It's been said you can judge a society by the way it treats it's elderly and it's infirmed. Your blog seems to indicate we're failing as a society.

There's a few fundamental flaws with your logic.

The last generation to draw more in Social Security benefits then they paid in was the Greatest Generation, or those born roughly between 1901-1924.

Social Security payments are based on the amount they've contributed to the fund during their lifetime. Someone retiring today, after contributing up to $500k in FICA/SocSec/Medicare taxes and rating approx. $2250/mo is not going to appreciate receiving $112.50/wk under your plan. What you're advocating is almost income distribution, except you don't indicate where all those extra funds will be going to.

Social Security is a self-funding program and solvent through 2038. With projected increases in employment and people paying into the fund, it will continue to be solvent after that. Projected strains on SocSec by the anticipated influx of Baby Boomers retiring will be offset by Generation X, Y, Z 'ers whose numbers are equal to or more than the Baby Boomer generation.

Medicare is a bit of a mess, but it could be fixed by simply forcing our elected officials & govt. employees to participate in the plan. It would be fixed immediately. Taking $500 billion from Medicare to fund Obamacare doesn't help either. Neither does raiding the SocSec fund since the '60s. Grandma's not your problem, Xan, your elected officials are.

Back in August, as a self-proclaimed 'independent thinker', you blogged the cost of Medicare was a 'rounding error' and 'insignificant'. You decried the use of the nation's 'most desperately needy' as a bargaining chip in the budget debates, and now you're an advocate for killing Grandma. What made you change your mind & feel SocSec/Medicare are the root of America's moral hazard?

IDK if you're serious or just looking for knee-jerk reactions, but I think you need to rethink it a little bit. JMO.

Never have I heard someone so openly advocate for the killing of grandmothers and I presume, grandfathers everywhere.

You do realize that people who "depend" on Social Security, are people who have had exactly the low wage jobs of which you speak? It is the "reason" they need SS, because a whole life of striving, at the hardest, most thankless jobs, they've ended up not able to save anything. Prices go up, wages go down.

Add to that, Republicans exported the best jobs, the union jobs, that people once aspired to, so the rich could make even more money. Along with that went the taxes of 30 million great, American jobs, the aspirations of the simple American Dream, to work a job, to rise up within the organization to make more. Yes, to actually be able to save.

I'm all for creating jobs for those who can't work. But expecting people to work, when there is an unofficial unemployment rate of close to 20 percent, pretending there are jobs there for everyone, but it's just that vagabond bum won't work them, well, that's just fiction.

We're all interconnected--when you crap on people, it gets flung here and there, you get crap on you, others, your family, your friends, the people you care about (assuming you do) get crap on them. Like it or not, these programs were put in place not as some flight of fancy. They were created to fix a problem, sadly, a problem Republicans mostly, and a few idiot corporate blue-dog democrats have once again put in place.

The economic situation is sad in the U.S. The facts are the Bush tax cuts were measures taken to stimulate the economy briefly and not intended to be endless. It's not Bush's fault, nor is it Clinton's or Obama's. Our financial systems isn't broken - WE ARE BROKEN! The American financial institution as a whole has been unethical - period. There is NO ethics in private finances and banking - no vision of what could happen.

When things are good, markets run wild like a bull. The wealth and gains force persons and institutions to lends to anyone, like loan-sharks, and without forethought of anything.

When things are bad suddenly institutions are frugal, cutting back... it's a vicious bi-polar circle that we seem to fall into time and time again.

War - no one in this country has a real vested interest in it. I'm speaking from financial standpoint. When the US went to war in WWII, there was a tax imposed to everyone along with borrowing to pay for the war. Beyond that, people purchased war bonds. Citizens worked hard and spared things like oil or anything that could help produce products for the troops.

The past few wars we've engaged in the U.S., we just borrow money and watch the thing happen on CNN. No sparing, no sacrificing, no war tax, no war bonds. WE SUCK! This country IS NOT at war! We merely send our military to do our dirty work and borrow money from others to pay the dole.

We have to pay taxes. Tax code needs to be restructured. We need to pay war taxes if we need to go to war. Collectively as a country we need to learn to live within a National Budget. Whatever we do, we need to do it fast because we're falling from the top.

If we don't learn to manage our National finances quickly we won't die in a blaze of glory... it will be much worse - we'll be owned and controlled by Asiatic countries and our creditors who will dictate how and what we can spend our money on.... receivership will be a b1tch!

Another nice post by Xan.

Tell Obama your ideas. I don't know anyone personally who signed up for any of this government's ridiculous policies. How are we supposed to fix something we didn't create? To those who voted for these jack wagons we're dealing with, maybe they should take a look in the mirror.

I have a couple points here, though. You say we should rationalize military budget. Why? If anything, the military is underfunded. Did you notice how Obama APOLOGIZED to Libya after they attacked OUR consulate? He's more interested in making friends with the enemy, to uphold some false image of being a peace maker, instead of protecting us. He is placing zero emphasis on the things our tax dollars SHOULD be used for.

The other thing I'd like to point out is that you are wrong when you say every one should pay more taxes.

I believe that NO ONE should pay more taxes. Instead, bring the rates down, at the very least for the rich as most of them own businesses, so that they can afford to hire more people. I pointed this out in your last blog. You don't gain by raising taxes and sucking people dry, you gain by having MORE tax payers, and a steady flow of revenue. All this rhetoric solves nothing, and fails to pinpoint the real source of the problem. It's not nearly as complicated as you'd like to make it sound. Yet sadly nothing is being done and, consequently, what could have been a simple solution is becoming more and more impossible to fix.

Good post. I was born in Canada, but my family is American (my dad currently resides in the US) and due to my family ties/working as a petrologist, I'm always paying close attention the US political cycle.
That being said, I'm enamoured with the conservative term 'job creator', especially when they use it to describe billionaire investors.
I don't know where that term came from, but the myth of jobs magically arising due to lower taxes is absurd. No investor is a job creator, consumers are the sole mechanism that drives job creation (sorry Mr. experienced businessman)
As far as I know, investors want to minimize expenses to increase their profits. I don't think that means spending money hiring millions of people.

Another nice Xan post.

The problem in America is too many people have no real idea what they're talking about and then tell everyone else they don't know what they are talking about. Here's a fact worth pondering: You say that it's sad we have a governor vs. a businessmen, but actually we have a governor/businessmen vs. a senator/lawyer. The current President has no experience in business or in governing... Take that for what you will. I'm not a rah rah politician, because politics mostly make me sick. But I have an obligation as a citizen to know the facts and make the best choice possible.

So with that in mind, I would like someone who knows how to manage this economy. Having not only experience, but a record of success in business is a good place to start, and we have, at the very least, that in one of these candidates. The other has zero. But I believe in giving people a chance to prove or make a fool of themselves before I make a final judgement. All I have to do is look back 4 years ago when Obama said he'd "cut the deficit in half" by the end of his first term. Instead it has risen. And what is his defense? He tells us that we're losing a little less each year... That isn't gaining, and it's far from cutting the debt in half as he pledged. We're still losing TRILLIONS every year. You can blame the previous administration all day long, and they are absolutely responsible for the debt that was inherited, but when you add to the problem you can no longer point the finger at someone else. Especially not after a full term.

I don't want or need the government to tell me how to live my life. I need the government to manage the economy in a way that allows us to live better and be able to pursue our dreams. So I have to disagree that being a businessmen doesn't give you an advantage in being able to run a government. No one is saying it's easy. But when you've been successful in business and have many years experience as a governor, I feel a lot better about that than someone who has been neither of the two. Good managers know how to manage money.

The president wants to raise taxes to cut the deficit. Well that sounds brilliant if you don't know the first thing about economics. And I'm no economist, but this is just common sense. If you raise taxes you cause businesses to have to lay off workers, which means people are out of work and not paying taxes. You see, it's not about how much you tax one person, but how many people are paying taxes. Lower the rate, and you have more jobs, more tax payers, subsequent increased revenue and less dependency on the federal government.

But that's just it. This administration wants us to depend on the government. It's how they can control us.

It's Marxism at it's best (or worst). You rob the rich to pay the poor- because Marxists believe it is somehow immoral to be wealthy- and everybody is supposed to be happy with that. But not only is that unfair to those who have worked hard to get to whatever wealthy income they have EARNED, it also means the poor and middle class no longer can find work because no one can afford to pay them, and everyone goes begging to big brother. We're not there yet, but we're close, and we have to stop it while we still can.

If you disagree with me, I don't hate you for it. I want what's best for this country, and I'm sure you do too. But I can say with absolute conviction that this administration isn't it.

Wow. Nice post.

All situations of broad policy policing, judgement and penalization notoriously hurt the innocent unjustly. The bigger the group or organization, the more who suffer unjustly.

In Penn State's case student athletes, local economy, small businesses, vendors, and ticket holders are left holding the bag. Academia and administration are ready to move on with a fresh bowl of water, something the previous administration, unable to flush, could not create.

What about the student athletes who worked hard and were recruited into a football program that fell flat on its face? Although they're allowed to escape by transfer and gain instant eligibility, transferring may be more work than it's worth for those dependent on athletic scholarships.

Colleges and Universities never give up student athlete scholarships so easily, and if they do only to pick up the very best of transfers. Most players on Penn State's team will not rise to the level required for a lateral move. Because some of the talented waited in wings for an opportunity to shine as 2nd string only to end up without the required resume for movement. Because some had average seasons last year and are not on "the list." Because some are now seniors and time has run out.

I won't even get into the local business element because it's a given - Happy Valley will be not so Happy in the coming years = fewer ticket sales & less profit/income.

The NCAA had to act otherwise it would have been CONFIRMED as a weakling only out to make players ineligible for transfer (which is mostly true.)

The ENTIRE AFFAIR is a sad, sad tale told by fool who forgot his pen has no ink.

The title of his tale?

THE TRAGEDY OF JOE PATERNO

NOW THAT IS PRICELESS LMAO!

Well, kind of. Penn State isn't being punished. Their football program is being punished - and is even being allowed to operate under restrictions. And they are making PSU donate $73 million to child abuse foundations. In the game of life, the only victims in this scenario are still the kids Sandusky molested.

And with Egypt, they put their own necks on the line and overthrew their corrupt leadership. They deserve the right to establish the new leeadership that they want and no one should get in their way.

I get your point on the lies and cover. My only issue is the severety of the penalties when compared to the big picture of infractions in the NFL. Vick commited a Federal offense and also lied. He should have been banned for life. Same goes for the 49ers and the Pats, they cheated and lied to the NFL for years. They were fined and picks taken but nobody was suspened but the Saints have three coaches suspened along with the fines and picks. This is not justice. Thing is, of all these infractions the Saints bountygate had the least amount of damage to the NFL. Vick ruined the Falcons, the 49ers and Pats, no telling how many cities they robbed of glory. What was the impact by the Saints? There is not one example of a player being carted off the field and removed from the game with an illegal hit.

I respect your opinion, and your desire to be objective. But, I don't think we as fans have been as short sighted as you may think. In fact, I don't think we've been short sighted at all, with the exception of a few crazy people, perhaps. I completely agree that Roger had to punish the Saints, but I think Gregg Williams' suspension along with all the fines would have sent enough of a message.

Instead he trashes the head coach for a year, the general manager for half the year, takes away picks and continues to ignore other bounty programs around the league, with the assumption that they are less severe, even though he has yet to investigate them. That isn't justice.

Damn...effing...skippy. Well-worded sir.

... B&G is way more then just a 'football' board.

Well said.

I don't believe ANYTHING that I read in the paper or see on TV. We live in the age of bought and paid for media; there is no such thing as "journalism" or journalistic responsibility.

Everyone has an agenda, and this is on both sides of the aisle in Unites States politics. Agendas permeate every facet of "media" from TV, print, blogs, and any way messages can be delivered.

Best thing to do is gather facts, observe all sides of issues: for, against and critique. Only then can people make judgements on their own. Unfortunately, that's too hard for many in America to accomplish, so our populace is lead about like sheep.

We really have a "reading" problem in this Country, and I'm not talking about literacy. People do not want to take the time to commit the act of reading and that will be our undoing.

Think about it!!

Interesting read, xan.

I hope they don't ruin you at Princeton with the idea that Social Justice and Anarchy are our only two choices. LOL

Being a type-A personality, my knowledge and skill sets would allow me to thrive in spite of anarchy. I would not thrive under a social justice style of government as I have a conscience.

Simply understood, anarchy requires that Maslow's hierarchy of needs be fulfilled from the top-down. Social Justice allows needs to be fulfilled from the bottom-up!

I can't live with that.

Alaska