Vivek ramaswamy

[DCHawk1]

Change the law specifically to how it applies to military spending.

Which will do nothing to address the overall trajectory of spending.

Defense is less than half of entitlements NOW and the disparity is only going to increase as the population ages.

[DCHawk1]

It should certainly occur prior to increases to the poor or middle class.

Closing the deficit is also not the only goal.

Also, there doesn't need to be a SINGLE fix all solution. That's randy logic, you should know better. Improvements in the right direction matter.

And it'll do a helluva lot more than 8 year limits on gov't employment or getting rid of the fbi and then replacing it with.....the fbi.

You seem to want to argue with randy and/or Vivek. I've never said that there needs to be one solution to our budget issues. I've never argued for term limits on federal employment (although that's less about the budget than addressing the power of the career bureaucracy).

[pdub]

Change the law specifically to how it applies to military spending.

Which will do nothing to address the overall trajectory of spending.

Defense is less than half of entitlements NOW and the disparity is only going to increase as the population ages.

noth-ing
something that does not exist. having no prospect of progress; of no value.

It seems as if you have an issue with the meaning of nothing. See above.
And once you've seen above, then see below.

"That does NOT mean one-stop, painless, insta-utopia."

[jfish26]

Change the law specifically to how it applies to military spending.

Which will do nothing to address the overall trajectory of spending.

Defense is less than half of entitlements NOW and the disparity is only going to increase as the population ages.

Yes, but walking and chewing gum, and so on. I'm all about being as proactive as possible on the front end, to put people in a position to put themselves on a trajectory to not need the entitlements later. That takes money - but I'd like us to use our massive resources more on the front end than the remedial, "emergency" end.

(So yes, part of what I'm advocating for, in combination with other things, is reducing prospective entitlements for those with the means to pay for themselves. Obviously you can't (or at least shouldn't) foist this on people who've already gone down the path.)

[DCHawk1]

(So yes, part of what I'm advocating for, in combination with other things, is reducing prospective entitlements for those with the means to pay for themselves. Obviously you can't (or at least shouldn't) foist this on people who've already gone down the path.)

[DCHawk1]

Change the law specifically to how it applies to military spending.

Which will do nothing to address the overall trajectory of spending.

Defense is less than half of entitlements NOW and the disparity is only going to increase as the population ages.

noth-ing
something that does not exist. having no prospect of progress; of no value.

It seems as if you have an issue with the meaning of nothing. See above.
And once you've seen above, then see below.

"That does NOT mean one-stop, painless, insta-utopia."

Agreed. It will make you feel better, which is what matters most to you.

[pdub]

Well, sure, generally, since I know it would be the fair thing to do for the rest of the country, and that yes, I am one single individual living in his own existence and am arguing a point of which I am in favor and if that came into fruition, I would be in agreement with that particular policy at that moment in time.

[pdub]

"Hey DC, could you go to the store and buy a new lightbulb? The one in the kitchen is out."

"That's not going to stop other lightbulbs from going out in the future. Also, we have gutters that need to be cleaned, a lawn that needs to be mowed, a drip in the bathtub that needs to be fixed and I also want a new car."

"OK, but can we start with the lightbulb?"

"If it will make you feel better, which matters most to you."

[Sparko]

The economy has changed forever and concepts such as entitlements are simple distractors. Poking a hole in the ground and plundering oil is not such a great economic model either. We need a complete reset on what it is people can do and work for in the future. Rather than pay a consultant to this, I would use AI. And I would use AI to track welfare payments and robots to arrest people on disability. And I would means test all those still working in the service industry to determine when they might ever retire. Using workers at a call center in India. Six degrees of VGR

[Shirley]

Change the law specifically to how it applies to military spending.

Which will do nothing to address the overall trajectory of spending.

Defense is less than half of entitlements NOW and the disparity is only going to increase as the population ages.

Yes, but walking and chewing gum, and so on. I'm all about being as proactive as possible on the front end, to put people in a position to put themselves on a trajectory to not need the entitlements later. That takes money - but I'd like us to use our massive resources more on the front end than the remedial, "emergency" end.

(So yes, part of what I'm advocating for, in combination with other things, is reducing prospective entitlements for those with the means to pay for themselves. Obviously you can't (or at least shouldn't) foist this on people who've already gone down the path.)

I agree with you, except, when you means test a benefit, i.e., limit eligibility for social programs based on income rather than making it universal, you're very likely to cause a number of problems that are less likely with a universally available benefit:

It's more expensive to provide, because you apparently can't avoid creating a huge bureaucracy and a mountain of paperwork to avoid giving the benefits to people who don't qualify.

It's much harder to sell, politically.

Means testing has long been associated with moral arguments and social stigmas, which will motivate opportunistic politicians to inevitably use it to foment anger and resentment among their followers towards people who do qualify for the benefit:



Among other reasons.

[Mjl]

This is a good conversation.
I wish this was still the political discourse in our country.
(Nothing of actual substance to add)

[Overlander]

Really? In a thread where you're praising a guy as a savior for wanting to collect the nickels and dimes of overpaid gov't employees, you're also going to act like billionaires paying 8.2% effective income tax rates is a meaningless drop in the bucket?

Also, why am I paying 37% ?

Because you and the Mrs. have taxable income of more than $647,851?

It’s complicated. With selling off a LOT of real estate, and higher than normal income….not far off.

[PhDhawk]

This is a good conversation.
I wish this was still the political discourse in our country.
(Nothing of actual substance to add)

It's not a coincidence that this happened while randy was banned.

[zsn]

It’s inaccurate to call Social Security and Medicare as “entitlements”. Maybe “obligations” from a budget standpoint. A vast majority of those who get benefits have paid into the system. We can argue about the magnitude of payments and benefits but it’s closer to an insurance policy.

One easy change which would make it not a burden on the budget would be to increase the cap to maybe $300k. Even better would be to exempt the first $25-40k from withholding and begin phasing out the cap from say $250k to $400k. Also remove the exemption for “unearned”/capital gains only income.

[Sparko]

ZSN. Win.

[jfish26]

Which will do nothing to address the overall trajectory of spending.

Defense is less than half of entitlements NOW and the disparity is only going to increase as the population ages.

Yes, but walking and chewing gum, and so on. I'm all about being as proactive as possible on the front end, to put people in a position to put themselves on a trajectory to not need the entitlements later. That takes money - but I'd like us to use our massive resources more on the front end than the remedial, "emergency" end.

(So yes, part of what I'm advocating for, in combination with other things, is reducing prospective entitlements for those with the means to pay for themselves. Obviously you can't (or at least shouldn't) foist this on people who've already gone down the path.)

I agree with you, except, when you means test a benefit, i.e., limit eligibility for social programs based on income rather than making it universal, you're very likely to cause a number of problems that are less likely with a universally available benefit:

It's more expensive to provide, because you apparently can't avoid creating a huge bureaucracy and a mountain of paperwork to avoid giving the benefits to people who don't qualify.

It's much harder to sell, politically.

Means testing has long been associated with moral arguments and social stigmas, which will motivate opportunistic politicians to inevitably use it to foment anger and resentment among their followers towards people who do qualify for the benefit:



Among other reasons.

The counterpoint would be that we means test all the time. We means test on income tax rates, on federal education grants (as opposed to loans), on other things.

I just don’t think it would be outrageous to tell people who are, say, 35 and under (or 45, or 25, whatever) that their ultimate entitlement will be reduced or eliminated with reference to their lifetime taxable earnings.

Should someone who earns income at the top bracket or two for decades expect to get anything from social security? In my view, it would be fair to say no.

[Sparko]

I disagree Fish. First, they earned it. Second, terrible things happen as you age and needs change. Fair taxation for good years above the mean is the way. The problem with means tests is that they would be excuses to knock almost everyone off of SS. I would like to see the retirement age lowered myself and have us work to have a better QOL for the middle and lower classes.

[jfish26]

I disagree Fish. First, they earned it. Second, terrible things happen as you age and needs change. Fair taxation for good years above the mean is the way. The problem with means tests is that they would be excuses to knock almost everyone off of SS. I would like to see the retirement age lowered myself and have us work to have a better QOL for the middle and lower classes.

It’s complicated, and I’m grateful to have the conversation without everyone going to loud and angry corners.

To me, the money to support middle and lower class QOL has to come from somewhere. And handouts to people who don’t need them is, broadly speaking and to me, a fine place to start in principle.

[DCHawk1]

It’s inaccurate to call Social Security and Medicare as “entitlements”.

OK. Take it up with Uncle Sam. That's what he calls them.

[Sparko]

It’s inaccurate to call Social Security and Medicare as “entitlements”.

OK. Take it up with Uncle Sam. That's what he calls them.

Like "right to work."