04 Aug 12
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThey could. Maybe the TP types would be willing to. But the Republican Party is still run by big money and I don't think they'd be willing to commit political suicide esp. when such "reforms" would be easily overturned after a 2014 bloodbath. If somehow they could stay in power for a while, perhaps they'd incrementally attempt to abolish ALL the programs you mention.
Any chance the Republicans could cram through their agenda before these elections took place? Maybe losing the next elections is worth it. They are pretty fanatical these days.
- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 199233
04 Aug 12
Originally posted by KazetNagorraHe can afford to give the top percentage a large tax decrease by raising the rest of ours - on the Laffer curve theory that by giving rich people money they will invest it productively and it will trickle down. It's the same concept which caused a double-dip recession for Reagan, before he embraced military-spending Keynesianism to revive the economy. Romney isn't stupid. He knows the theory is bunk, and he probably won't implement it. But that's not stopping him from promising it now.
How would he pay for them? Reagan had a small deficit and could simply borrow money to pay for his tax cuts, same for GWB. Romney does not have that option.
The sad part is that the biggest problem right now isn't the lack of investor money. They're sitting on a five trillion dollar reserve right now. The problem is the lack of money in consumers' hands, so tax breaks at the lower end would improve the economy overnight. But the Republicans are going to block that.
05 Aug 12
Originally posted by no1marauderYup. Only Nixon could go to China. It's the Dems who will have to cooperate in making common sense changes to social security, most notably increasing the retirement age.
A Democratic Congressional landslide in 2014. The Republicans won't touch Social Security or Medicare in any significant way.
- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 199233
05 Aug 12
Originally posted by sh76I would rather supplement Social Security from the general fund until we get over the baby-boom spike. Too many people are forced into early retirement as it is because employers don't think they perform as well as younger people and want to hire people with lower benefits seniority. People who have been paying into the system should be able to count on it, and once the baby-boomers have been processed through and start dying off, the fund should be solvent again. That is assuming we aren't en route to becoming a third world country shipping our natural resources to China.
Yup. Only Nixon could go to China. It's the Dems who will have to cooperate in making common sense changes to social security, most notably increasing the retirement age.
05 Aug 12
Originally posted by sh76I'm not for raising the retirement age. There are many blue collar workers who have had jobs requires heavy physical labor since then were 18; haven't they earned a retirement at 65 if they desire it? Why should society insist on squeezing a few more years of work out of them when their mental and physical facilities are in decline?
Yup. Only Nixon could go to China. It's the Dems who will have to cooperate in making common sense changes to social security, most notably increasing the retirement age.
Social Security was designed as a program to fight elderly poverty and by the results it probably rates as the most successful social program ever implemented in the US. It would be more in keeping with the purposes of the program to "means test" it i.e. to increase benefits to those with no or little income and assets and decrease benefits to those with large amounts of income and assets. That would get to the same results as increasing the retirement age as over 65's are now the wealthiest group by age in the US.