout of dead old people in the streets.

Medicaid could actually cover the legitimately poor, instead of covering people who don't feel like insuring themselves and their children because Medicaid is free.

 

[Goshin]

Other mandatory refers to things like spending on federal agencies, upkeep on federal property, etc etc.

Can you justify cutting social security and medicaid when there are probably tens of thousands of people who rely on these programs as a basic part of their lives and would be in very serious trouble if they lost access to them?

Yes. I have two close family members, who I care about a great deal, who essentially live off of entitlements one way or another. A couple more depend on one or two gov't programs to cover part of their needs. If any of this stuff were cut substantially, they would be placed in a difficult position.

So I do have a personal stake in this, you see.

OTOH, a third of our budget is debt. Something HAS to be done about that. Raising taxes any substantial degree will impair an already weak economy. Our military budget can probably be cut somewhat without seriously impairing our defensive capabilities, but that alone won't be nearly enough.

Social programs must be cut or we will go the way of Greece, or worse, and perhaps sooner rather than too much later.

Cut them. We'll deal with it somehow. Maybe I'll end up buying groceries for some of my kinfolk. A couple of them may have to get off their assets and find some kind of job. Some of them may have to do without some things.

OTOH if we do nothing then things are going to go to crap at some point.

So I say, get out the machete and start slashing those entitlements.

 

[Hoplite]

Yes you can because only 1/3 of people rely on Social Security as their primary source of income.

Source?

Even if people arent depending on SS as a primary source of income, losing it would still cause serious problems at home. Being in a position where I'm taking any job I can get (which is precious few at the moment) for income, $200 a month would be a welcome relief and no I'm not managing without it right now. To rely on that to help support yourself then suddenly lose it would be a serious problem.

Increasing Medicare co pays and premiums could fall on most of the other people with no horrible fallout of dead old people in the streets.

How so?

Medicaid could actually cover the legitimately poor, instead of covering people who don't feel like insuring themselves and their children because Medicaid is free.

Can you support the claim that this happens on a regular basis?

Yes. I have two close family members, who I care about a great deal, who essentially live off of entitlements one way or another. A couple more depend on one or two gov't programs to cover part of their needs. If any of this stuff were cut substantially, they would be placed in a difficult position.

So I do have a personal stake in this, you see.

Ok, then you should appreciate the fact that these programs, while they dont function as well as they could, are still vital for MANY people.

OTOH, a third of our budget is debt. Something HAS to be done about that.

You dont pay your bills when you haven't eaten yet. We need to focus on repairing and recovering our economy before we start focusing on that particular problem.

Raising taxes any substantial degree will impair an already weak economy.

Im sorry but where else are you going to get money? You can only cut spending so much before you need an alternative source of income. My proposals earlier are one way but I know realistically that no one will go for them.

Our military budget can probably be cut somewhat without seriously impairing our defensive capabilities, but that alone won't be nearly enough.

The war in Iraq alone has cost almost 5 trillion dollars so far and continues to hemorrhage money at a rate of almost a hundred million dollars per day.

Iraq war hits U.S. economy: Nobel winner | Reuters
War Costing $720 Million Each Day, Group Says - washingtonpost.com

Social programs must be cut or we will go the way of Greece, or worse, and perhaps sooner rather than too much later.

We cant, we've cut and cut and we're running out of things to cut. It's time to look at alternative sources if income.

Cut them. We'll deal with it somehow. Maybe I'll end up buying groceries for some of my kinfolk. A couple of them may have to get off their assets and find some kind of job. Some of them may have to do without some things.

Easy for you to say. You may have some friends that you'll throw a few bucks at. But let me ask you something, what do you say to people who wont be able to afford medical care or groceries after the cuts and they AREN'T as lucky as your friends to have such a magnanimous benefactor around?

OTOH if we do nothing then things are going to go to crap at some point.

So I say, get out the machete and start slashing those entitlements.

Again, very easy for someone to claim when those programs are helping keep them out of dumpster diving behind McDonalds.