Dec 8th 2011, 2:17:46
I'm delusional?
a) At no point did I say that I would make such arguments in order to push such policies.
b) My comment has plenty of merit within the context that I placed it, which is that the logic you used above regarding EI is the same logic that many left leaning people use in support of social programs in general. That is a the case regardless of whether or not you agree with the policies the arguments are being used to project.
c) how is it delusional? Your response actually has no bearing on my point. Yes it is probably true that SS will be broke by the time you get to an age of eligibility, and yes it may be true that it may have been avoided if they did things differently at some point in the past. But what the hell does that have to do with my point?
d)It actually is true that expanding those programs would save money in other programs. To other otherwise would be delusional. The debate would have to revolve around HOW MUCH money could be saved in other programs, and whether it would be a net reduction in overall costs. Or another point of argument against would be on ideological grounds (e.g. So what if the point is valid? The evasiveness of such policies aren't worth the benefits). To try to claim otherwise is to fail to recognize facts, which is a sign of partisanship and not of real debate, which is a big reason why the US system is so toxic and ineffectual to begin with.
a) At no point did I say that I would make such arguments in order to push such policies.
b) My comment has plenty of merit within the context that I placed it, which is that the logic you used above regarding EI is the same logic that many left leaning people use in support of social programs in general. That is a the case regardless of whether or not you agree with the policies the arguments are being used to project.
c) how is it delusional? Your response actually has no bearing on my point. Yes it is probably true that SS will be broke by the time you get to an age of eligibility, and yes it may be true that it may have been avoided if they did things differently at some point in the past. But what the hell does that have to do with my point?
d)It actually is true that expanding those programs would save money in other programs. To other otherwise would be delusional. The debate would have to revolve around HOW MUCH money could be saved in other programs, and whether it would be a net reduction in overall costs. Or another point of argument against would be on ideological grounds (e.g. So what if the point is valid? The evasiveness of such policies aren't worth the benefits). To try to claim otherwise is to fail to recognize facts, which is a sign of partisanship and not of real debate, which is a big reason why the US system is so toxic and ineffectual to begin with.