time to save the American Government's finances.

[jonathankaplan]

I had intended to list the planks one by one, but first, it will make less sense, and seem less cohesively thought out, if I do it that way, so here are the main planks affecting Finance

Comments

[corwyn_ap]

1) What exactly should social security do (in your opinion)? A safety net against what? I mean you could forget about age limits altogether, and just start paying once a person was no longer able to work

[jonathankaplan]

1) Social Security should keep the elderly from fearing destitution, and keep the disabled from having no recourse but an income-free life. Social Security should NOT be welfare, or for those able to live without it. It is a second leg for those with one leg, not a third leg for those who can walk already. Something like that. Means testing works for me, will it "work" for deciding SS's fate

[ext_1460]

Social Security should NOT be welfare
Why not? It's a "safety net" to provide a minimal income for those who have become completely unable to work.

I think for #3, corwyn_ap is saying there will be fewer injured to support, not that we shouldn't support the injured. For myself, I'm not convinced we should support injured soldiers any differently than injured workers of any other profession.

For National Service, I look forward to your separate post. I suspect you're going to have a hard time convincing most of us - calling it "indenture" doesn't help much. Note that at least some of the anti-slavery argument is about efficiency, not just human rights. Having the government decree who can join what profession, and how much they'll be paid during their first few years just plain can't work well.

For cash - if anonymity is still maintained, what's the advantage of getting rid of paper?

[jonathankaplan]

I apologize, but I'll probably need a day or two of regeneration after I write this entry. The world moves too fast for me now, in so many ways. I'll get to every thought of every reply when I next have the ability, but I felt I wanted to say a few things now in direct response here

[ext_1460]

1) rock-on

[sabyl]

8) No real opinion. Easy cross-border movement is a good thing (and VAT makes it reasonable to still charge sales tax as duty), but language and culture matter and I'm not sure the integration will be all that smooth. I'd be tempted to push the other way: split USA into (at least) 3 distinct nations.

I agree. I think being too big is not a good thing. I think perhaps splitting up the US and then having a AU sort of like the EU could work, at least for mobility and freedom of movement and for economic partnership.

[jonathankaplan]

I've responded to most of these thoughts above, save 3

[jpmassar]

Taken as a set, this is as practical a solution to our problems as is a perpetual motion machine to the problem of energy demand.

[jonathankaplan]

Thanks JP,
this is my favorite response so far, actually....Too bad....

Thank You,

[jonathankaplan]

...that article was excellent

Re: Thank You,

[prock]

It has been a long time since the movement and motivation for real change in America has been felt by more than a minority, I am not even sure the last time, 50 years ago, felt this strong.

I have to assume that you're not referring to the civil rights movement here. If that's the case, what are you referring to?

Re: Thank You,

[jonathankaplan]

No, I was referring to the civil rights movement, but in looking at the statement, I am wrong in a few ways

[corwyn_ap]

Some other ideas (not a package