As you'll notice in my comment I was not arguing against a social safety net. I was arguing against "paygo" social programs that will not be sustainable in the face of demographic change. I was not arguing against the criminal justice system either. And as you point out, nonviolent drug offender enforcement is a huge burden on society for a variety of reasons.
Not only do I not want senior citizens starving and dying in the streets, I want to be sure that a senior citizen 50 years from now won't starve or die in the streets.
Consider what congress has done to social security benefits over the past few decades. Right now the social security retirement age is OLDER than the average lifespan of African American men. Why are you defending this approach?
People work hard for years and plan for retirement only to have the social security retirement age increased. If a private firm did this the CEO would end up in jail. Why are you defending this racket?
If you're going to take by force 12.5% of someone's lifetime earnings (all most middle class people can afford to put away for retirement), you'd damn well better live up to the promise you made to him about what he'll get and when.
You seem to think that taxes == good social programs. On the contrary, the current budget is full of unsustainable things that only exist to give a handout to one special interest group or another... everyone knows they aren't sustainable and that they exploit those paying in now, but there is a collective action problem (which, incidentally, you are helping to perpetuate).
I've paid lots of money into social security... where has it gone? To fund the war in Iraq. Where will it be when I retire? By that time Soscial Security will probably have been cancelled or merged into the general budget or turned into a welfare program. I really don't understand why you would defend a regressive tax that allows congress to avoid having to be accountable for what it spends.
Not only do I not want senior citizens starving and dying in the streets, I want to be sure that a senior citizen 50 years from now won't starve or die in the streets.
Consider what congress has done to social security benefits over the past few decades. Right now the social security retirement age is OLDER than the average lifespan of African American men. Why are you defending this approach?
People work hard for years and plan for retirement only to have the social security retirement age increased. If a private firm did this the CEO would end up in jail. Why are you defending this racket?
If you're going to take by force 12.5% of someone's lifetime earnings (all most middle class people can afford to put away for retirement), you'd damn well better live up to the promise you made to him about what he'll get and when.
You seem to think that taxes == good social programs. On the contrary, the current budget is full of unsustainable things that only exist to give a handout to one special interest group or another... everyone knows they aren't sustainable and that they exploit those paying in now, but there is a collective action problem (which, incidentally, you are helping to perpetuate).
I've paid lots of money into social security... where has it gone? To fund the war in Iraq. Where will it be when I retire? By that time Soscial Security will probably have been cancelled or merged into the general budget or turned into a welfare program. I really don't understand why you would defend a regressive tax that allows congress to avoid having to be accountable for what it spends.