100 - 56 =/= 37
I see that we differ on what constitutes "running the government." What are you not counting in this 56%?
Even if running the government was 44% of the budget, it would not be an "extra 20%" included in his pie chart (for which you said he was "show[ing] false data"), and it would still mean that we could have no entitlement programs and still have more than enough to run the government and pay off our debt.
Also social security does not fall under entitlement, as it's not a hand out. It's a loan that is due to many citizens of the nation, do you think savings bonds are entitlements as well?
There it is. We come across the fallacy of your way of thinking. You seem to believe that what you put into Social Security is what you get out of it in the end.
Well, this is fundamentally false by the way the program is designed. You actually get significantly more than what you put in---unless you die earlier than expected. This is exactly why the program is referred to as an entitlement. If it were a loan, as you say, you would get roughly what you put into it, and you could perhaps write off the scant extra that you get as interest paid. But right now, significantly more "interest" is paid than is received through investment (which, as it stands is considerably more than a few percentage points), and this is what's causing it to run a deficit.
Right now, Social Security is a huge scam... but it's fixable. Reforming the system so it doesn't run a huge deficit is what I'm suggesting we do. What are your problems with that?
Insisting that you stop incorrectly classifying the spending in order to better support your argument isn't a strawman.
I was talking about that thing about foreign interests at the end, but that was because I didn't realize that you thought Social Security wasn't an entitlement program.
This is another strawman, and you didn't address my main point.
Our programs are running unsustainable debt. If we don't cut some and change others, we won't be able to give people that money anyway.
Income taxes more than cover running the government, interest on current debt, and national defense. The taxes we collect for programs like Social Security would still exist if we changed the program. No one is asking to ABOLISH them. They are asking to FIX them.
The United States Treasurer does not have a plan to fix them, and doesn't seem to care to. <My Main Point, btw
And you don't care about what your government officials are being paid to do? With your tax dollars?
Uh yes I did, because the only way to 'fix' the programs is to cut the programs, massively lower the pay outs or massively increase the tax. In the second you have effectively driven the elderly onto the streets
This is a strawman; Paul Ryan's plan doesn't affect people 55 or older. It seems he took that into account. Unless you'd like to debate the meaning of the word "elderly?"
Also, could you address my main point
and you've already adamantly insisted that the third must not be allowed because of the recovery.
Which makes changing the way the program pays out in the long run the only option that works.
Tell me how would you fix SS which doesn't fall under any of those three?
Well first, I would extend retirement age to 70 for those born after 1960; anyone born before that, the current number stays the same. Next, I would readjust the way that we determine benefit payouts to determine how much someone has put into the plan and that person can decide whether they want regular installments of their benefits, or half up front and the rest over a period of years; interest of about 5% would be included in all this. Also, I would give people the option of opting-out of social security; they would be able to opt-back in as long as they do so before their 50th birthday. Lastly, any unpaid sum would go to the immediate family of the deceased (or according to a Will); I would further prevent any amount paid out by Social Security from being subject to income taxes, estate taxes and so on.
Of course, I think Paul Ryan plan has some merit and he's the only one who's come up with a real, viable plan. The House (Republican-controlled) passed his plan but it was pushed back in the Senate (Democrat-controlled) by a relatively slim margin (57-40). However, they also unanimously rejected Pres. Obama's plan. That should tell you at the very least that the Paul Ryan plan is many times better than Pres. Obama's plan.
Then why don't you ask your state representatives to come up with a plan to fix the medical industry? Start some kind of petition and set up an appointment with your congressmen or senators or something, and tell them what you want. Until then government is only going to try and fix the government programs.
Simply because the illusion that representatives actually represent me has long ago worn off. You sound as though there aren't people doing exactly what you're telling me to do, while in reality there have been many people and they were ignored.
Well, if everyone thought like you, SOPA and PIPA would have passed unobstructed. More than 500,000 people expressed opposition to SOPA and PIPA and both bills were shot down. Prior to gaining so much opposition, they were largely supported in the House and Senate. I personally voiced my concern and called my state representatives, who then came out against the bill. How's that for representation?
You're picking and choosing my arguments. You completely ignored the fact that the program is unsustainable as is and you're picking at the part where I said "stealing from the young and giving the old," which I actually got from you. Are we going to talk about how the program is not sustainable and why the United States Treasurer has no plans to fix it?
I picked at you misrepresenting what I said. As for the sustainability of the program, we've been over this. Revenue is simply either too low or the funds are being diverted else where, the program can't be cut in any timely or ethical fashion, and there's no way to reduce the cost of a money transfer. The only thing you can do is raise revenues through taxation, which you don't want to do.
You seriously think this is a revenue problem? In the case of Social Security, the payouts are significantly larger than what each person invested. Let me explain this to you using actual numbers
A male average earner who retired at age 65 in 2010 will have paid out approximately $345,000 in total Social Security and Medicare taxes, but will receive $417,000 in total lifetime benefits ($464,000 for a woman).Read more: Social Security benefits vs. taxes | Bankrate.com http://www.bankrate.com/financing/retir ... z1upbNj6Fa
A much bigger disparity in taxes versus benefits occurs for couples. In the case of a household with only one wage earner, the taxes paid out were $345,000, but the benefits received by both parties will be $778,000. For two-earner couples where one earned the average wage and the other earned a low wage ($19,400), tax payout was $500,000, but benefits will be $800,000.
As it stands, I am not going to believe this is a revenue problem, so I will not advocate raising taxes.
So don't buy insurance if you hate the system so much. What do you want me to say here? "The industry is corrupt so we shouldn't fix Social Security?" Don't be absurd.
I'm telling you not to turn social security into another obamacare, there's nothing worse than putting the people at the mercy of a corrupt industry.
Exactly how am I advocating turning Social Security into Obamacare? There is nothing in common with either of them.
This is Jay literally saying that the economists are lying to us and saying everything is fine when it's actually not. So either you're right and the economists just don't know what they're doing, or Jay is right and they know what they're doing, they're just lying to us. So which is it?
since it lets us pretend the economy's under control at all and not just gonna fly off the handle in boom-bust cycles like it actually does.
You've set up a nice false dichotomy since I'm agreeing with Jay.
Nothing I said has anything to do with you agreeing with Jay, and if you'll remember correctly, I was directing my original comment a Jay, and you decided to answer for him. It's interesting to know that you think he can't answer for himself.
I also didn't say I disagreed with him, I merely pointed out the obvious, which you are refuting.
Economists make their money by occupying a paradox, the illusion that they're in control of something that they tell you straight out is impossible to control.
How exactly is an economy impossible to control? Everything everyone does has a cause and effect. It's not hard to accurately predict the outcome given a set of circumstances. I put it to you that you have never studied economics, so you really have no clue how the economy works.