U.S. Presidential race - Republican Discussion

[Catta]

Too bad the hordes are starting to retire, and we're already locked in. We can either jack up taxes through the roof, drastically cut services moving forward, or break agreements and contractual obligations, ruining peoples' lives that have played by the rules.

Yes, that or increase the retirement age now, and cut the military and use that money for social services.

But you know, that's just an idea.


I do believe my country increased the retirement age with 2 or 4 years not so long ago - as in - in my lifetime

[mistuhbull]

Too bad the hordes are starting to retire, and we're already locked in. We can either jack up taxes through the roof, drastically cut services moving forward, or break agreements and contractual obligations, ruining peoples' lives that have played by the rules.

increase the retirement age, grandfather in those who have already passed the former age.

just like they do for almost everything they increase the age line on.

[bergmann620]

increase the retirement age, grandfather in those who have already passed the former age.

just like they do for almost everything they increase the age line on.

Thing is, most of those plans don't have a retirement age- they have a years of service requirement (usually 30). To make a serious difference, you'd need to raise the age 10-15 years... Try getting that past any Teachers' Union in the country. Further, what happens to a person that starts their profession later in life? Just not allowed to retire?

Further, I think you'll find that contractual obligations aren't so easy to get around as to just say, "We're changing things."

[mistuhbull]

Thing is, most of those plans don't have a retirement age- they have a years of service requirement (usually 30). To make a serious difference, you'd need to raise the age 10-15 years... Try getting that past any Teachers' Union in the country. Further, what happens to a person that starts their profession later in life? Just not allowed to retire?

Further, I think you'll find that contractual obligations aren't so easy to get around as to just say, "We're changing things."

medicare and SS are just as easy as saying "we're changing things" and (SS in particular) is what this discussion is about

well yours in specific was pensions, but the general conversation was SS

[bergmann620]

medicare and SS are just as easy as saying "we're changing things" and (SS in particular) is what this discussion is about

well yours in specific was pensions, but the general conversation was SS

Heh, yea, it's just as easy as starting a "War on old people."

[Wells]

Laize, do you deny that on average single payer systems deliver care at a lower price than ours?

[Laize]

I'm going to lay it out like this.

There is nothing inherently wrong with Socialism or welfare policies. The desire to help other humans is (I would hope) ingrained in at least 99.99% of the population on Earth.

If I thought, for one second, that it would end at socialized health care I don't think I'd care as much. Maybe even free higher education... I'm all about education. My problem is that it won't be enough. Does Sweden look at their expansive welfare program and go "Well, that's done. May as well wrap up the Riksdag because we don't need it anymore. Let's get a pint!"? No, of course not.

What has happened in the past half century in America is that the average citizen has discovered that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury. And so many of them vote for politicians who promise to grant just that to them.

When the Treasury goes broke, we begin borrowing. When we can't borrow anymore we turn to those who've been financially successful and say "You need to pay your fair share". In truth some of them were NOT paying their fair share. MOST are. But either way we continue to go back to the wealthy well and pull out more money.

There are several problems with this line of thought.

1) The wealthy have already been paying their fair share. So has their business(es?). Everything a wealthy person has taken out of the system they have paid back in full several times over.

2) Progressives manufacture ideas of what every human is entitled to and shout that things like "free higher education" should be enjoyed by all people to level the playing field. In truth, most millionaires are self-made and started out with the same tools and path to success as everyone else.

3) Despite numbers 1 and 2, progressives have still asserted that the wealthy owe more to the lower and middle classes simply by virtue of having more to begin with.

If I earn $1 million from my business, the government comes and attempts to take about 35% of it. Fine, my business is successful because of the infrastructure laid out by the government and that much is easily accepted.

What does NOT make sense is why on Earth my taxes should be RAISED to pay for health care or free higher education for other people. Unlike infrastructure which I use and should be expected to pay into, these people who've demanded higher education and free health care have done nothing for me. I owe them nothing.

"But Laize!" You say. "You're investing in our future! They can get educated and come work for you! Thus expanding your business!"

You might have a point if there weren't always people applying for in-demand jobs with the extra degrees being unnecessary.

Then there's the whole aforementioned "aging population forcing young people to pay more in taxes to support them" thing which must inevitably result in later retirements and/or (probably both) reduced benefits.

---------- Post added 2012-07-22 at 02:44 AM ----------

Laize, do you deny that on average single payer systems deliver care at a lower price than ours?

No. Do you deny that correlation is not the same as causation?

[belfpala]

"But Laize!" You say. "You're investing in our future! They can get educated and come work for you! Thus expanding your business!"

You might have a point if there weren't always people applying for in-demand jobs with the extra degrees being unnecessary.

I'm just going to reply to this part.

What I think you're saying--correct me if I'm wrong--is that I could hire a competent, but under-educated, employee and train/educate him/her myself. Is that correct?

This goes way back, many pages... same question, different issue. What's the difference if I spend my own time and resources to train/educate someone (who will likely lateral at the first opportunity), or if I just pay taxes that go to education and have a ready pool of pre-educated people to hire?

[Sunseeker]

What has happened in the past half century in America is that the average citizen has discovered that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury. And so many of them vote for politicians who promise to grant just that to them.

Some people have figured that out, but I do not believe that you can substantiate that the majority of our spending is done simply 'cause people want more money. The only people in this country who have the power to directly give themselves more money are our Congressmen.

When the Treasury goes broke, we begin borrowing. When we can't borrow anymore we turn to those who've been financially successful and say "You need to pay your fair share". In truth some of them were NOT paying their fair share. MOST are. But either way we continue to go back to the wealthy well and pull out more money.

There's a pretty hearty assumption between this paragraph and the former that the treasury was run broke because of people "voting themselves more money". I'm going to go out on a limb and say that people voting themselves more money is NOT the reason we are broke. Unnecessary spending on foreign conflicts and dwindling internal production come out a lot higher on my list.

1) The wealthy have already been paying their fair share. So has their business(es?). Everything a wealthy person has taken out of the system they have paid back in full several times over.

One of the biggest misconceptions over taxes is that there is some sort of limit on what your "share" should be. That at some point you've "paid enough", but that's not how things work. The government functions tomorrow just like it did today, which means it needs to be paid for tomorrow, just like you paid for it today. Everyone contributes, and there is no end until government comes to an end, which ideally does not happen as chaos and disorder aren't exactly good for anyone.

2) Progressives manufacture ideas of what every human is entitled to and shout that things like "free higher education" should be enjoyed by all people to level the playing field. In truth, most millionaires are self-made and started out with the same tools and path to success as everyone else.

Hmmm, color me suspicious, when people start talking about "progressives", it's usually followed by complete rhetorical bullshit. Everyone does not have the same tools and the same path to success, for some people, there are many roadblocks, for others, there are few. The sons and daughters of previously wealthy people have a much easier time becoming wealthy thanks to the money, connections and so on that their parents already have. The sons and daughters of the previously poor face many more challenges in becoming wealthy.

3) Despite numbers 1 and 2, progressives have still asserted that the wealthy owe more to the lower and middle classes simply by virtue of having more to begin with.

Again with progressives. Are you sure you're talking about the meritocrats? Because those guys had a pretty serious system laid out and it's a lot more than what you're talking about.

What does NOT make sense is why on Earth my taxes should be RAISED to pay for health care or free higher education for other people. Unlike infrastructure which I use and should be expected to pay into, these people who've demanded higher education and free health care have done nothing for me. I owe them nothing.

"But Laize!" You say. "You're investing in our future! They can get educated and come work for you! Thus expanding your business!"

You might have a point if there weren't always people applying for in-demand jobs with the extra degrees being unnecessary.

I'm honestly not quite sure how to address this. They've done nothing for you. So, by extention, you've done nothing for them, so they owe you nothing either.
Concluding statement: society doesn't exist.

um...WHAT?

[ishootblanks]

I'm just going to reply to this part.

What I think you're saying--correct me if I'm wrong--is that I could hire a competent, but under-educated, employee and train/educate him/her myself. Is that correct?

This goes way back, many pages... same question, different issue. What's the difference if I spend my own time and resources to train/educate someone (who will likely lateral at the first opportunity), or if I just pay taxes that go to education and have a ready pool of pre-educated people to hire?

most people get into the field this way.. that's how I did it!

but on the second point.. there is no possible way to educate everyone for every possible situation.. most corporations require specialized training.. and they can provide it through either an apprenticeship program.. or if your corporation is large enough to cover the costs.. provide the training yourself.. you know.. kinda like Walmart.. and Diebold.. and Toyota.. and Mercedes.. and Boeing.. etc etc..

[belfpala]

most people get into the field this way.. that's how I did it!

but on the second point.. there is no possible way to educate everyone for every possible situation.. most corporations require specialized training.. and they can provide it through either an apprenticeship program.. or if your corporation is large enough to cover the costs.. provide the training yourself.. you know.. kinda like Walmart.. and Diebold.. and Toyota.. and Mercedes.. and Boeing.. etc etc..

I'm going to have to give specialized training either way. That's not the issue. Every job needs specialized training, even if it's as simple as "hey, this is how our payroll software works, here's how you enter your hours and code your projects."

So I don't think you were addressing my real question. Imagine I have to--and all of my competitors have to--train most of the employees we hire at the real things required for the job (not just the company-specific things; there's a reason Boeing doesn't hire aerospace engineers off the street, right?). We expend time and resources doing that. That's a "tax" in a sense. How is that different from an actual tax that does the same thing?

[Wells]

No. Do you deny that correlation is not the same as causation?

Wait are you saying that a single payer system being cheaper is correlation?

If I thought, for one second, that it would end at socialized health care I don't think I'd care as much. Maybe even free higher education... I'm all about education. My problem is that it won't be enough. Does Sweden look at their expansive welfare program and go "Well, that's done. May as well wrap up the Riksdag because we don't need it anymore. Let's get a pint!"? No, of course not.

You think progressive view programs as the end, not the means. To the progressive a government program is just a way to address a problem, not the only one, but sometimes the best one.

The wealthy have already been paying their fair share. So has their business(es?). Everything a wealthy person has taken out of the system they have paid back in full several times over.

This is subjective and you know it.

2) Progressives manufacture ideas of what every human is entitled to and shout that things like "free higher education" should be enjoyed by all people to level the playing field. In truth, most millionaires are self-made and started out with the same tools and path to success as everyone else.

You're confusing things like "government needs to provide" with "government should provide". I think a government needs to provide some modicum of safety to its population (police and such). Or I think people need to have access to a health care system that works affordably and to that aim the government should provide a single payer system because I think that's the best way to get that done.

[ishootblanks]

I'm going to have to give specialized training either way. That's not the issue. Every job needs specialized training, even if it's as simple as "hey, this is how our payroll software works, here's how you enter your hours and code your projects."

So I don't think you were addressing my real question. Imagine I have to--and all of my competitors have to--train most of the employees we hire at the real things required for the job (not just the company-specific things; there's a reason Boeing doesn't hire aerospace engineers off the street, right?). We expend time and resources doing that. That's a "tax" in a sense. How is that different from an actual tax that does the same thing?

it's just a bad idea.. the government is slow enough as it is.. trying to dictate the economy by deciding which education types to pay for is just silly..

I could maybe see providing people who take classes in certain fields getting a better interest rate on their loans or maybe a tax credit as that's easy to implement..

[Wells]

it's just a bad idea.. the government is slow enough as it is.. trying to dictate the economy by deciding which education types to pay for is just silly..

Over all educational need trends don't change that fast. It takes years to train enough engineers to flood the market.

I'd rather the government simply hand more goodies to students in certain fields rather than only helping those fields.

[ishootblanks]

Over all educational need trends don't change that fast. It takes years to train enough engineers to flood the market.

I'd rather the government simply hand more goodies to students in certain fields rather than only helping those fields.

I think a lot of the issue lies in public schools that focus primarily on reading/writing and put less emphasis on math/science as they are "hard" and hurts the little kiddies self esteem when they can't do it..

this mentality puts potential engineering/science students at a huge disadvantage going into college..

[Wells]

I think a lot of the issue lies in public schools that focus primarily on reading/writing and put less emphasis on math/science as they are "hard" and hurts the little kiddies self esteem when they can't do it..

Eh. Economies change. We could spend more time on math and science but I don't really think the huge demand for engineers is much more than an economy that needs more of them.

---------- Post added 2012-07-22 at 07:43 AM ----------

States rights!

[belfpala]

it's just a bad idea.. the government is slow enough as it is.. trying to dictate the economy by deciding which education types to pay for is just silly..

I could maybe see providing people who take classes in certain fields getting a better interest rate on their loans or maybe a tax credit as that's easy to implement..

As far as I know, the government doesn't discriminate by what you choose to learn. You do, personally.

And as far as I know, student loans (this is what we're talking about, right?), are one of the only things that don't go away with bankruptcy.

There, I did it! I admitted that sometimes personal responsibility is good!

[Wells]

And as far as I know, student loans (this is what we're talking about, right?), are one of the only things that don't go away with bankruptcy.

The Bush Administration is the gift that won't stop giving.

There has been some noise to change that though, like HR 2028

[bellabulldog]

The people of America have been accustomed to living beyond their means for quite some time. Been given things they all too quickly believe they deserve and not appreciating the opportunity afforded by living in an exceedingly prosperous nation. Continued to vote themselves to largesse as stated by others in the thread and by choosing to involve themselves in American Idol rather than CSpan have contributed to the corruption of this nation to the core. No party can stop what has begun and both are to blame. The people of America should be put on trial for treason for the poor stewardship of the country. Nothing can be done to change the course this nation is on.

[belfpala]

[Buckle your belts] ... Nothing can be done to change the course this nation is on.

Fatalism.

I find nothing more pathetic.

Edit: That wasn't directed at you, personally, just at that attitude. Reagan was kind of, sort of, maybe, the only president in my lifetime that might qualify as real leadership. But that's what we need. Someone who can throw proverbial punches and get Congress to actually be Congress. I think neither Obama nor Romney can be that person.

In short: will the real POTUS please stand up? I haven't seen him, ever, and I've been alive since the 70's.