Originally Posted by roachboy (Post 2775003)

the equivalence is false.
if that's all you've got, your argument falls down.

Originally Posted by dc_dux (Post 2775021)

But any comparison to the adverse effects of smoking/drinking is just assanine.

Originally Posted by Cimarron29414 (Post 2775145)

I'm comparing the positive affects of doing it compared to the status quo of not doing it. The only person who made any comparison to smoking was roachboy. Do you think it is appropriate to call roachboy assinine? I think he shares your position on this issue, although I wouldn't be so bold as to speak for him.

Originally Posted by dc_dux (Post 2775021)

Enact and enforce social and workplace policies that make breast feeding more acceptable and accessible...and a tax on baby formula might be reasonable as well.

Originally Posted by dc_dux (Post 2775160)

No, in fact it was ace who made the comparison with the comment about liberal minds going "bizzaro".

It is bizarro to raise that comparison.....and your comparison to tanning beds is nearly as bizarre.

Originally Posted by aceventura3 (Post 2775756)

I don't want to tax baby formula. I do not want to tax cigarettes either. but, I would tax both to the degree use imposes costs upon society.

What do you see as the role of tax policy? Do you think the point is to redistribute wealth? Punish? Encourage/discourage your pet issues of the day? What?

---------- Post added at 06:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:56 PM ----------



The problem is that there is no consistency in your approach to tax policy, nor can you clearly define the role you think tax policy should play in our society. I think for some reason you fear openly saying what you really believe on this subject. I wonder why.

Originally Posted by Derwood (Post 2776085)

just tax the shit out of High Fructose Corn Syrup (or stop subsidizing it so heavily).

Oh wait, that'll never happen....

Originally Posted by Derwood (Post 2776085)

just tax the shit out of High Fructose Corn Syrup (or stop subsidizing it so heavily).

Oh wait, that'll never happen....

Originally Posted by guy44 (Post 2776120)

Amen, brother. How come conservatives aren't up in arms about this? I mean, they just clearly aren't going to be able to cut entitlements any time soon, so why not look to something that everyone (except the recipients) agrees is useless? If they want to cut government spending, they should target the $20 billion a year in farm subsidies that are totally pointless and are an actual waste of taxpayer dollars. If Fox and Palin and Beck and Boehner and all them started going apeshit about farm subsidies, they'd not only be in the right, but they might actually succeed in reducing government spending. And every liberal who doesn't grow corn or soybeans would be happy to join them!

Yes, yes, I know that this a a bipartisan problem originating with the nature of the Senate, etc., but I can't take these people even a little bit seriously if they try to cut food stamps or unemployment insurance in the name of fiscal responsibility but would never touch farm subsidies.

Originally Posted by Cimarron29414 (Post 2776150)

Farms subsidies? Really? You speak of being taken seriously when your best solution to a $1,400,000,000,000 budget overrun rate is the $20,000,000,000 in farm subsidies. Look at you, only $1,380,000,000,000 left to find! :thumbsup:

Originally Posted by Cimarron29414 (Post 2776359)

No, I wasn't being playful or sarcastic. I was being absolutely dead serious.

Tell you what, I'll give you farm subsidies. You let me phase out Social Security ($675,000,000,000 paid out just last year).

Imagine all the people...planning their own retirement like grown-ups.

Let me guess, this falls into your "not realistic" category. Why is that exactly? Perhaps we should start with you giving an itemized list of the sacred cows. That way, we avoid the wrath of your intolerance.

I do find it curious that you have no tolerance for fellow Americans who choose a different role for government in their lives than you. Do all manner of people who have different views than you receive the same intolerance or is it limited to conservatives? I'm not a conservative, in the sense that you mean it, so I just want to check before we continue. I mean, if you have no tolerance for my kind as well, then there really would be no point in continuing a dialog.

Originally Posted by dippin (Post 2776412)

Of course, to balance the budget you must phase out the benefits, but keep the contributions. Otherwise that deficit would still be that big.

Originally Posted by Cimarron29414 (Post 2776359)

No, I wasn't being playful or sarcastic. I was being absolutely dead serious.

Tell you what, I'll give you farm subsidies. You let me phase out Social Security ($675,000,000,000 paid out just last year).

Imagine all the people...planning their own retirement like grown-ups.

Let me guess, this falls into your "not realistic" category. Why is that exactly? Perhaps we should start with you giving an itemized list of the sacred cows. That way, we avoid the wrath of your intolerance.

I do find it curious that you have no tolerance for fellow Americans who choose a different role for government in their lives than you. Do all manner of people who have different views than you receive the same intolerance or is it limited to conservatives? I'm not a conservative, in the sense that you mean it, so I just want to check before we continue. I mean, if you have no tolerance for my kind as well, then there really would be no point in continuing a dialog.

Originally Posted by Cimarron29414 (Post 2776429)

Yes, you have to fill in the hole that you dug. First, you have to quit digging the hole. We are still digging.

Specifically, I would happily relinquish all rights to the SS funds I have already contributed - as long as I don't have to contribute any more.

Originally Posted by guy44 (Post 2776519)

Ignoring the craziness of "phasing out" social security...

Originally Posted by Cimarron29414 (Post 2776583)

When SS was created, it was designed to help people who simply lived beyond the average life expectancy and had extinguished their personal retirement. Adjusting for today's longevity, SS should not even kick in until you are 85 or so. Doing that, you reduce the amount needed. What's more, the fact that the system continued to reduce the age of benefits and turn it into a true retirement program is why it broke and it went from something like .3% of your income (as a tax) to 7.5% today.

As an example, a 22 year-old today would simply have to contribute 2% of their income for 15 years to pay for those on SS until it phased out. They would get nothing in return other than the knowledge that they don't have to give 7.5% for the rest of their career with no hope of ever seeing that money. A 32 year-old would pay 1% for the next, say, 7 years. Something like that. It doesn't really matter the exact formula - you can't tell me that one does not exist. It can be done and be phased out.

---------- Post added at 09:51 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:48 AM ----------



Exactly why is that crazy?

Originally Posted by dippin (Post 2776592)

Of course it can be "phased out." Still doesn't change the fact that if you don't cut current benefits you can't cut current contributions.

Originally Posted by Tully Mars (Post 2776597)

I say we just tax all the neo-cons that supported the Iraq debacle until the money spent on that is payed off. Think that's approaching 1 trillion quickly. That should help fund Grandma's SS and Medicare for a while longer.

Originally Posted by Cimarron29414 (Post 2776602)

What am I missing here? I am agreeing that you can not slash benefits to people who are currently depending on that money and are on a fixed income. However, there is a sliding scale as to who will need to see any of that money. The younger you are, the longer you have to prepare for retirement. So, the new workforce isn't going to get anything, but they do have to pay into it for a short period of time. Over time, the program disappears because those receiving benefits...well, they die. Then, no one has to pay into it any more.

---------- Post added at 11:39 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:34 AM ----------



Ooh, ooh! Let's tax all the liberals who supported the war on poverty, since that has been a complete debacle too. Oh, and then there's the war on drugs, let's tax everyone who supported that! Oh, and we could tax everyone who supported "No child left behind" since that isn't working either. And in 15 years, we can tax all the liberals who thought Obamacare was a good idea, because that will be another $3T back in the kitty.

I fully support punishing the people who think the federal government's stupid ideas are good ones.:thumbsup:

Originally Posted by Tully Mars (Post 2776623)

Sounds like you're interesting in "punishing" one group way more then the other.

Also- You might want to look into the history of SS and why it was started, cause..



Is highly inaccurate.

Originally Posted by dippin (Post 2776632)

No, my point is that people would have to keep paying for a long period of time in order to not cut any current benefits and not generate additional deficits. Chile did what you want to do in 1981, but for 20 years the old pension system still cost about 20% of gdp, which was a significant chunk of the government's budget.

As for the other point. I'm not a liberal in the American sense of the word. I'm more of an old social democrat. But when you look at what both self described conservatives and liberals want to cut from the budget, and what they want to keep, the only real difference is that liberals are ok with increasing taxes. the vast majority of so called conservatives are just as opposed to cutting social security, medicare, and aid to the poor as liberals.

Originally Posted by Cimarron29414 (Post 2776634)

I'm not interested in punishing anyone. You brought it up, I threw the other direction at you. Although, the war on drugs/poverty/education are equally as stupid as the war on Iraq - with no better outcome for all the money thrown at it.

Look at the age at which the SS benefit was dispersed at the time the program was created and cross-reference that value with the average life span of Americans at the time. If you did the same thing for today's life span, one wouldn't qualify for SS until the age of 84 or so. Hence, it's obvious it was only supposed to cover those who live a REALLY long time (as opposed to the current benefit which they started issuing as early as 65 and have had to move it because of the debacle (your word) it has become.)

---------- Post added at 01:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:51 PM ----------



dippin,

I'm not focusing on just SS. That just happened to be the program I chose to counter someone's farm subsidies assertion. There are many other programs I would cut. Some of the taxes from those programs would then be diverted to offset SS until it was fully phased out.