"The Time for Austerity is Not Today" (And By Today, I Also Mean Tomorrow).

That's Jack Lew, White House chief of staff, talking to David Gregory of Meet the Press.

Despite years of growing spending and growing deficits, this ain't the time to cut spending, says Lew, who offers up the hope that "Congress should take long-term deficit reduction seriously."

Obama's budget plan will be released sometime this morning. Check back here for analysis.

More with Lew here.

Return now to the thrilling yesteryear of January 2009, when the Wash Post titled a piece, "Stimulus Aside, Obama Vows Future Budget Restraint."

Tomorrow never comes, don't you know?

Comments

[Tulpa]

If only Michelle took that attitude about foisting her dietary predilections on us. The measure of a man (or woman) is how they treat the people they have absolute power over:

First lady announces expansion of military nutrition program on Arkansas visit

[PS]

This is true. Never trust someone who is abusive to people like wait staff.

[LIBERTARD PROPERTY "THEORY"]

LIBERTARD: "Only someone that believes in property can have anything stolen, which means nothing can be stolen from you."

Libertards evidently would steal candy from a baby, and sleep like one that night.

KOCKsucking Libertards are white NEO-BOLSHEVIKS intent on taking everything.

"[The Native Americans] didn't have any rights to the land ... ANY WHITE PERSON who brought the element of civilization had THE RIGHT TO TAKE over this continent." ~Ayn Rand, US Military Academy at West Point, March 6, 1974

Libertardism = justifying the RIGHT TO TAKE. (At least if you're "any white person.")

MORE STUFF FOR ME!
MORE STUFF FOR ME!
MORE STUFF FOR ME!
MORE STUFF FOR ME!

It's a virtue.

P.S. Don't let them nigra types in on the deal; they got too much melanin, makes 'em "aggressors."

In short; RACIALIST SCIENCE is properly not an act of aggression or a cover for oppression of one group over another, but, on the contrary, an operation in defense of private property against assaults by aggressors. ~Murray Rothbard

[White Indian loves little boys]

[best libertard retort EVER]

[White Indian loves little boys]

[fish]

Jason,

I know this will come as huge shock to Big Chief of the "Tribe of Anthropik" but there are huge swaths of people who identify as libertarians who have never read Rand or care much about what she said.

Shouldn't you be out walking off that programmer baby fat like we discussed?

[Rand acurately said land=TAKEN]

Was she correct, or not? Who really cares who said it, except some pissant fish like you?

[White Indian loves little boys]

[Kwanzaa Cake]

So she said that obesity is a national security issue. Proof positive that when these efforts to achieve better nutrition through persuasion fail -- and they will --- they will be imposed by force of law. The broccoli madate is almost sure to happen if SCOTUS upholds Obamacare, it is just a matter of time.

[PS]

And the main reason they fail is because they include more "healthy whole grains" and demonize SFAs.

[That damn NIGRA in the W.H.]

Can't do nuthin' right.

[White Indian loves little boys]

[Gambol Lockdown=imposed by law]

Why are you ok with gambol lockdown being imposed by force of law, but not cakehole lockdown?

[Lockdown is ok when we do it.]

[White Indian loves little boys]

[o3]

the army reports that ~40% of potential recruits are too overweight & outta shape to train.

[Obesity=Civilization Syndrome]

Thesis #9: Agriculture is difficult, dangerous and unhealthy.
Thesis #21: Civilization makes us sick.
by Jason Godesky
http://rewild.info/anthropik/thirty/

[White Indian loves little boys]

[sloopyinca]

40% of potential recruits

Do you even know what this stat means, PissFacktory?

40% of "potential" recruits means 40% of the people in the age and socio-economic group that are more likely to darken the doorstep of a military recruiter's office. It does not mean 40% of the people that come in the office. The % of obese people who actually begin basic training is considerably lower.

Read the numbers in this 2009 article, and you'll see the % that fail induction physicals is close to 5%. And passing the induction physical does not ensure induction, it's merely a step in the process. In reality, the % of people entering the military who are too overweight to train is probably under 3%.

But nice try to expand the state's control over our lives through lies and distortions, you dick.

[Tulpa]

He also forgot to mention that 20% of the potential recruits are whining liberal pussies who wear girls pants

[o3]

why the emotional overeaction to a stated fact from the army?

[sloopyinca]

But that "fact" isn't relevant because the vast majority of "potential" recruits never walk through their door. It's the actual recruits that matter, and the % of tubbos that are in that group is well below 5%.

So, I'm not getting emotional. I'm just pointing out that your statistic is not only useless, but that it's manufactured with a goal in mind.

[o3]

its the army saying that so what's their goal?

[sloopyinca]

Gee, I don't know. Perhaps it's more funding. And are you sure it's the army, or rather some other DoD (read: political appointee) group that came out with the study?

I'm gonna have to demand a citation on this, as I think you pulled it cleanly out of your asshole. Tulpa's story says: About one-fourth of 17 to 24-year-olds in the country are too overweight to serve in the Armed Forces, Obama noted.

It never makes a 40% claim and it's just her running her pie-hole. Cite your data (like I did) or admit you were lying.

[o3]

School lunches impact recruitment

By Mary Clare Jalonick - The Associated Press
Posted : Tuesday Apr 20, 2010 8:27:30 EDT

WASHINGTON ? School lunches have been called many things, but a group of retired military officers is giving them a new label: national security threat.

That's not a reference to the mystery meat served up in the cafeteria line either. The retired officers are saying that school lunches have helped make the nation's young people so fat that fewer of them can meet the military's physical fitness standards, and recruitment is in jeopardy.

A new report being released Tuesday says more than 9 million young adults, or 27 percent of all Americans ages 17 to 24, are too overweight to join the military. Now, the officers are advocating for passage of a wide-ranging nutrition bill that aims to make the nation's school lunches healthier.
http://www.armytimes.com/news/.....ty_042010/
_
retired officer group, not DoD.

my bad trying to remember this from 010. it is 27% however.

[o3]

A shocking 20 percent of all male recruits and 40 percent of female recruits are too heavy to enter into the military ranks. Basically, the new recruits have to lose weight so they can barely pass the minimum standards in both the height/weight measurements as well as the physical fitness tests. See the PFT standards for all military branches.
http://www.military.com/milita.....t-to-fight
_
correction - i mis-remembered that the 40% was potential female recruits.

[o3]

A shocking 20 percent of all male recruits and 40 percent of female recruits are too heavy to enter into the military ranks. Basically, the new recruits have to lose weight so they can barely pass the minimum standards in both the height/weight measurements as well as the physical fitness tests. See the PFT standards for all military branches.
http://www.military.com/milita.....t-to-fight
_
I mixed-up the numbers. the 40% was potential female recruits.

[o3]

A shocking 20 percent of all male recruits and 40 percent of female recruits are too heavy to enter into the military ranks. Basically, the new recruits have to lose weight so they can barely pass the minimum standards in both the height/weight measurements as well as the physical fitness tests. See the PFT standards for all military branches.
http://www.military.com/milita.....t-to-fight
_
I mixed-up the numbers. the 40% was potential female recruits.

[o2]

A shocking 20 percent of all male recruits and 40 percent of female recruits are too heavy to enter into the military ranks. Basically, the new recruits have to lose weight so they can barely pass the minimum standards in both the height/weight measurements as well as the physical fitness tests. See the PFT standards for all military branches.
http://www.military.com/milita.....t-to-fight
_
I mixed-up the numbers. the 40% was potential female recruits.

[o3]

A shocking 20 percent of all male recruits and 40 percent of female recruits are too heavy to enter into the military ranks.
http://www.military.com/milita.....t-to-fight
_
yep the 40% is potential female recruits.

[o3]

A shocking 20 percent of all male recruits and 40 percent of female recruits are too heavy to enter into the military ranks.
_
yep the 40% is potential female recruits

[o3]

oops linky - http://www.military.com/milita.....t-to-fight

[o3]

link - http://www.military.com

[sloopyinca]

No stats at that link you gave. And a couple of people saying 20% of "potential" male recruits and 40% of "potential" female recruits without saying what their methodology is sounds rather dubious.

The fact that you cannot provide a cite to support your (and their) claim adds to my skepticism.

[R C Dean]

As long as people treat out-year budget cuts with anything except derision and scorn, nothing will change.

[Old Soldier]

But I do, and nothing changed.

[Fist of Etiquette]

"There is pretty broad agreement that the time for austerity is not today," said Jack Lew, Obama's chief of staff, on NBC's Meet the Press.

He's not lying. About the everybody he knows agreeing part, I mean.

[annonymous commenter some guy]

And by tomorrow, I also mean Ever.

[P Brooks]

Hamburgers for everyone!

[o3]

ever wonder why a beef burger is called ham?

[Sparky]

[Deletes post about Hamburg because it's not worth the time]

[PS]

But Hamburg was named after ham!

[o3]

it was a joke sparky. jeesch

[Sparky]

I stopped giving your intelligence any credit a long time ago.

[o3]

thanks & have a blessed day

[Kwanzaa Cake]

The time for austerity may not be today (er, except for the military), but it sure as hell is time to tax the living shit out of couples making $251,000.

[o3]

actually its a mil. and do try the mardi gras king cakes

[West Texas]

Of course the time for austerity is not today. They're running for reelection.

[The Angry RPh]

When I saw the headline I thought the article was going to be about Greece. We're both headed down the same road, they're just a little ahead of us. Time to order another thousand rounds of five-five-six.

[Playa Manhattan]

Lake City M855 was on sale last week...

[The US Senate]

The time for passing a budget is not today. We have a nascent recovery taking hold and to pass a budget now might reverse the gains our lawlessness have fostered.

[Tony]

But you guys won't be satisfied until every last cent in the hands of every retired or disabled person is in the hands of the more deserving offspring of billionaires. Unless those retired and disabled people get off their asses and start flipping burgers. Then they can take the $2/hour you'd let them make.

Being hysterical about "spending" plays into the Republican party's hands because that's a vulnerability for Obama (never mind that he's had little choice in the matter given his predecessor's record deficits and near destruction of the economy, and the GOP's dogmatic refusal to raise any revenues). It's simply a matter of hitting Obama where he's weak and continuing the neverending quest of Republicans to use deficits (which they are mostly responsible for) as the excuse to gut the social safety net. That's fine I guess, I just wish you (and they) would be honest about it. No other explanation is possible given a total refusal to raise any taxes.

[Matrix]

if you feel so bad for them, you pay for their care. Don't expect the rest of society to be forced to pick up the tab. There are plenty of other bleeding hearts out there that would do the same, and I'm sure a lot of kids would actually take care of their parents. You don't need to rob people in order to do it.

but liberals are okay with being charitable, so long as it is with someone else's money.

[Tony]

I don't feel anything for them. I simply live on planet earth. It's a novel feature of the human species that people tend to live into old age. You can't expect people to work until they drop, so some program must exist to ensure that people aren't going bankrupt and becoming unable to do anything productive while they care for their parents. A transfer program like social security is a simple, rational way to handle these realities, and you don't have anything to offer except "MINE MINE MINE WAAAH!" Never mind that "mine" means nothing in the absence of government handouts like police, courts, contract law. Why don't you get off the teat, looter?

[R C Dean]

I see. There is no difference, none at all, in a society that has the rule of law but no forced transfer programs, and one that has the rule of law and forced transfer programs.

The rule of law necessarily implies forced transfer programs. I had not realized that, prior to FDR, the US was a lawless society.

[Tony]

Of course there's a difference: one is better. It's just that it can't be theft to pay for one thing with taxes, but not theft to pay for another thing with taxes. It looks very much like it's only "theft" when it's a program you don't like. Of course it's legitimate and proper for me to shell out tax money whenever it's a program you need.

Defend your preferred social structure all you want, just don't tell me any other system is inherently immoral. You don't have any justification for that case. It's an excuse to end the conversation at "God says so" and turn off your brain.

What are you afraid of, that you'd have to admit that Social Security has been pretty fabulously successful for its purposes?

[R C Dean]

It's just that it can't be theft to pay for one thing with taxes, but not theft to pay for another thing with taxes.

I'm not one of the "All taxation is theft" people, Tony. I do believe that some taxation is theft, though, depending on what it is used for.

Tax funds used to fund a minarchy are not "theft" because they are used to provide the rule of law, which isn't free, and which provides a benefit to everyone, including me.

Tax funds used to fund transfer programs don't provide a benefit to everyone (by definition), but instead benefit one class of people by forced exaction from another. Sounds like theft to me.

You don't have any justification for that case.

Sure I do. You just don't want to hear it. Who, exactly, is trying to end a conversation and turn off their brain, here?

[sloopyinca]

You're a heartless bastard that refuses to recognize the faults of our founders, RC Dean. Were you asleep in class when they covered the mass starvation of old people in 19th Century America? Or how corpses of disabled people were stacked like so much cordwood in New York and Boston just after the Civil War.

[Tony]

sloopy, life expectancy in the Founder's time was in the 30s. It didn't rise to above 60 until the 1930s or so. People living to old age regularly was a new fact of human existence in the 20th century. An old-age safety net is how every modern society has dealt with this new reality. Your answer is what? Is there anything you have to offer that doesn't in fact lower life expectancy and impose general misery on millions of people?

It's really no surprise that an eternal and pure conception of a market and society that must work only one way for all time isn't adequate to deal with the increase in human lifespans in the 20th century. Why do you suppose it would?

[sloopyinca]

life expectancy in the Founder's time was in the 30s. It didn't rise to above 60 until the 1930s or so.

Yeah, I'm gonna have to call bullshit on this one. While infant mortality may have been much greater, technology and availability of medicine has had a huge impact on that number. But once born, the life expectancy only really went up by about 6 years from 1850 to 1940 for a 10 year old. For 20 year olds up to 40 year olds, the life expectancy increase got considerably narrower. And that has changed about 8-9 years from the 30's to modern day, and can certainly be attributed more to quality of care and improved pharmaceuticals than some social safety net. If there had been a dramatic change due to a social safety net, it would be more dramatically noticeable in this study.

Again, you are using emotion rather than facts to make your point.

[Tony]

But those programs do benefit everyone, as I explained. Either you will become old or you will have a parent who does. Even if neither happens, the resulting society in which there aren't millions of poverty-stricken old people is arguably preferable to the alternative. Is it "theft" to pay for police even if you never use their services?

All I ask is that you defend the utility of the system you favor, because it truly is a conversation stopper to say that any other system is immoral. That's not a matter of fact, but of opinion. One that says that you're right just because you say so.

[R C Dean]

But those programs do benefit everyone, as I explained. Either you will become old or you will have a parent who does.

(1) Not necessarily, in either case.

(2) In any event, those programs are inherently unsustainable, so they won't be a benefit to anyone after they crash.

(3) My parents saved their whole lives, and don't rely on SocSec for anything. They could also afford their own healthcare, and in fact pay for much of their healthcare out of pocket, because they can afford higher-quality services than Medicare alone will pay for.

Even if neither happens, the resulting society in which there aren't millions of poverty-stricken old people is arguably preferable to the alternative.

Are you under the impression that (a) taxing away people's ability to save for their old age, and (b) giving them a check that is below the poverty line, somehow reduces the number of old people in poverty?

[Tony]

I'm so happy for your parents. It's a good thing everyone is in exactly their situation.

You can rest easy on SS, which is entirely sustainable. Medicare has problems, but none that can't be dealt with by honest rational people. That doesn't include you and the Republicans whose scaremongering you're dutifully parroting. How convenient that we're always one budget away from the entire system collapsing and having to impose exactly the type of society you guys prefer: one that protects the luxuries of the rich but ignores the needs of the poor. And that's what you arrive at through "morals."

[R C Dean]

You can rest easy on SS, which is entirely sustainable.

Nothing that is deficit-financed is sustainable. And SS is deficit financed.

Think about that: Your marquee program consumes 15% of payroll, and it still has to borrow. That's sustainable?

[DesigNate]

You're White Indian, aren't you Tony?

[The Pointer-Outer]

"It's just that it can't be theft to pay for one thing with taxes, but not theft to pay for another thing with taxes" = "Everything should be paid for with taxes"

[Terrorific]

Since the purpose was to permanently bind the people to the State and have their retirement invested on keeping the status quo....yeah, I guess it has been successful.

[Matrix]

What do I have to offer? Oh, I dunno... savings?! Parents living with their children? Charity? Hmm, things that exist with or without government programs.

[KDN]

No, no, that could never work. If you don't want the state to handle something then you don't want it to get done. The state is always the most efficient and effective way to do anything. Why can't you people just accept that?

[Efficient and, Effective?]

The state can at times be very efficient. The state can also be very effective, if freedom is not your goal.

But it's rarely ever efficient AND effective at the same time.

[Sparky]

You can't expect people to work until they drop, so some program must exist to ensure that people aren't going bankrupt and becoming unable to do anything productive while they care for their parents.

Because it would be immoral to ask people to plan for their own future then enable them to enact those plans.

[sloopyinca]

If only there were a place people could put money away periodically until they were of an age they couldn't, or chose not to, work anymore. And if they could earn interest on the money they put there so it outpaced or kept up with inflation. Or if perhaps they could give money to other people to invest in low-risk ventures so that over a long period of time, those small self-imposed deductions could be accumulated into a sum large enough so they could stop working for the rest of their lives.

Ooh, and if only there were private charities that people could voluntarily donate money to so that aged and indigent people could be cared for in a way they agreed with.

Unfortunately, those things do not exist, so we must rely on government to do them for us...with the full threat of violence if we refuse to participate.

[Tony]

Fine, and when you can demonstrate that such a system is superior to a simple universal safety net, you'll have a point. I don't have your peculiar moral hangup whereby every government program I don't like I consider immoral, so I don't feel like sacrificing the health, well-being, and lives of millions of old people for no good reason.

[R C Dean]

when you can demonstrate that such a system is superior to a simple universal safety net,

The "simple universal safety net" is financially unsustainable. Soon enough, it will be a complicated, means-tested, inadequate safety net, paired with trillions of debt.

[sloopyinca]

By "soon enough," do you mean decades ago, RC Dean?

[fish]

C'mon Rc you're spoiling Ellsworth Tonys Christmas morning.

[sloopyinca]

Are you really claiming that what we have is a "simple, universal safety net?"

And when you start comparing what we have in reality to a simple, universal safety net, then you will see why so many people, not just libertarians, are so damn mad about the transfer of wealth from earners to non-earners.

And I'm sorry, but people should not get a dime of my money just because they've managed to live a little longer than expected. Good on them, but let their kids choose to pay for them or a charity care for them. Once taxes are lowered enough because the burden is not there, people will donate plenty of money to care for old and disabled people. You know, like they did for all time until this expansion of government.

[Tony]

What also happened before this "expansion of government"? Oh yeah, people died in their 40s.

As I said above, long lifespans is a new reality and it must be dealt with in some way. You cannot honestly think that we'd have equal or superior outcomes (i.e., people's basic life-sustaining needs being met into their old age) by relying on charity alone. It's an absurd claim and one that has no factual basis. Yes, people cared for their elders before the increase in life expectancy. They did so in a sort of proto-socialist way, as you describe. A government safety net is the logical extension of that natural human tendency. It assumes that everyone wants to make sure their elders don't die in poverty, and that they also don't want to go bankrupt in the process. SS represents a simple, rational investment. I get that you don't like it because it's forced on you. But without the universality, you'd clearly just be a free rider, because your "morality" consists entirely of "MINE MINE MINE WAAH!"

[R C Dean]

Just one more:

But without the universality, you'd clearly just be a free rider, because your "morality" consists entirely of "MINE MINE MINE WAAH!"

You seem to think that a "universal" transfer program can't have any free riders.

I suggest you recheck your premises. Start with the idea that this year's checks are written entirely with money taxed from this year's taxpayers, and work from there.

[sloopyinca]

Again, totally untrue. Life expectancy by age groups from 1850-2004. Infant mortality was much higher then, but once born, life expectancy has not increased at a higher rate after the 1930's than it did before...without that government-enforced social safety net.*

*Social safety nets were in place prior to FDR, even if Tony refuses to acknowledge them. They were just voluntarily- and family-administered as opposed to government-enforced.

[Tony]

Yeah I said that. People have a natural tendency to act like socialists when it comes to their elders. Now, is every family in a situation to adequately provide for the needs of their old relatives? Or should the poor families just fuck off and die?

[sloopyinca]

Their poor families should be able to rely on charity of their community. Or they should fuck off and die. I really don't care. All I know is that they have no right to what is mine.

And I give to charities regularly. If my tax burden were reduced, I'm sure I'd give even more.

[Tony]

So I presume you'll be giving up all claims to police, courts, contract law, and property rights, since other people help pay for those. Right? Or are you just a childish hypocrite who mistakes utter self-absorption for moral superiority, because Ayn Rand told you it was OK?

[sloopyinca]

I'm of the same mindset as RC Dean above insomuch as I'm a minarchist. A limited constabulary and court system are necessary to enforce individual rights and I have no problem with a minimal tax to pay for them, as they benefit all of society.

I fail to see the correlation with a small flat tax being taken for those and a large (and ever-growing) % of my income being taken that I'll never see again if I drop dead at the age of 59. And I'll never see if I remain above the poverty line. And I'll never see if I live in a stable community. And I'll never see as long as the government views other sexes, races, classes and old people as more worthy of my property than I am.

This isn't about equality or fairness, you nitwit. It's about taking from one class and giving it to another for reasons that are both arbitrary and antiquated.

[Tony]

The problem with your minarchist society, paid for as it is with what otherwise is called immoral theft, is that it ends up having society pay to secure the luxuries of the rich, but totally ignore the needs of the poor. There is no morality that accounts for this, it's simply socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor. Pure oligarchy. Property rights are not universal, after all, because some do not have property. You can't argue that such a thing is universal while SS is not.

[Matrix]

Bullshit, Tony.

If people do not want to participate, they should be able to voluntarily withdraw from the system, but they should not expect to reap the benefits of the system. That's how it would work. Of course, they might receive some 2nd or 3rd order benefits but nothing direct.

Not all property is real property. TVs are no less property than land. Different types of property, but still property. Also, everyone owns at least one thing, and that is their own body. But, in your world, people don't even own that.

[Red Rocks Rockin]

So I presume you'll be giving up all claims to police, courts, contract law, and property rights, since other people help pay for those. Right? Or are you just a childish hypocrite who mistakes utter self-absorption for moral superiority, because Ayn Rand told you it was OK?

Funny how whenever Big State advocates are getting their clock cleaned on the inherent fiscal unsustainability of social welfare programs, they inevitably fall back on threatening the existence of institutions that actually are the basic cornerstones of society.

Your "If we can pay for the basics, why can't we pay for the extras?" mentality is exactly why the western world is teetering on the brink of economic collapse. If you can't extract the money from citizens, you make it up out of thin air and pretend that

The bottom line, as ever, is the fundamental truth that those things which can't be paid for, won't be paid for, and if people are not willing to pay for the services they wish, then those things will eventually go away, either through mandate or simple attrition.

And all the complaining in the world about "unfairness" and "old people starving and dying" isn't going to bring about a reversal once the complexity of friction and the plans/reality mismatch sets in. You're complaining about something that is going to happen whether you like it or not.

You've been so ensconced in the academic class for so long you seem to think that the only reason we're not all living on Gumdrop Lane is because 15 go-zillionaires aren't paying 95% of their income to the government. What's worse is that you can't even look in your own backyard, and see how the fiscal rot in your own institutions is a microcosm of the inevitable result of the bureaucratic lifespan that has made austerity an inevitability.

[Red Rocks Rockin]

If you can't extract the money from citizens, you make it up out of thin air and pretend that

should have read...pretend that this will make up the difference.

[Sparky]

Or should the poor families just fuck off and die?

Nope, everyone else's money should be confiscated to make sure they can be kept alive as long as possible.

[Kreel Sarloo]

What also happened before this "expansion of government"? Oh yeah, people died in their 40s.

That is utter bullshit.

The trend to increased lifespans started long before the advent of the welfare state and was due mostly to increases in wealth due to industrialization. Another factor in raising life expectancy has been the elimination of a host of dangerous manual jobs which is due mostly to increased mechanization - something else that governments had little to do with (except for, at times, impeding its development).

It's been a long time since the life expectancy of people in Western Europe or the USA has been anywhere near as low as "in their 40s".

[Tony]

Yeah, increase in life expectancy has largely to do with technology. The question is, what do you do with all those old people? The technological world of the mid-20th century and later was fundamentally different from anything that came before. Why is one type of market and society adequate for all time? What do you do with the old people? Sounds like you make a bunch of absurd assumptions about how it will all work out.

[sloopyinca]

The question is, what do you do with all those old people?

There's always carousel. Just tweak the age up to 65.

[Isaac Bartram]

You won't be saying that when you're 64. 🙂

[sloopyinca]

I'll be in Sanctuary long before I reach that age.

[Kreel Sarloo]

Tony, geezers aren't just living longer, they're more physically able that their age cohort of previous decades.

Perhaps you're missing the trends here but since the eighties there has been a whole movement to keep geezers on the job. And it isn't just because Ronald Reagan was a meanie who wanted to take all the Benjamins out of the the Social Security Trust Fund and give them out to his zillionaire buddies to light their cigars with.

[Kreel Sarloo]

Tony also falls for the old trap of thinking that life expectancy statistics are brought down by people dying of some kind of premature old age.

Tony the dying "in their 40s" life expectancys were due to men in their twenties, thirties and forties being killed in industrial and agricultural accidents and women in their twenties and thirties dying in childbirth. That and both sexes dying in the prime of life from diseases that we saw the end of long before the welfare state was a major factor.

[Ted S.]

What also happened before this "expansion of government"? Oh yeah, people died in their 40s.

People still die in their 40s

[Mr. Soul]

a govt safety net is immoral. See Ant & Grasshopper.

[The Pointer-Outer]

"I don't feel anything for them."

Inner voice, Tony, or did you really mean to point this out in public?

[Tulpa]

You can't expect people to work until they drop

Do you know how many jobs in America in 2012 are impossible for an 80 year old to do? Not a high percentage.

Physical labor makes up a tiny proportion of our workforce.

[Tony]

So why would it be better to make 80 year olds fill up the jobs that there aren't enough of? To satisfy your hypocritical nonsense ethics? That's not good enough for me, and I doubt it's good enough for the majority of the voting public. Not to mention those who can't work--SS is also for disabled people. What about them? Darwinian selection good enough for animals, it should be good enough for us?

[Tulpa]

As noted below, young workers will be better off with the slightly depressed wages due to older people remaining in the workforce than they would be with regular wages with 12% confiscated so oldsters can order Snuggies all day.

[sloopyinca]

That's not good enough for me, and I doubt it's good enough for the majority of the voting public.

Just like Jews having basic human rights wasn't good enough for the majority of the voting public in 1938 Germany, right? Or the right for women to vote wasn't good enough for the majority of the voting public in the 1800's.

Do you see where I'm going with this "majority of the voting public" thing? If not, I could go on.

[Tulpa]

sloopy ich ein Godwin!

[Tony]

Yeah in order to avoid the important issue that nobody wants what you're selling, you always criticize a straw man--that I'm somehow defending direct democracy on civil rights. You leave off the part where you impose your system by fiat, which seems to be the implication.

[sloopyinca]

Yes, we impose our system of liberty by fiat. While you impose your tyranny at the ballot box.

You're in good company. That's also the way slavery was maintained, Asian immigrants were subjected to a caste system over a century ago and we have an unjust immigration policy.

You should be proud.

[Romney gaffe detector]

Tony: "I don't feel anything for [the retired and disabled]."

[DesigNate]

Right, that's why every single republican refuses to touch medicare, medicaid, social security, and the military.

That's some weak sauce Tony. Call me when they actually do something, not just blovate about it.

[Tony]

Paul Ryan and every Republican who voted for his budget want to do more than "touch" Medicare. There's no excuse for not understanding their motives--they've been decades in the making. They don't care about deficits, they care about right wing social engineering, with deficits as the excuse. That's why they so gleefully ran them up when they were in charge.

[sloopyinca]

By "right-wing social engineering," do you mean having no socially engineered program whatsoever and allowing people to care for themselves, their family and their community through voluntary cooperation where the price of care is not artificially inflated through government manipulation and coercion?

If so, that's some right-wing social engineering I can get behind.

[Tony]

The price of care is inflated via capitalism, not government, whose safety net programs are the only things pushing back against rapid cost increases. Other countries with universal systems pay half per capita what we do, so your argument about cost is simply false.

So the only thing that matters, to me, is whether your system would be more efficient in terms of cost (it wouldn't) and whether it would be equal or superior in providing coverage. It clearly wouldn't, since there's no guarantee of universality. So your outcomes are far worse, and the only reason we have to accept worse outcomes is because you have a stupid moral issue that you don't even apply consistently.

[R C Dean]

The price of care is inflated via capitalism, not government, whose safety net programs are the only things pushing back against rapid cost increases.

I give up.

[sloopyinca]

So do I. Fuck Tony and his refusal to debate in good faith.

[Kreel Sarloo]

The price of care is inflated via capitalism, not government,...

The AMA's restraint of trade actions in restricting both graduation rates and state licensing quotas might be called capitalism in some quarters, but not here. And the AMA can only do those things with the collusion of government.

[Sparky]

It clearly wouldn't, since there's no guarantee of universality.

IT'S NOT FAAAAAIIIIIIIRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Francisco d Anconia]

The price of care is inflated via capitalism, not government,

OMFG! How can you even argue with anyone this ignorant. Guys, you are wasting your time!

[Red Rocks Rockin]

The price of care is inflated via capitalism, not government, whose safety net programs are the only things pushing back against rapid cost increases.

Bullshit. When the government was spending $760 billion a year in 1960, inflation-adjusted, medical costs were actually reasonable. The procedures were relatively primitive compared to today, but you could go get a cast on your arm and not pay through the nose for it.

Ever since the government started subsidizing medical care, the costs have gone up at twice the rate of inflation. Anyone with an understanding of exponential functions can tell you what happens when that occurs. (And tuition increases are even worse, going at four times the rate of inflation, although unsurprisingly enough the government is merely trying to figure out how to cram everyone into college, not lower tuition costs).

You simply can't face up to the fact that the social safety net has run smack-dab into the inherent limitations of human scale.

[Mr. FIFY]

You briefly touched on a huge part of our problems, Tony... "social engineering", in and of itself.

[CityStatism=Social Engineering]

Libertards are all for social engineering of which they approve.

[Mr. FIFY]

Not social engineering = social engineering. Got it.

[White Idiot]

Jason loves his assless chaps.

[White Indian loves little boys]

[Tulpa]

they care about right wing social engineering

Tony = Gingrich?

Please, divorce us and leave us on our deathbeds. Please.

[DesigNate]

And yet, every fucking year they don't implement any of those plans. Again, talk to me when they actually DO something.

Also, since it's obvious you don't care two flips about poor people, stop trying to be their advocate.

[The Pointer-Outer]

You have no standing to call others "hysterical", Tony.

[sloopyinca]

Being hysterical about "spending"...

Dare I say? SEXXXXIST!!!!!!

Why does Tony hate women so much?

[Trespassers W]

But you guys won't be satisfied until every last cent in the hands of every retired or disabled person is in the hands of the more deserving offspring of billionaires.

Yep, you got us pegged. Now go away.

[cynical]

That explains why the most libertarian candidate in the GOP (who actually has a plausible shot this time, at least much so as Gingrich) gets so little money from billionaires and corporations and so much from small donors. I guess those billionaires don't know what's good for them.

[tarran]

I believe that if the billionaires were smart they'd be doing their part to keep the inequalities of wealth low by working in jobs that didn't concentrate money in their pockets. 😉

[P Brooks]

Why don't you get off the teat, looter?

Wheeeeeeee!

[P Brooks]

Savings?

The government is busily destroying those. Why do you suppose that is?

[Matrix]

Interest rates are abysmal. You lose money by saving because the interest rates are far lower than the rate of inflation, even if you have your money in a CD. But, you can also invest.

[R C Dean]

But, you can also invest.

The usual excuse, nay, the reason for, financial repression. "Put your money at risk in a market that has, overall, flatlined for a decade, and has become a mechanism for fleecing small investors".

The Fed's lid on interest rates serves two purposes. One, it kicks the can down the road on our national debt. Two, it forces money into the equity markets, creating another bubble.

[Arcaster]

Excellent observation, R C. I don't think many people realize that the Fed has intentionally pushed people into equities.

[The Inexpicable]

I'm doing Russian savings - high-end luxury goods.

[Tulpa]

My investment manager is Smith & Wesson.

Though the internal lock on the 686 is pissing me off.

[Kreel Sarloo]

You can't expect people to work until they drop...

Why not?

[DesigNate]

Because it's meeeeeeeeeaaaaaaannnnnnn!

You're just a big fat meanie head!

[Kreel Sarloo]

That's about all anyone's ever willing to say in reply to the question. In fact, it's pretty much all Tony says upthread once you remove the excess verbiage.

And the question was asked seriously.

There are few jobs today that are so strenuous that anyone will "drop' because of working too long at any of them.

And as for for the few people that do become incapacitated and have failed to provide for themselves - either through bad luck or bad planning - I'm pretty sure a "social safety net" could be woven that would cost a whole lot less than the Current universal Social Security entitlement.

Medicare, on the other hand is utterly unsustainable. Delivering unlimited state of the art medical treatment to the elderly on demand and on time is impossible. Which, of course, is why no socialized medical system in the world even pretnds to do it.

[Tony]

So when we push millions of old people into the workforce, are you gonna still blame the unemployed for their situation and refuse a safety net for them as well? Apart from the horror of making 90-year-olds work in order to survive, do we really want them taking up all the jobs?

Since you're in favor of an social safety net, all we're arguing about now is details. I have no problem with that. Social security has worked pretty well, but I'm open to modernizing it and any other system, provided the outcomes are better.

[Kreel Sarloo]

So when we push millions of old people into the workforce, are you gonna still blame the unemployed for their situation and refuse a safety net for them as well?

Seriously? Does anyone really still believe the old trope that "we have to retire the geezers so that the young'ns will be able to have their jobs"?

And, no, FWIW, I don't believe that a 65-year-old is any more or less entitled to quit working and go on the public dole (which any honest person recognizes that SS is) than a 25-year-old.

Explain again to me why they are, this time being careful to avoid displaying any signs of complete economic illiteracy.

[Tulpa]

One could make the argument that they've been paying SS taxes for 45 years so they should get something back for it.

[Kreel Sarloo]

Yes, I have to agree. Changes to SS have to be brought in over time - though for reasons that have to do with political reality not with "fairness" or rightness.

The thing is that now is when we have to reform the way will be in the future so that we are not springing a trap on tody's twenty-year-olds the way we did on today's sixty-five-year olds.

[Kreel Sarloo]

Edit:

"...when we have to reform the way [Social Security] will be in the future..."

There are other typos but their meaning is obvious. 🙂

[DesigNate]

I'm tempted to disagree with you simply on the basis that they kept voting in (or running themselves) congress critters who used that extra tax revenue to wage war on drugs and poverty and iraq(twice) and all the other little skirmishes. So I want to say fuck them very much.

Of course not everyone wanted those things to happen or even to be paying SS in the first place so I don't necessarily have a problem with them getting back EXACTLY what they put in. If that's only 50k, that's all they fucking get.

[Tony]

Are you claiming that there are enough jobs for all current retirees who would want them, even though there aren't enough jobs for non-retirees who are seeking them? Where would they come from?

They are entitled because the government says so. Just like you are entitled to have your house and possessions defended by men with guns because government says so. The reason it's a good idea to have a safety net for old people is because without it we'd have millions of poverty-stricken old people being a burden on their families, assuming the families even have the ability to take on that burden. How do you think old people would have fared after the financial crisis without SS? If the only option available to them had been wise investment in the stock market or something? You simply can't beat the security of a government program. You can agree with that and still be against it morally. But at some point you're just being stubborn on that count. Your liberty is to an extent hindered by the taxes taken to pay for SS. But when you become an old person, or a parent does, the investment will pay off. If you're in a situation where such a safety net will never be needed by you or a family member, then congratulations for being too rich for the taxes taken to actually affect your liberty.

[Tulpa]

They are entitled because the government says so. Just like you are entitled to have your house and possessions defended by men with guns because government says so.

Actually, my house and possessions are defended by a man with guns because I say so and I'm that man. All the govt would do to defend my possessions is give me a report number for my insurance company.

[Tony]

Your right to kill another human being for merely stepping on a piece of land you claim is something you have by virtue of what?

[DesigNate]

This is where you reveal yourself to be White Indian or WI's little brother. Fuck off.

[Tulpa]

Your liberty is to an extent hindered by the taxes taken to pay for SS. But when you become an old person, or a parent does, the investment will pay off.

LOL.

I'm never going to see a penny of Social Security and unless you're over 50 neither will you.

[Tony]

That's true if Republicans keep getting elected and deliberately destroy the program. Otherwise there's no reason it can't be indefinitely sustainable.

[Tulpa]

Other than the fact that it's already in deficit and is being funded from the general revenue (via the fiction of "cashing in bonds").

[Francisco d Anconia]

The reason it's a good idea to have a safety net for old people is because without it we'd have millions of poverty-stricken old people being a burden on their families, assuming the families even have the ability to take on that burden.

What part of "it's not sustainable" don't you understand?

Who's going to care for these people when your Ponzi Scheme collapses?

Are you capable of reason?

[Tony]

Prove that social security is not sustainable. I happen to know that's a big fat right-wing lie.

[Kreel Sarloo]

Tony, it's really up to you to prove that social security is sustainable. It's kind of hard to prove a negative and until you come with some cost projections that show that you kind of generous welfare is sustainable I think most of us will accept the ones that have been done by people who are not innumerate.

Even the most liberal organizations are unable to contradict the cost projections that show it's unsustainable.

All they can do is repeat a mantra about "taxing the rich", a group which (however defined) always seems to end up paying less in taxes when you increase their tax rates.

[Tulpa]

The amount that old people working would depress wages is less than the amount young people have to pay in taxes to support them sitting at home clipping coupons.

[Kreel Sarloo]

Thank you, Tulpa. I'll let your answer stand in as mine for Tony.

There is a lot more work to be done in this world than there are people to do it.

The Tonys of the world would do better to ask why the government (republican and Democrat administrations alike) have conspired to make it so expensive to hire people to do the work that needs to get done.

[Tony]

Such a wonderful society you envision. 90 year olds working until they die for less than minimum wage.

Why do you favor a hellishly worse society than what we have? I'll tell you--it's because you don't give a crap about human well-being, you care only about adhering to cultish principles.

[Kreel Sarloo]

Tony that comment contains so many false assumptions that it's impossible to reply to.

[Little Boys]

This Indian guy is creepy!

[Suthenboy]

What is wrong with you people? Tony says no other explanation is possible.
Bow down dammit.

[sloopyinca]

And only a dickhead wears a napkin that way. The proper way is to lay it folded across your lap so it can be properly used to wipe one's mouth. Keeping it folded, even if loosely, allows for one to put gristle or bone into it inconspicuously and to keep it covered throughout the mean inside the fold.

It may be proper, on occasion, to use a bib if eating lobster or ribs, and if so the restaurant will usually provide them specifically for that purpose, but with soup, it is inappropriate.

[Tulpa]

Bones and napkins don't mix, son. You're getting married soon so I have to tell you.

[o3]

obviously u aint around italians much.

[Tulpa]

Are you going to be this much of a stickler at your reception, anyway?

[Bean Counter]

"It's fiscal restraint yesterday, fiscal restraint tomorrow, but never fiscal restraint today" - OFF WITH THEIR FREAKIN' HEADS, ALREADY!

[Kreel Sarloo]

But you guys won't be satisfied until every last cent in the hands of every retired or disabled person is in the hands of the more deserving offspring of billionaires.

Tony, name one single commenter here who has ever advocated taking money that belonged to any retired or disabled person and giving it to someone else.

[Matrix]

If you're not for stealing money from rich people and anyone else who earns an income and giving it to the poor, retired, and disabled, then you are for taking money from those three groups.

[Tulpa]

Tony.

[Kreel Sarloo]

Good one. 🙂

Actually, I love how Tony keeps repeating the same old tired assertions and never actually responds to being contradicted, except to move the goalposts.

[Tony]

Anyone who favors abolishing Social Security and cutting taxes. That is their money by right, just like every cent in your bank account is yours because government says so and has men with guns to enforce that claim.

[Kreel Sarloo]

Most people who have been talking about Social Security reform have been talking in terms of phasing in changes over time that will leave benefits to current and very near future beneficiaries basically untouched. Phasing in means testing and increases in the retirement age have been most offten proposed.

The longer people like you keep opposing any modifications at all the sooner the whole unsustainable mess will come crashing down under its own weight bringing the rest of the economy with it. And then you'll really see some geezers that are on the skids.

So keep on advocating taking money from poor twentysomethings and giving it to geezer millionaires. But you're going to keep pretending that this is necessary to keep old folks from eating petfood.

[Matrix]

Libs want more care for seniors and disabled coupled with high population reductions done through limiting new births. That means they want fewer productive people to support the aging and disabled population.

[Kreel Sarloo]

I think that once all the costs start mounting up you'll find that liberals don't have any more trouble with "death control" than they do with birth control.

Underneath all that "compassion" you'll find that they really don't give a shit about individuals' lives at all. It's all about the collective and their power over it.

[Kreel Sarloo]

And incidentally, nothing in current law says that a single cent of the money that I have "contributed" to Social Security over the last 44 years or so is my "property".

As far as the law is concerned it was all taxes and any benefit promised to me can be withdrawn by Congress any time it wants to act.

The longer assholes like you resist any attempt to change Social Security the sooner Congress will see the need to leave gezers high and dry.

So which of us doesn't "give a crap about human well-being"?

[o3]

A shocking 20 percent of all male recruits and 40 percent of female recruits are too heavy to enter into the military ranks. Basically, the new recruits have to lose weight so they can barely pass the minimum standards in both the height/weight measurements as well as the physical fitness tests. See the PFT standards for all military branches.
http://www.military.com/milita.....t-to-fight
_
I mixed-up the numbers. the 40% was potential female recruits.

[o3]

A shocking 20 percent of all male recruits and 40 percent of female recruits are too heavy to enter into the military ranks.
_
yep the 40% is potential female recruits

[o3]

link - http://www.military.com

[Kreel Sarloo]

Oh, my, surprise, surprise, Tony won't answer once he's challenged to defend his beloved program that transfers wealth from the poor to the well to do.

Come on Tony surely you have a heart felt emotional argument for why people starting out in life with limited resources should be taxed to pay for people at the end of their lives who should have had the foresight to plan for the time when they might not be able to earn money for themselves.