Biden and Trump Try To Wish Away the Looming Entitlement Crisis
Neither presidential candidate is willing to back the reforms necessary to close the gap between revenue and benefits.

In a recent interview with former President Donald Trump, CNBC's Joe Kernen called entitlement reform "a third rail of politics" and suggested "there's not a whole lot of difference" between Trump and President Joe Biden on the issue. The contretemps that followed confirmed the accuracy of both observations, illustrating yet again the bipartisan refusal to seriously address, or even acknowledge, the looming Social Security and Medicare crises.
"There is a lot you can do in terms of entitlements, in terms of cutting and in terms of also the theft and the bad management of entitlements," Trump said. The Biden campaign seized upon the comment as evidence that Trump wants to "slash Social Security and Medicare," and Trump denied any such plan, saying, "I will never do anything that will jeopardize or hurt Social Security or Medicare."
Biden likewise promised to "protect" both programs. "If anyone here tries to cut Social Security or Medicare or raise the retirement age," he vowed during his State of the Union address this month, "I will stop you."
Biden averred that "many of my friends on the other side of the aisle want to put Social Security on the chopping block." But the truth is that Republican House leaders, at Trump's urging, are disinclined to back serious entitlement reforms, fearing the political electrocution to which Kernen alluded.
Contrary to what Trump and Biden imply, it is impossible to "protect" Social Security and Medicare by doing nothing. Inaction will guarantee automatic benefit cuts in less than a decade.
In 2033, according to the latest projections, Social Security's trust fund "will become depleted," and "continuing program income will be sufficient to pay 77 percent of scheduled benefits." Two years before then, Medicare's hospital insurance trust fund "will be sufficient to pay 89 percent of total scheduled benefits."

The programs' trustees note that "lawmakers have many options for changes that would reduce or eliminate the long-term financing shortfalls." But Trump and Biden have ruled out nearly all of them.
Biden did allude to one possible Social Security reform in his State of the Union address, saying he would "protect and strengthen Social Security and make the wealthy pay their fair share." But as my Reason colleague Eric Boehm notes, raising the cap on income subject to the Social Security payroll tax, currently $168,600, would violate Biden's promise "not to raise taxes on anyone earning less than $400,000 annually" and would not "come close to solving the long-term Social Security shortfall."
Tackling "fraud and waste," the solution that Trump seemed to have in mind, would be worthwhile but likewise will not do the trick. In 2023, for example, House Republicans cited an estimate of "$16 billion in improper payments" by Social Security "over the last five years," which is real money but a drop in the bucket compared to the program's projected $4.5 trillion cash deficit during the next decade.
The basic problem with both programs is a mismatch between projected revenue and projected costs, driven by the shrinking ratio of workers to retirees. The only way to eliminate that gap is by increasing revenue, reducing outlays, or (more likely) both.
Those reforms could involve raising the retirement age, increasing payroll taxes on high-income Americans, or means-testing benefits, focusing on retirees who need financial support to cover their bills. As it stands, Social Security regressively transfers money from workers to retirees who are, on average, more affluent. That makes little sense if the aim is to prevent poverty among older Americans, which is how the program originally was framed.
It is no mystery why politicians are reluctant to propose such reforms. Last week, when the Republican Study Committee suggested gradually raising the minimum age for full Social Security benefits from 67 to 69, the White House immediately condemned that modest proposal.
The fear inspired by such attacks encourages politicians to continue kicking the can down the road. But the longer they wait, the more painful the inevitable reckoning will be.
© Copyright 2024 by Creators Syndicate Inc.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Biden tv ads say trump wants to take away social security and cancel health care.
Trump wants to end US Socialist Security???!!!!
If the USA isn't Socialist everyone should know exactly who to vote for by Biden's own TV ads.
That's just political recycling. They've been claiming that for the 3 decades I've been paying attention. The difference is Trump is apt to disagree while prior Republicans would act ashamed and claim that the Democrats were right and that they had been caught in a nefarious scheme just like Old Man Withers in a Scooby Doo cartoon.
Establishment RINOs need to go. Just like democrats.
Once you've gotten rid of the 80% of the party that fall into that category let me know. Until then Republicans are not getting my vote.
Any sane and logical ideas of reforming Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. is met with hysteria, lies and insanity.
There are sane and logical ideas for reforming a program that by its very nature cannot survive?
For Social Security, as only a program for retired people, to survive without withdrawing extra funds from the general fund it requires every adult now to have at least one child growing up and being educated to make at least as much, adjusted for inflation, as they make at their peak income. Also they can't live longer than 25 years. If they plan to live longer they need two kids who will have the education and jobs to pay for their benefts.
Adding in the the disability program, even if just for those who have paid in, you need something like four kids educated and ready to go to work at jobs making as much as you do now adjusted for inflation of course.
Nothing will be done. Social Security will crash into the mountain on autopilot.
Probably backstopped by the federal reserve like everything else right now.
We will be living like people in a third world communist shit hole before Social Security is allowed to finish failing.
Not really a trust fund. The government spends all the money it collected for SS/MC, it's just the amount that it takes in for it is more than the cost of it. Right now. But that wont' be the case in the future.
It was a way for the government to get more money without calling it a tax.
What do you mean? Obama promised the ACA would take care of everything and everybody!! /s
See. 'Guns' don't really make sh*t and a crime-spree just causes massive problems down the road.
1907 Cost to deliver a baby $10.
2024 Cost to deliver a baby $18,865.
USD Inflation Calculator $10@1915 = $290@2022.
All that socialist government meddling has only added 98%+ of the current cost. What a grand-plan of stupidity by citizens and armed-theft by political elites.
Now, to be fair the odds of both mother and child surviving the process have increased. Also the emergency technology available has allowed more premature babies to survive and grow up. So the services are not a one to one comparison.
Inflation has played a HUGE part in that price increase, but one should try for an apples to apples comparison. Like the top of the line Colt handgun of the era. One Troy ounce of gold would buy one in 1910, one Troy ounce of gold would buy one in 2010 and one Troy ounce of gold will buy one today.
And a lollipop today has heavily-processed corn syrup instead of sugar. To be fair; your BS excuse that the stone ages are gone is nothing but trying to blame today on being today.
Compare apples to apples. Not apples to grapes or apples to cardboard boxes. Otherwise you're not really being honest.
Comparing what a doctor did in 1910 to what a doctor does today is not honest. Comparing what kind of education he got in 1910 to the education he gets today is not honest. Comparing the equipment, knowledge base or results of child delivery isn't even honest.
What ... do you think all 1910 doctors were all lazy and stupid?
Pretending industry advances over a 100-years is responsible for every absurd bill is far more dishonest than any supposed dishonesty you're trying to point out.
Here's your argument ... In 1945 ENIAC cost $6,600,000 so today's home PC's should cost $500,000,000.... Right, Right? /s
Wow. This really gets your goat, don't it.
In 1910 doctors were as knowledgeable as they could be. Not stupid, just not able to benefit from the last 100 years of medical research. Infant mortality rates were high because they didn't have the equipment we have available today. Again, advancements in medical science making improvements to life.
I'm not saying the advancements are entirely to blame for the rising costs, but they are a reason and ignoring them makes your inflation calculations as bullshit as the government calculations.
Items make better comparisons even if the underlying manufacturing methods have changed because the item still serves the same purpose and its value is thus unchanged. A state of the art personal defense weapon has the same value in 1910 as it had in 2020. A one pound loaf of bread is a good one. The best are commodities. Gold, silver, oil to name a few.
Services are not something to gage inflation by as there are far more variables you can't accommodate for in the changes. How much did a horse and buggy ride cost in 1910 and how much does it cost today. That is an irrelevant comparison because far too many factors enter into determining price and the value of that ride is different as well.
"Cost to deliver a baby" compared to "Cost to deliver a baby".
As stated from the beginning UR just making BS excuses.
Jumping Jesus on a pogo stick you just can't let this go.
Just some back of the envelope math you are claiming an 1,800% increase in the cost because of government. Only government.
If that were accurate then gold would be at $36,000 an ounce today. It's somewhat lower at around $2,500 an ounce. Perhaps you can blame $1,250 of the increase on government. Hard to say considering you are trying to compare services over time instead of commodities.
"you are claiming an 1,800% increase in the cost because of government. Only government."
^Exactly. And a whole history of evidence to cement that conclusion.
How can it be possible that socialist healthcare can do that?
From Socialist Venezuala, to US Socialist R, to [Na]tional So[zi]alist - Germany *all* socialist governments causing hyperinflation and economical collapse.
Let's try "cost for a car" compared to "cost for a car". If you pick a 1924 Model T versus a 2024 Lamborghini, depending on options it's something like $300 versus $600,000, or a 2,000 to one (200,000%) increase. But we all know that's not a fair comparison.
A more reasonable comparison would be a basic 1924 Model T ($290) versus a basic 2024 Chevy ($30,000?) That's about a 100 to 1 increase. But it's not all inflation. IIRC, headlights and a taillight were extra-cost options on the Model T. There was no radio or starter, let alone an automatic transmission, anti-lock braking, or traction control. The brake was so bad that people used reverse gear when they _had_ to stop. Anyone going on a long trip would take a toolkit, _two_ spare tires, innertube patches, and a tire pump. Someone had to work on the Model T nearly every week; either you learned to do all the routine stuff yourself, or you'd pay a mechanic several times the cost of the car before it was old.
OTOH, a Model T was built very solid, but safety wasn't a design criteria. If you crashed one, there was a pretty good chance that you'd be dead, but your heirs would only have a few minor things to fix on the car. Now, you're protected by seatbelts, airbags, and over $10,000 worth of crush zones. Over half the people I know have walked away from a crash that totaled the car. And that _is_ the result of government regulations. Would you complain about that?
Biden will ‘save’ it by STEALING/TAXING from…
The 10 Biggest Industries by Revenue in the US
1. Commercial Banking in the US $1.359.7B
2. Hospitals in the US $1.331.8B
3. Drug, Cosmetic & Toiletry Wholesaling in the US $1.331.6B
4. Health & Medical Insurance in the US $1.328.4B
5. Pharmaceuticals Wholesaling in the US $1.296.9B
So STEALING money from the medical and banking industry is suppose to make medical and investment cheaper?????
^THAT^ is how financially STUPID the left is.
Then they act surprised when their 'Guns' of theft just caused the price to inflate for everyone.
“Neither presidential candidate is willing to back the reforms necessary to close the gap between revenue and benefits.”
Because there is no electoral benefit to doing so and much risk, as so many of motivated voters have bought into the idea that they are entitled to those benefits as is or better. They will play chicken on this likely until the automatic cuts happen or after because the electorate does not want reform, regardless of whether reform is necessary or not.
It's too late for "reform". SS needs to be scrapped and replaced with a means-tested welfare program for the elderly.
That is not going to happen anytime soon if ever. The same voters preventing minimal reform, will howl against what you propose.
As much as I despise the Democrats of the time much political respect must be given to them for the brilliance of how they created and sold the Social Security Program. It is political death to do anything but prop up its rotting corpse and claim that everything will be fine if only you elect the right people.
Yes, their villainy is impressive.
Frankly it isn't up to the voters by standard measures.
It is a US-Constitution VIOLATION. The Supreme Court should throw it out on UN-Constitutional grounds as they did originally before FDR and Team Socialism threatened to stuff the court with criminals.
Perhaps they should, but they will not, and no one will bring the suit to even ask them the question.
Yeah... That's going to happen.
That is not going to happen anytime soon if ever.
No, it isn't. As I said above, nothing will be done. The SS scam will run until the checks start bouncing.
The SS scam will run until the checks start bouncing.
Quit being so single-minded. There's at least a slim possibility the whole system could collapse into violent lawlessness shortly before the checks start bouncing.
Yes, that could happen. Maybe even this year.
That’s easy for young people who have very little, if any, skin in the game. But everyone I run around with have paid Social Security and Medicare taxes our entire lives. The day we be inserted into a “Welfare” program, is the day that you will see politicians and bureaucrats blood running in the streets.
Did you pay for your COVID stimulus too? SCOTUS already ruled that all you were doing was paying taxes.
When the time comes, the automatic cuts will be repealed, and benefits will continue to be paid out of the treasury. The good news is that after some years of this, SS will be understood as just a general transfer program, with its deficit part of the general ledger, and then may be adjusted like any government spending programs without regard to its needing be a separate balance.
Things could be fixed if we got rid of the democrats. We can shave a country, or we can have democrats.
Sure, if we get rid of the Democrats who will the Republicans suck off?
Nobody. Because Republicans aren't leaches of a socialist (armed-theft) system.
Yeah, sure they aren't.
And I didn't mean sucking blood...
Not sure how the current President and a former President seem to viewed as EQUALLY capable of fixing the entitlement issue.
Boaf sidez!!!!!!!!! Or it’s all Trump’s fault.
I think I just lost the Sarc signal. If he isn’t passed out in a pool of his own vomit.
That makes little sense if the aim is to prevent poverty among older Americans, which is how the program originally was framed.
I’m always hearing people say that it was sold as people getting their taxes back, and that it is like a Ponzi scheme in actuality. If it really was framed as being primarily something to help poor retirees at the time, then it is just like any other welfare program. It just has a dedicated revenue stream instead of being funded from general revenue.
The U.S. has quite a lot less social welfare spending than most other wealthy nations. Entitlements driving the deficit is the framing of libertarians and conservatives that like how much lower the overall tax rates are here.
I see, everything is fine, just keep moving, nothing to see here. How are you?
The reason Libertarians don't like any kind of government run charity program be it for citizens, non citizens, small or large businesses is wealth transfer is still theft and theft is wrong. It's why we are opposed to protectionist tarrifs as well since they are nothing more than another form of government charity for domestic businesses when it comes down to brass tacks.
Social Security is simply the worst of the charity programs as it covers the most people with the flimsiest of promises. For it to work everyone working now must have at least 1 child who grows up to work at a job that pays, adjusted for inflation, at least as much if not more than the parent. That means a minimum of two children per family and both have to get degrees that will pay better than Starbucks.
We aren't doing that. In fact the same government that wants Social Security to last is currently supporting all manner of non productive programs that reduce the number of tax payers and increase the number of tax consumers.
You can't have it both ways. You can't have a, forgive the term, liberal abortion policy and wind up with enough workers. You can't support in any way a liberal view of sexuality and gender that creates genetic dead ends.. You can't allow multigenerational welfare families and wind up with enough workers. You can't allow under the table foreign workers not paying into the system to exist and still fill the proper tax coffers.
Unfortunately, if you want a program invented in the early 20th century to work you need to maintain the moral and ethical ideals of the early 20th century. You need large families, all working when they come of age. You can't do that with easy access to abortion and the Great Society of the 60s. You need to get rid of no fault divorce and you need an education system that preps for the kind of jobs the graduates can get. You can't have a large number of reproductive dead ends like homosexuality and the trans whatever movement.
So chose. A modern liberal attitude that promotes a gradual net decrease in population and open borders and thus the death of the Social Security Systrm or a old style conservative attitude that promotes a continual increase in population, closed borders and limits on sexual freedoms to keep Social Securiy functional.
The more sane option is to switch to a 401k style program where everyone has their own separate account. That way, the system won't depend on an ever increasing population.
Yes, it will. The viability of private retirement accounts depends on the fact that most people don't have them. We can't put food, shelter, clothing, transportation, and medical care in the bank. We can only put money in the bank. If everyone saved enough money for a comfortable retirement, and then all started withdrawing that money to spend when they get old, the result would be hyperinflation. The elderly would be left with plenty of money that isn't worth much.
LMAO... Did you really just pretend saving money causes hyperinflation???? Geppers that was dumb.
No, I didn't. I said masses of people taking money OUT OF savings to spend causes inflation.
As I said here you're using the wrong terms. It's not Inflation, which is a specific thing governments do by putting more currency in circulation than there are goods and services to buy with the currency.
This is a demographic nightmare. You need people to buy those bonds. They won't be there at our current rate of population loss. I really don't know what to call that, just not inflation.
If the value of money goes down because more money is being put into circulation, that's inflation. It doesn't matter if the excess money is created by the government or dug up from safes buried in the back yard.
It makes all the difference in the world.
Either that money was *EARNED* by producing or it wasn’t.
There is human resources (physical asset) behind *EARNED* money.
EARNED money doesn’t create inflation because the money is chasing too much goods not too little.
Um... Wrong. The value of currency doesn't change because of the kind of effort undertaken to get it. $1,000 is the same if you worked digging ditches or won the lottery.
Geppers you are a dumb leftard.
When you win the lottery you're getting the 'labors' of others who voluntarily gave away their 'labors' to play.
What possible good comes form money that has no productive value behind it? What are you going to buy with it? There isn't any product behind it. You just as well be using printed monopoly money.
You have a real magical view of currency and the idea of price vs value.
When you dig a ditch and get paid $1,000 by the boss where do you think that money came from? I need to know this to see if you're even worth helping.
Uh the boss exchanged his labors to get the ditch dug. Durrrrrrrr….
UR beyond help. UR completely indoctrinated with magical money theories.
Course what could be expected with all the 'labor' games government plays to STEAL all your labors.
Still the party of slavery.
Ok, philosophically I agree with you. More money chasing same stuff. Counterfeiting would count toward inflation under that broad definition too i suppose.
However for inflation to be a useful word we need to not make its use over broad or we risk doing the same thing the left does with the words they use over broadly.
When the Spanish were bringing home ships filled with Central American gold they actually caused a kind of inflation in Spain because so much gold was available to use as money. It actually meant gold lost value because it's classical rarity was changed by the vast sources in Central America.
Also the issue isn't bringing money out from a mattress, is the lack of people able to or willing to buy your investments at their appreciated prices that will be the problem. Not a massive rise in prices as you sell your investments.
I get where he is coming from. I don't think Inflation is the right term but under our current way of life where we have a net negative population curve he's not wrong. Just using the wrong terms.
For any savings plan to work, and beat the inflation rate, you need there to be a demand for what you have saved. If you've just stuffed money in a savings account, a tin can, your matress or something lke that you aren't beating inflation. In fact with the progressive tax system you are losing money in a savings account, and most stuff a bank sells.
You need to buy stuff that people will want to buy from you later on. That could be gold, shotguns, twinkies, toilet paper... You get the idea. As long as the demand people have for those things stays at least level you may break even. If it increases, because we are running out of that stuff, then you profit. So buy up barrels of oil or printer ink cartridges. Stuff that is expensive and you expect people still can't live without when you are old.
Yeah, that sounds pretty stupid. Where would you store all those barrels of oil anyhow?
Most of the time investments are in stocks and bonds. I'm not going to get more detailed because first off I doubt most people will read this far before calling me an idiot and moving on and also to be honest I don't care if you get this or not.
So, why wont a matress full of greenbacks keep you in your old age?
First concider that you can't save 100% of your money while you are working. You probably can't save even 50% which if you assumed inflation and interest to be both 0% would be what you would need to save for 40 years to be able to live at your current level of income for 20 years.
Starting to see the problem?
Most people can at best put 10% of their income into some kind of retirement/medical savings account. Even that's hard for most people. they have wives and children which are terrible expensive and don't see lots of zeros in your savings account as any reason to love you. There are various tax dodges you can play with and we can argue about the real inflation rate all day but if you only put 10% away for 40 years and manage to hold your own against inflation you will be able to survive for maybe 5 years if you are thrifty.
You need that money to fucking explode. You need to be seeing a rate of return of at least twice the expected rate of inflation, start saving at 25, and let the magic of compound interest do the rest. I'm talking double digit interest here. Otherwise you may as well blow it all on hookers and coke and hope to live fast and die young.
Now, you're 65 and want to retire. You have a large protfolio of bonds, stocks and other such vehicles. They have a market value based on demand. There's the rub. What if there aren't enough 25 year olds around to buy up your stocks and bonds at their astronomicaly higher price that you want to get for them? You know, because we cut the nuts off 15% of the boys and called them girls, convinced 20% of women that having kids is the same as slavery, told the rest that the world is ending because of some inevitable crisis. You know, what's happening now. Population decline. Demographic Inevitability! Great Replacement! Whatever you call it.
Who will be there to buy your stock and bonds? To make this investing thing work you need one of three situations.
#1) we have another baby boom. Whatever reason, abortion becomes as popular as bell bottoms and platform shoes, kids are seen as the new In Thing and everyone has to have at least three, we experience a massive apocolypse and return to an agrarian life where kids are cheeper than Mexicans. You chose. Then you have plenty of kids to buy your scarce resource of stocks and bonds so you can live the life of Reily.
#2) You are one of the few investing in stocks and bonds. Whatever reason again, they aren't seen as cool, most people go the hookers and blow route or they all imagine Social Security will still be working in 2124. If that's the case, and it becomes cool to buy stocks and bonds again, you have more people wanting your scarce resource of stocks and bonds and yet again you find out who this Reily fellow is.
#3) You get called up to heaven before age 65 and don't really give a shit about your bonds and stocks.
Stocks and bonds are not magic. They have value because other people want them, like anything else. If you have more people with piles of stocks and bonds wanting to sell them than people wanting to buy them then you lose. Bad. The scam of Investing Wisely is the same scam as Social Security. You need to have at least Three people in the working generation to support you in the retired generation. Doesn't matter if its FICO deductions and employer matched contributions or if its your massive portfolio of Tesla and Rivian stock. The problem is the same. We aren't growing as a society. We are shrinking. This is why I got out of the Mutual Fund selling racket. I couldn't sleep at night trying to con people into a failing idea.
Best bet, do the hookers and blow thing. Die young and leave a fabulous corpse. Of course, if you're already in your 50's like me that might be hard.
Money velocity.
Maybe. I need to check with my son if velocity is the right term. He's the guy taking physics and my high school physics are over 3 decades old.
Or you save gold and silver instead of playing in the government made fake fiat-money scams of which you point out so well is just a massive 'progressive tax' system to STEAL all your earnings/savings.
It doesn't matter how much pity you sell. Armed-theft of others doesn't build a successful society at all. THEFT is a net negative.
Gold and silver aren't magical. Their value is based on supply and demand. Our methods of getting gold out of the ground may have improved over the last 100 years but as of now there are more people and industries seeking gold and silver than there were 100 years ago.
If Elon Musk sends a ship out to the asteroid belt and it returns with a million tons of gold what will that do to the price of gold? If room temperature super conductors are developed and they become the new conductors used in electronics instead of gold and silver what will that do to the price of gold and silver?
Nothing has value if no one wants to buy it. Try selling your own shit from a lemonade stand sometime and see how much you make off that.
…and if unicorns learn to fly what will happen with airlines. /s
Surely; [WE] must endorse armed-theft! /s
No matter what BS excuses you want to make up. Your bottom-line is still criminal and a net negative on any society.
I’m not talking magic. The asteroids are parts of a planet that failed. Everything we have on earth are out there in the asteroids. Somewhere out there is a flying mountain of gold. Probably in quartz like it is in the tectonic uplifts like California. It will be a shit ton easier to process it since it’s not under several million tons of topsoil and other rock formations. Someday, someone will go get it and we will have a shit ton of gold coming in just like the Spanish bringing home gold from the new world. They managed to actually have inflation with a specie coin. Gold lost value against goods and services provided by the population of Spain because there was so much gold in circulation. They faced a serious economic crisis.
As for room temp super conductors those aren’t a fantasy. They are going to happen and when they do they will replace the expensive scarce conductive materials like gold thus reducing the demand for gold. Unless a new demand rises gold could lose value.
Even without any new inovations who is going to buy your gold when you try to sell it at retirement? If there aren’t as many people in their 20s and 30s working who are buying gold as a retirement plan who are you going to sell it to?
Who's going to feed you when the USD collapses????
UR just chasing your own tail at this point.
Look, when you were working your first taxable job and got your first real paycheck and saw the FICA deduction did you think, "Gee, if I were to invest that money wisely in a conservtive fund I would come out much better than if I allow the government to do it for me." or did you think, "Fuck, I could buy a lot of beer with that money! Those assholes!"
Be honest.
I sold Mutual Funds for a while in my mid twenties. Licenced and everything. I learned real quick that the people who could best take advantage of investing at a conservative return were the least likely to invest. By the time people realize investing is a good idea they tend to need some more risky vehicles than a conservative mutual fund. They need to bet it all on Red 13 and hope their god is on thier side.
Then most people rightfully deserve to serve their retirement in prison. Carelessness and Irresponsibility doesn't excuse armed-theft. Course that's the very curse of this whole nation isn't it. Everyone has this ingrained belief that their own carelessness and irresponsibility should be covered by someone else by armed-theft of legal 'guns'.
You really don't get it. Ethics and morals are a luxury. If you are living a hand to mouth existence in a post apocalyptic world what is "right and wrong" gets pretty damned flexible.
When you have a secure home, food supply, energy source and clothing you can have high minded ethics and morals.
You are sounding like all these idiot leftists who judge our ancestors by today's standards. Prior to the industrial revolution slavery made sense for large agrarian operations. It doesn't take much education to gather crops by hand. Illiterate peasants who don't speak English still pick our fruits and vegetables without any problems.
Industry requires different kinds of workers so feeling morally superior to people who own slaves is a luxury we can afford today.
Armed theft by government? Yes, in an absolute sense that is wrong. Will it change any time soon? Fuck, I've been trying to change it for 3 decades. I've known people who have tried to sell it since the 70s. Americans aren't buying it. Most aren't in a position to afford the luxury of such moral distinctions.
We can argue the why's of it all till the glaciers roll over us but it doesn't matter. The majority of voters don't give a shit because they can't afford to give a shit.
Our culture ( I know you hate "we") has sold itself a bill of good that we (fuck... saying our culture again makes no damn sense.) are owed a comfortable retirement at age 65. Where did that come from? Up until the WWII generation our "retirement" was moving in with our kids. You had lots of kids and treated them well so when you got old they would take care of you. Same scam, just more direct than investments or government ponzi schemes. We sold ourselves on earning a retirement of relative luxury without needing to be nice to our kids.
Now part of we (do you get the idea I am meaning society as a general whole instead of me personally being involved) is doing all it can to destroy the base any kind of retirement needs. A larger next generation. Without that larger next generation we are fucked and can't expect a comfortable retirement no matter how you try and pay for it.
We could try and import a younger generation but the dirty little secret is Mexicans don't want to be Americans. They want to go back to Mexico with piles of American Dollars to change into Mexican Pesos and, well, retire in comfort. They won't be paying for our retirement. Again, Mexican morals are more flexible because they live in a third world hell hole.
The issue is a lot larger than how things should be. We have to deal with the now and how things are. Not the ideal. We need to work towards the ideal of course. That goes without saying and we need the absolute view of morality and ethics as the star we guide our ship by. But as Melvin said, they won't care what you went through to get here, just that you got the ship to port.
Nothing in that explains why the criminal shouldn't be behind bars.
It's just about how there are so many criminals they should just keep doing what they're doing.
When the majority of people do something it isn't illegal anymore.
The very problem with "democracy" and exactly why the USA isn't a "democracy" but a US Constitutional Republic.
That very dictation in writing on what the "democratic" guns can do is precisely why the USA was a great nation and the ignorance of it will precisely be this nations poverty and demise.
Higher taxes aren’t going to solve problems.
What do you mean MORE armed-theft won't save anyone? /s
Well said +1000000000.
“The U.S. has quite a lot less social welfare spending than most other wealthy nations…”
So you’re saying we’re the leper with the most fingers?
That's a good one. I may just steal that. I usually say "the smartest of three stooges" but that one gives away my age. Of course do most kids today know what leprosy is and why the joke is funny? Hard to say.
Jason is the slimy pile of lefty shit who is down with the murder of unarmed protesters to prevent, well, the asshole really isn't sure:
JasonT20
February.6.2022 at 6:02 pm
“How many officers were there to stop Ashlee Babbitt and the dozens of people behind her from getting into the legislative chamber to do who knows what?...”
Fuck off and die, scumbag.
ALL the democrats should fuck off, and/or die.
The only way to eliminate that gap is by increasing revenue, reducing outlays, or (more likely) both
On several occasions, the writers at Reason and Volokh have pushed for their preferred solution - raising revenues by allowing in more and more immigrants that contribute to payroll taxes. That might be a temporary fix, but then those immigrants will get old someday and need social security and then you will need exponentially more immigrants in each generation to cover the previous one.
We can't increase our population indefinitely, that's a pyramid scheme. My only hope is that AI and automation can instead bridge this benefits gap.
My only hope is that AI and automation can instead bridge this benefits gap.
*squints* 'Bridging the Social Security benefits gap.' sounds like the exact sort of euphemism an AI would cook up to cover its "Kill all humans" policy.
Stop lumping Social Security with Medicare. Just stop. Dishonest pricks.
More good news.
I read where NYC is giving illegal aliens pre-paid debit cards, and so is the notorious state of Masssivetaxes.
I guess the democrats there can't spend enough of the taxpayers' money when it comes to entitlements.
"There is a lot you can do in terms of entitlements, in terms of cutting and in terms of also the theft and the bad management of entitlements," Trump said. The Biden campaign seized upon the comment as evidence that Trump wants to "slash Social Security and Medicare," and Trump denied any such plan, saying, "I will never do anything that will jeopardize or hurt Social Security or Medicare."
I don't see Trump denying anything. It looks alot like he's affirmative saying that he "will never do anything that will jeopardize or hurt Social Security or Medicare."
Which does not preclude this--
"There is a lot you can do in terms of entitlements, in terms of cutting and in terms of also the theft and the bad management of entitlements,"
Leftists, like yourself, even when pretending to WANT something done about SS and Medicare/aid have so poisoned the topic that anyone talking about any kind of 'fix' is either going to do too little or completely destroy the program.
Because it is the Great Work of Progressivism.
I didn't see the exact quote either, but even if he were out to thoroughly annihilate SS and Medicare or just massively restructure in a Milei-esque fashion, "*I* (alone) will never do anything that will jeopardize or hurt Social Security or Medicare." is still a factual statement.
Even something like "Executive Order No. [insert number here] End all Social Security and Medicare payments (or draw down payments and collections until nothing's collected or owed) effective Jan. 1, 2050. - Signed, DJT 2025-01-21" is going to get skewered and dismembered, set on fire, and have its ashes pissed on without the least bit of critical thought before it would ever get enforced.
Gosh Sullum, maybe if far left assholes like you didn’t constantly demonize Trump for absolutely everything reform might at least be attempted.
YOU are the problem.
Yeah, the steaming pile of TDS-addled shit which is Sullum couldn't possibly envision anything other than equating droolin' Joe with Trump.
Sullum, make the world a better place; fuck off and die.
"But the longer they wait, the more painful the inevitable reckoning will be." No, "they" (lawmakers) have their own taxpayer-funded pensions. "They'll" be fine.
First: Social Security and Medicare are NOT entitlements. Not in any sense of the definition of entitlements. Both are money owed to those who have paid into the systems for their entire lives.
The huge gap between Trump and Biden when it comes to handouts that have come to be know as entitlements, is that Biden and the democrats just can’t bring themselves around to telling their voters that there is no free lunch. Lifetime welfare. Student loan forgiveness (as though the government has any right in forgiving ANY loans.
SCOTUS already ruled that the only 'NOT entitlements' exists only in your imagination. But I can play that game too. I want all my taxes back!!!! /s
Why shouldn't they ignore the entitlements time bomb?
They're both really old, and the voters don't care.
Good point. I'm getting mine. Fuck yours.
Close call for me. I'm at the age where I might break even before the system goes belly up, or I might not.
We will be a rotting third world hell hole before the feds stop funding Social Security. They've spent so much time selling us on a comfortable retirement that they can't unfuck this up now.
But if they "fund" it with rapidly shrinking dollars, that's the same as not funding it.
One of the obvious results of putting the halls of justice in charge of marketable things. When they screw you; there are no halls of justice to turn too.