What is greatest contributor to our deficit?

[Hauldren Collider]

He's talking about the prescription drug benefit, and just because it's on a voucher doesn't mean it costs you any money.

[SlowwHand]

Never had a voucher either.
Never mind. I don't have time to debate know-it-all spoiled brats. Whine all that you want. Enjoy. It's what your generation is best at doing.

[Hauldren Collider]

maybe Paul Ryan will have finally stripped you of your entitlements

Paul Ryan is going to fail miserably...

I don't think so. I think times have changed, and we're actually for the first time seeing a constituency built around ending federal pork, even if it means ending your own pork. But we shall see. I remain optimistic.

There's been a lot of crap about how town halls have been booing republicans, but if you read carefully, it turns out that it's only been a small handful, and they've actually been largely supported.

[giblets]

Yes, and honoring the claims of wealthy American retirees on our current production, when those claims were exchanged in return for nothing, should be low on our list.

To be clear, what happened was that the boomers made the following deal with themselves:
1. We'll set aside some of our wealth in a "Social Security Trust Fund", to save for our retirement.
2. Wait, nevermind, we want to consume it now. Let's replace all of that wealth with promises that future taxpayers will give us stuff for free.

There is no reason at all that the future taxpayers should feel obligated to make good on those promises.

I guess the Social Security Trust Fund should have been invested in corporations.

[Tupac Shakur]

I don't think so. I think times have changed

You're painfully naive. The Baby Boomers are going to **** us until they can't get it up anymore, which will be quite a while given all the free Viagra we'll be providing them...

[Hauldren Collider]

I guess they should have just let people invest their own ****ing money in corporations and let them rot if they were too stupid to save up.

I say this as a person who already has an IRA

xpost

[Hauldren Collider]

I don't think so. I think times have changed

You're painfully naive.

Perhaps. Bring this back up in a few years, and we'll find out who was right.

[giblets]

Also, to some extent future generations exist at the same time as past generations, so even if it's only possible to redistribute consumption in the present, you can still take from the richer future generations and give to the less rich previous ones.

[Kuciwalker]

I guess the Social Security Trust Fund should have been invested in corporations.

Perhaps, but as I mentioned there are fundamental limits on society's ability to defer consumption in the aggregate. To do so, society has to divert current production into investments that actually create future wealth. If the SSTF were invested in, for instance, credit card debt then it would be just as false a claim as its US bonds.

[Kuciwalker]

Also, to some extent future generations exist at the same time as past generations, so even if it's only possible to redistribute consumption in the present, you can still take from the richer future generations and give to the less rich previous ones.

Yes, you can redistribute consumption between different people in the present, but you need to justify why the elderly should receive redistributive transfers instead of the poor.

[DaShi]

Wait, all my credit card debt shares are worthless? Damn it! It's my toxic loan holdings allover again!!!11!!:mad;:wiglaf:

[Kuciwalker]

gribbler: consider a purely agrarian society with no long-term preservation of food. Individuals could save by hoarding currency; they could even invest by buying land. But the society as a whole would have no ability to invest or save at all. Nothing they do in the present can increase their future food consumption.

In the modern economy, society does have opportunities to invest, by building factories, houses, cars, etc. But these opportunities aren't limitless, and any "saving" that does not result in the production of one of these is not real saving.

[Aeson]

gribbler: consider a purely agrarian society with no long-term preservation of food. Individuals could save by hoarding currency; they could even invest by buying land. But the society as a whole would have no ability to invest or save at all. Nothing they do in the present can increase their future food consumption.

In the modern economy, society does have opportunities to invest, by building factories, houses, cars, etc. But these opportunities aren't limitless, and any "saving" that does not result in the production of one of these is not real saving.

2 words.. Pickled fetus

[Fake Boris]

Has anyone made the point yet that you didn't have to distribute with Chinese factory workers to begin with?

[giblets]

Yes, you can redistribute consumption between different people in the present, but you need to justify why the elderly should receive redistributive transfers instead of the poor.

How are we defining poor? I'm guessing most of the elderly are not going to have that much income. Unless you want the money given to old people to be based on the total assets they own, and give less to people who have accumulated more....?