Mns wrote:
What, you mean a social contract where the young pay for the old now and then when they're old, they're paid for by their children? A social contract that lives in every human society in one form or another? A safety net for seniors who are old, frail, and usually have multiple (expensive) ailments that would die broke and alone without it? No, I don't see any problem with this system.
You can't conflate naturally evolved cultures wherein older relatives live with their children and grandchildren with Social Security. In the former model, you're looking at a younger populace voluntarily caring for an older populace in whom they have a vested (familial) interest. In the other, you're looking at a younger populace being forced to subsidize an older populace of strangers. Social Security isn't just far removed from moving mom and/or dad into the house during their old age, it's one of the reasons we no longer do so in this country.
Your contention also ignores the reality of shrinking birth rates. When Social Security started, there were 8 workers paying in for every senior collecting benefits. This was during a period when the
total fertility rate was such that population was either sustained or growing. Unfortunately, like most other industrialized nations, we've reached (or are nearing)
sub-replacement fertility. A system that relies on an expanding pool of payers in the manner that Social Security does cannot function when the pool of payers shrinks while the pool of beneficiaries grows.
Mns wrote:
A family shouldn't have to choose between letting a loved one wither and die and being financially solvent. Socialist ideas like social security and universal healthcare help families cope with devastating problems that people can't (or are unable to) plan for.
This is such a modern, first world attitude...kind of like a president who "shouldn't" have to negotiate. I know this is another "you're a big meanie and you want old people to die" spiel, and it's cute, but it's indicative of a degree of incredibly shallow thinking. The problem is that "withering and dying" isn't a choice, it's an inevitability. That entails choices that aren't entirely financial in nature, but doesn't erase the financial realities involved. Do you keep your grandfather alive and suffering on some machine with an expensive cocktail of drugs or do you make him as comfortable as possible while he dies naturally? One is more expensive and undesirable, the other is less costly and more dignified. That's not always going to be the choice, but regardless of whether people "shouldn't" have to or not, balancing quality and length of life with the costs involved is a reality even if you pass the choices to be made off to a bureaucrat.
Mns wrote:
Capitalist answers to this are hoping that someone with money will pay for exorbitant expenses (especially since the demand for healthcare is inelastic),
Possibly the most hilarious and pessimistic explanation of charity I've ever heard.
Mns wrote:
plundering the wealth of lower classes for quarterly dividends,
The thing about the "making your money on the backs of the poor" argument is that it ignores the fact that you can't steal from people who don't have anything.
Mns wrote:
and fuck you if you can't afford to live.
Yes, yes..."fuck you, got mine," it's like a mantra for you and Fanta (though I think Fanta does it to be funny more than anything else). It's quite the ridiculous line to trot out in a conversation where you're telling some of us we're greedy for wanting to keep what we've worked for but the people who want to take what belongs to us aren't. By your thinking, you're only greedy for wanting to keep your own money, but your a paragon of virtue for insisting on spending someone else's.
Mns wrote:
If you really want, you can go Galt and eventually die penniless.
That's not a very good metaphor when you consider that Galt didn't die in
Atlas Shrugged, and lived rather comfortably in a hidden utopia of his own making. Then again, considering that you think taking and spending other people's earnings is more noble and less greedy than someone keeping the fruits of their own labor, and looking at your outlook regarding charity, it's not surprising that you fail at metaphor.
Mns wrote:
I'm fine with the socialist hellhole of everyone pitching in to help those who need it with the expectation that people will help me when I need it. Or, you know, basic human courtesy and society.
I'd be fine with that, too, if it were really the way things worked. Unfortunately, experience has taught me otherwise. Every time I've found myself in a situation where all these wonderful programs I'm paying for should be helping me out, I've been turned away. I would be perfectly OK with that if there were a good reason, but generally it boiled down to me being too white and having a penis.
Mns wrote:
There's no reason that we can't give EVERYONE SNAP benefits and have the government give everyone a stipend for rent and other cost of life expenses. The economic boost itself would more than pay for itself. A dollar invested in foodstamps yields ~1.70 in the economy, whereas corporate tax cuts yield about 30 cents. You tell me which one is the better investment. Imagine the stability and extra spending power you'd have if you didn't have any food expenses and your rent/mortgage payments cut in half.
I'd love to see the math and mental gymnastics involved with generating that assertion. It's probably the same kind of math that says the government is losing money when it's not spending money.
Looks like I should have just done this:
Jubbergun wrote:
Have you read so many "retarded things stupid republicans say" that your brain has become damaged by exposure to stupid?
Mns wrote:
TL;DR=Yes.
Your Pal,
Jubber
