How to stop the revival of Laissez-Faire?

[LBJ Revivalist]

Whether the Tea Party wing of the GOP will admit it or not, I believe that they and their constituents want to see a return to Laissez-Faire Capitalism, 1890 style, and being on conservative boards, I've seen the cons wishing for this. They want to abolish every program from Social Security on down to the OSHA, and get rid of virtually every regulation we have. I was wondering, how can we reverse this revival of Laissez-Faire/Ultra right wing capitalism?

[Associate Justice PiT]

     You can start by recognizing that there is no chance of any program getting abolished, except maybe Obamacare prior to it starting up in full. People will fight to the death for their precious entitlement programs.

[tpfkaw]

You can start by recognizing that there is no chance of any program getting abolished, except maybe Obamacare prior to it starting up in full. People will fight to the death for their precious entitlement programs.

Yes.  I would love it if what the OP is saying were true.  Unfortunately, it's not, so we have to wait for entitlement programs to abolish themselves when we go bankrupt.

[Lief 🗽]

We can't, unfortunately. Obama will lose in 2012 and then SS and Medicare will be gone and neo-feudalism will be the country's fate. It should last a good 10-20 years before the entire decrepit system comes crumbling down in bloody chaos. Of course by then, the ones who profited the most out of sucking the blood from the American corpse will be dead or retired.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

For all the bashing of the Senate, the electoral college and the preferance among some leftists for a parliamentary democracy, this is why you should be thankfull we have our current system.

[Vepres]

     You can start by recognizing that there is no chance of any program getting abolished, except maybe Obamacare prior to it starting up in full. People will fight to the death for their precious entitlement programs.

[Frink]

    You can start by recognizing that there is no chance of any program getting abolished, except maybe Obamacare prior to it starting up in full. People will fight to the death for their precious entitlement programs.

In some cases it truly is a choice of whether to fight for their entitlements or succumb to homelessness, poverty, or death.

Old people are an important enough voting block that the party which would hypothetically decide to cut Social Security would pay for it dearly.

[memphis]

     You can start by recognizing that there is no chance of any program getting abolished, except maybe Obamacare prior to it starting up in full. People will fight to the death for their precious entitlement programs.

But people are just as willing to fight to the death for other people's precious unsustainble tax levels. We're drowing in Ronald Reagan and W's red ink.

[opebo]

We can't, unfortunately. Obama will lose in 2012 and then SS and Medicare will be gone and neo-feudalism will be the country's fate. It should last a good 10-20 years before the entire decrepit system comes crumbling down in bloody chaos. Of course by then, the ones who profited the most out of sucking the blood from the American corpse will be dead or retired.

Well, they might be still alive because one day quite soon wealth (ie the blood of the poor) will be able to buy longer life through genetics.  Anyway their descendants will be living well on the Riviera while our descendants starve and kill one another in the pit of despair that the Bad Place will become.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     You can start by recognizing that there is no chance of any program getting abolished, except maybe Obamacare prior to it starting up in full. People will fight to the death for their precious entitlement programs.

But people are just as willing to fight to the death for other people's precious unsustainble tax levels. We're drowing in Ronald Reagan and W's red ink.

     Which goes back to what wormyguy was saying. The country is a train that's about to derail & nobody in office is willing to fix what is wrong. We'll be seeing progressively more of this insanity until the government finally goes bankrupt & the United States becomes a third-world country. By then it will be too late.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

We will never lose SS or Medicare. When was the last time a major government program like that was cut? It won't happen, no matter what the tea party believes. They'll never have a large enough majority to enable it, and no President would be stupid enough to be the one that took all medicare away from the seniors or removed their SS checks.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

     You can start by recognizing that there is no chance of any program getting abolished, except maybe Obamacare prior to it starting up in full. People will fight to the death for their precious entitlement programs.

We are already paying the price of 30 years of deregulation. We need Glass-Steagall and the like back now.

[LBJ Revivalist]

We will never lose SS or Medicare. When was the last time a major government program like that was cut? It won't happen, no matter what the tea party believes. They'll never have a large enough majority to enable it, and no President would be stupid enough to be the one that took all medicare away from the seniors or removed their SS checks.

1996, Aid to Dependant Families and Children

[Brandon H]

How to stop it? Keep calling crony-capitalism / corporatism the free market (like Bush did at least once) and get the people to believe that it's Laissez Faire when it's anything but that. Or make make the American people think that these government programs are working when they are not.

[Frink]

We will never lose SS or Medicare. When was the last time a major government program like that was cut? It won't happen, no matter what the tea party believes. They'll never have a large enough majority to enable it, and no President would be stupid enough to be the one that took all medicare away from the seniors or removed their SS checks.

1996, Aid to Dependant Families and Children

That mainly affected people who were so poor that they didn't have very much political clout at all for such a decent sized group of people. It was also easier to scapegoat welfare recipients than it is to scapegoat retirees.

When some politician makes a serious run at cutting SS you'll see even sterner opposition.. since getting rid of it would be taking from everyone.

[Ban my account ffs!]

     You can start by recognizing that there is no chance of any program getting abolished, except maybe Obamacare prior to it starting up in full. People will fight to the death for their precious entitlement programs.

But people are just as willing to fight to the death for other people's precious unsustainble tax levels. We're drowing in Ronald Reagan and W's red ink.

     Which goes back to what wormyguy was saying. The country is a train that's about to derail & nobody in office is willing to fix what is wrong. We'll be seeing progressively more of this insanity until the government finally goes bankrupt & the United States becomes a third-world country. By then it will be too late.

And getting rid of medical coverage for seniors and sending a good number of them into poverty will save this country?

I'd really like to hear how you or any of the other libertarians here suggest what should happen to these people without SS or Medicare.

Real, practical, and plausible explanations.  None of this "things will be all peachy keen and apple pie as long as the rich pay no taxes!"

[Sbane]

     You can start by recognizing that there is no chance of any program getting abolished, except maybe Obamacare prior to it starting up in full. People will fight to the death for their precious entitlement programs.

But people are just as willing to fight to the death for other people's precious unsustainble tax levels. We're drowing in Ronald Reagan and W's red ink.

     Which goes back to what wormyguy was saying. The country is a train that's about to derail & nobody in office is willing to fix what is wrong. We'll be seeing progressively more of this insanity until the government finally goes bankrupt & the United States becomes a third-world country. By then it will be too late.

The United States only becomes a third-world country if at the point tough decisions need to be made we choose to keep a huge military over healthcare for poor people. Or if we decide that a 35% tax rate on Billionaires shouldn't increase but food stamps should be eliminated. When a country starts leaving large portions of it's populace in desperate poverty with no social safety net, it starts taking on the characteristics of what we like to call "third world" countries.

[Lief 🗽]

We will never lose SS or Medicare. When was the last time a major government program like that was cut? It won't happen, no matter what the tea party believes. They'll never have a large enough majority to enable it, and no President would be stupid enough to be the one that took all medicare away from the seniors or removed their SS checks.

1996, Aid to Dependant Families and Children

That mainly affected people who were so poor that they didn't have very much political clout at all for such a decent sized group of people. It was also easier to scapegoat welfare recipients than it is to scapegoat retirees.

When some politician makes a serious run at cutting SS you'll see even sterner opposition.. since getting rid of it would be taking from everyone.

Which is why the destruction of SS/Medicare will come in two phases. First they'll make both programs "means-tested", essentially turning them from universal programs to welfare. Once they are seen as "welfare programs", it'll be easier to get rid of them.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     You can start by recognizing that there is no chance of any program getting abolished, except maybe Obamacare prior to it starting up in full. People will fight to the death for their precious entitlement programs.

But people are just as willing to fight to the death for other people's precious unsustainble tax levels. We're drowing in Ronald Reagan and W's red ink.

     Which goes back to what wormyguy was saying. The country is a train that's about to derail & nobody in office is willing to fix what is wrong. We'll be seeing progressively more of this insanity until the government finally goes bankrupt & the United States becomes a third-world country. By then it will be too late.

The United States only becomes a third-world country if at the point tough decisions need to be made we choose to keep a huge military over healthcare for poor people. Or if we decide that a 35% tax rate on Billionaires shouldn't increase but food stamps should be eliminated. When a country starts leaving large portions of it's populace in desperate poverty with no social safety net, it starts taking on the characteristics of what we like to call "third world" countries.

     There are too many interests pulling in too many different directions. The average voter wants more entitlement programs, more tax cuts, & a balanced budget. The politicians will continue to talk about change & do nothing while China casts us aside & the dollar implodes. It probably won't happen for another 20-30 years at least, but I have little doubt that it will eventually happen.

[ag]

We will never lose SS or Medicare. When was the last time a major government program like that was cut? It won't happen, no matter what the tea party believes. They'll never have a large enough majority to enable it, and no President would be stupid enough to be the one that took all medicare away from the seniors or removed their SS checks.

1996, Aid to Dependant Families and Children

That mainly affected people who were so poor that they didn't have very much political clout at all for such a decent sized group of people. It was also easier to scapegoat welfare recipients than it is to scapegoat retirees.

When some politician makes a serious run at cutting SS you'll see even sterner opposition.. since getting rid of it would be taking from everyone.

Which is why the destruction of SS/Medicare will come in two phases. First they'll make both programs "means-tested", essentially turning them from universal programs to welfare. Once they are seen as "welfare programs", it'll be easier to get rid of them.

This is slightly more realistic. Still, it is hard to see how to have it implemented. Do you cut off the Medicare for those currently receiving it? But then even the rich would scream bloody murder. And, in any case, what's rich? Most elderly don't have such a high income (and Social Security is a non-negligible component of it). Or do you do this just for the future? But, then, the problem is, individual incomes change over the liftime. So, at what point do you kick out the people of the program?

Means testing, combined w/ the huge costs of medical care in the US, creates very strange incentives. If the condition for having Medicare is not to have a large private pension, most people (except for the outright very rich) would choose not to earn a private pension. But if that happens, abolishing the program would become that much harder with time: if today we can count on at least some people having private pensions to replace the public ones, after a period of means testing, you'd wind up with having to empoverish nearly everyone if you choose to go the full abolition route. 

[Mercenary]

Well you know, if those programs did go away, you could always set up similar ones in your areas. But nah, we can't have economic diversity in a nation of 300 million, we must conform to one standard that ultimately only benefits the corporations instead.

Only when people fully embrace decentralized economics will we see any real progress.

[ag]

Well you know, if those programs did go away, you could always set up similar ones in your areas. But nah, we can't have economic diversity in a nation of 300 million, we must conform to one standard that ultimately only benefits the corporations instead.

Only when people fully embrace decentralized economics will we see any real progress.

Well, yeah, that's sort of doable. But it would, probably, require imposing residence permits, at least on the elderly. Florida, would, probably, require Arizonans over 65 visas to come  w/ their grandchildren to Disney World ) I can just see the line at a Floridan consulate in Phoenix )

Anyway, I am going to bet on the following: if you made participation in these programs voluntary, not even the Utah legislature would vote to withdraw.

[Vepres]

     You can start by recognizing that there is no chance of any program getting abolished, except maybe Obamacare prior to it starting up in full. People will fight to the death for their precious entitlement programs.

But people are just as willing to fight to the death for other people's precious unsustainble tax levels. We're drowing in Ronald Reagan and W's red ink.

     Which goes back to what wormyguy was saying. The country is a train that's about to derail & nobody in office is willing to fix what is wrong. We'll be seeing progressively more of this insanity until the government finally goes bankrupt & the United States becomes a third-world country. By then it will be too late.

And getting rid of medical coverage for seniors and sending a good number of them into poverty will save this country?

I'd really like to hear how you or any of the other libertarians here suggest what should happen to these people without SS or Medicare.

Real, practical, and plausible explanations.  None of this "things will be all peachy keen and apple pie as long as the rich pay no taxes!"

You know, strawman is really annoying

Anyway, the general consensus among most libertarians/conservatives is that you cannot take them away from those on them, it just isn't feasible. If you lived your whole life expecting them and then live on them for years, then you would be royally screwed if they just disappeared. What you do is first, give those on it the choice to get off for a private alternative. Next, you make modest cuts to social security payments, but keep in mind, nothing draconian.

You tell everybody over 60, look, you'll get your benefits, but you have to wait until you're 70 instead of 66. You eliminate the lifetime cap on payroll taxes to feed the spending, in the short term. Means-testing would probably be put in place, too.

For people under 60, you dismantle SS until it is a small program for only the most needy, and create a private Medicare system, where the government will subsidize those who really need it (or those who incur "extraordinary" costs in a year, which would equal x). Presumably you'd have to change the regulatory structure of the health insurance industry to do this, but it can be done.

The government creates tax-free retirement savings accounts for everybody, and tax free health savings accounts.

You could nip-pick about specifics (like, maybe a small Medicare system would exist for poorer folk even in the end), but the general idea is workable.

Again, it must be emphasized that this would have to be gradual.

[ag]

Again, it must be emphasized that this would have to be gradual.

In order not to have libertarians lynched by mobs on sight, it would have to be very gradual. As in, taking decades. There is a problem with gradual, though: it would be extremely unpopular among the young: they'd have to pay taxes to fund a program which they will not be benefitting from. Furthermore, there would have to be a political commitment to that gradual abolition. Given, for instance, how stubborn the Mickey Mouse copyright has been in refusing to expire, I somehow doubt that a much greater political pressure for reinstatement could be resisted. And, of course, even that may only work for Social Security: that, indeed, could, in time, be replaced with private accounts and family support (it would radically change how Americans live their lives, but, gradually, it could be done).

Abolishing Medicare would cause such a backlash that no government would even dare seriously proposing it. Furthermore, means testing it would, almost inevitably, guarantee that very few people would ever save enough for retirement to fail the means test. In fact, saving would be considered almost suicidal. When you are 75 and sick, you'd have to be extremely rich to afford private medical care in the US, or private insurance for that matter: you are not even risky at that stage, you are a near certain drain on resources.  It makes no sense to save all your life to then spend it all in a couple of years on a few hospital stays and a surgery or two, and land on the dole at that point, anyway. So people won't save, period, or else would hide their savings in the offshores, or gift everything they own to kids, or you name it. T

It could be mitigated by requiring insurance companies to sell cheap insurance coverage to all the elderly, and than subsidizing them to cover the losses. But what, exactly, would be the difference between that, and the Medicare, as we know it?

Hm. Come to think of it, this would result in a humongous migration of elderly Americans to Mexico. Mexico provides elderly American expats a way of buying into the national medical insurance scheme (IMSS). Admittedly, it is not free, but it is orders of magnitude cheaper than it would be in the US. The IMSS care is no frills, but reasonably high quality, especially in the largest cities. Furthermore, private insurance can be bought for a fraction of the US price. And even private medical services are much cheaper than north of the border. Also, of course, modest pension fund savings go much further in Mexico than in the US. So, I get it. The whole abolition thing is designed to transfer the bulk of Florida's population to the Yucatan. The moment the abolition bill is tabled, I am investing in the beachfront property on Riviera Maya (and, unlke all of you,  North Americans, I can buy under my own name!! And even with a government subsidy!!!! Hoot!!!!)

[ag]

Hey, and the migration plan has further attractions. Mexican law prohibits foreigners buying property along the sea shore, where, probably, many of the retirees would want to go. So, the usual trick is to register a trust with a bank and buy the property in the name of the trust. So, if Social Security is means tested, moving to Mexico would have the salutory benefit of making it much harder to be shown to be failing the means test: you don't own anything, you just frequently vacation (perhaps, rent-free, but try proving it). Now, just register at home as resident in your grand-nieces studio appartment in Rochester, NY and, voila, you are as poor as a church mouse, legally lost all your savings in a Mexican real-estate speculation. Brilliant