I agree with raising the cap, but not the means testing. That turns it into a progressive tax which is just as bad in my opinion. If a person pays into the kitty, they should get a share back when it's divided up again. Let's say I were to go to Pizza Hut with my friends and order a pizza. We all pitch in according to what we earn. When the pizza arrives my friends tell me I can't have any because I make enough to buy another pizza. That would piss me off.

Yeah! and it pisses me off when they're out of breadsticks too!

Your taxes are used for all sorts of programs that you may never benefit from. That doesn't seem to be aa real problem for most people. Nor is it equivalent to believing that you are buying a pizza, then not getting any. Government has a responsibility to care for those on the lower rungs. Bill gates doesn't need social security, so he shouldn't get it. From each according to...

That's where we disagree. I look at thing from the viewpoint of positive economics. You look at things from a normative economic view. The problem with assigning who "should get something" is 2-fold. first who decides the "should". Second what prevents them from assigning other values that prevent one from recieving benefits?History has shown that this is what usually happens.

A positive economic view would say that even if Bill Gates took an equal share, with income caps removed he is raising the amount of benefits far more than he gets in return. It's like you using the Gates river to irrigate a field and complaing because 1% of the water is draining back into the river. I hate not having line breaks. It makes it hard to structure points.

While I disagree almost entirely with you, there is one point on which you are dead on: the lack of line breaks blows. I'll address the rest of your ideas when I have more time.

Government doesn't have the responsibility to care for the lower rungs. The Government doesn't even have the ability to care. What you mean is that Grovernment has the responsibility to provide for the lower rungs. the argument then comes down to who defines the lower rung, and how much they get.

You know, it's annoying, but you can manually type the HTML for line breaks.

care (via dictionary.com): "to make provision or look out" or "protection; charge " and of course take care of,
a. to watch over; be responsible for: to take care of an invalid.
b. to act on; deal with; attend to: to take care of paying a bill.

**************************

To care for and To Provide for seem (in some usages) to be synonymous. So yes, I mean provide, I also mean care. As to who decides: we are a represenative democracy (or at least a republic with democratic ideals), so the answer is the majority gets to decide.

I know, but I get in a hurry and forget to put the br in the brackets

Let's simplify our society to two people. We have Poor Joe and Rich Bob. Let's also dilate time so that benefits are paid out as taxes are recieved. It is decided that Poor Joe needs help. Would it be fair to let Rich Bob give Poor Joe what Bob feels is right? Probably not. Is it fair to let Poor Joe take what he wants from Bob? No. Our goal is to raise Joe's support to a level that will allow him to live comfortably. So let's say Joe makes $300 a week. Bob makes $3,000 a week. If we make both Joe and Bob pay 10% of their incomes into the system, the system now haves $330 to redistribute. Then it pays an equal portion($165) out to both Bob and Joe. Poor Joe's income has just risen to $435 a week. That's a 45% increase in his pay. Bob's income fell to $2,865 a week. That's a decrease of almost 5%. Under this plan Joe has been helped. If you want to help him more, you can slide the percentage up to 100% and you have communism. My system works without assigning the value assesment on whether Bill Gates deserves something.

not to mention when they forget your breadsticks!

But that isn't at all a fair representation of how social seccurity works. We can't dilate the population down to 2 people. We are, all of us, creating a pool of dollars that can then be given out at a later time. (I know, the idea of a pool, or lockbox, isn't really fair as the money goes into the general budget, but you get my point). What I find interesting is that I offfered an idea to make the systeem solveent. You haven't argued that my plan would fail at that end, but rather that is is "unfair". I thought liberals like me were the ones interested in fairness.

I simplify because that is what you do in economics to understand a system. I argue that your system has an unnecesary element. Means testing is unneccessary. When you remove the income cap you create a system that can go from 0% to 100% taxation. If your goal is to redistribute wealth to the poorer people of society, that single system will suffice.

The weird part of this is, if you and I were in charge of things we could fix Social Security, despite our disagreement.

That's because we are both under the assumption that the goal is to create a functioning society. In the real world, much of the social security debate is about buying votes.

Doss-Tyree 2012 "we'll fight, so you won't have to"




or should it be Tyree-Doss?


Maybe we should run against each other, but choose each other as our running mates.


Doss-Tyree VS Tyree-Doss




or maybe I should pick my brother as a running mate. Doss-Doss 2012. It's catchy.

Doss-Doss 2012 would be the greatest band name ever.

Doss-Tyree VS Tyree-Doss is genius. Slogan: either way, we win!

"Slogan: either way, we win!"


Too self centered for a political slogan


I suggest


Doss-Tyree VS Tyree-Doss either way, America wins!

Doss-Tyree VS Tyree-Doss Either way, we forgot your breadsticks

I was a good waiter. I never forgot breadsticks. In fact, I was on a shoot today, and the guy said "didn't you work at Pizza Hut?"
His parents used to come in every friday. Over a decade and the kid still remembered the details. It's sad that I was a better waiter than anything else.