Social security and medicare are "welfare" by any reasonable definition. So the welfare state is a big issue.
Not true. Paul Ryan did, and even got into a fairly public fight with Paul Krugman about it [1].
http://www.roadmap.republicans.budget.house.gov/
[1] The fight was mostly over matters of little substance - Krugman told a few lies about Ryan which blogger Megan McCardle repeatedly debunked. The substance of the proposal was not discussed. http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/08/krugman-... http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/08/paul-kru...
If Ryan came out swinging and saying "YEAH i want to dismantle SS", that'd be different.
Krugman: "...Ryan could have gotten JCT to do a 10-year estimate; [...] he chose not to get that 10-year estimate. "
McCardle: "...I contacted Ryan's staff, who were happy to clarify that yes, they asked the JCT to do a forecast, and JCT said no."
As I said, nothing of substance. Just Krugman dishonestly attempting to paint Ryan as a liar (I believe "flim flam man" was the term he used).
On substantive matters, if you look at Table 1 of the CBO's score of Ryan's roadmap, you see that Ryan clearly proposes cutting medicare by just under 40% by 2040 (and even more drastic cuts after that).
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10851/01-27-Ryan-Roadmap...
I didn't suggest that it was. I just think that if we're going to have an intellectually honest discussion about the matter, we have to disregard most of the Republican party rhetoric: the poor are not the problem. The elderly are the problem. As far as I'm concerned, nobody is saying that out loud.
The Democrats are just as guilty of pandering to their base (which is also elderly), but at least they don't hang the poor out to dry in a cynical attempt to distract attention from the real problem.
Obviously poor people aren't the problem either -- personally I want to see far more immigration of poor people who want American jobs (yes I want rich immigrants too ofc) -- but inefficient govt programs like food stamps and unemployment benefits do cost a lot of money.
The problem is the govt and its mistaken idea that redistributing wealth can help people. It doesn't. It destroys wealth. We'd all be way better off if they'd never done it in the first place, including the poor and elderly. (Now we have transition issues. We need to abolish it in a way that doesn't screw people who are relying on it.)
The other problems you state are meta-problems - they're the reason we can't solve any actual problems. And possibly more concerning than actual problems.
Or better yet, invest in technology so they rejuvenate old people to the point that they can enter the workforce and earn their living for the rest of their life(presumably several centuries).
Many people agree with you that people should take care of themselves, and that Social Security and Medicare should be, at most, a safety net for people who would otherwise be old folks on the streets without healthcare. Such a policy is usually referred to as "means testing" retirement benefits.
Eliminating government retirement benefits altogether will never happen because no one likes seeing 70 year-olds suffering in poverty, but they don't dislike it enough to ameliorate the problem directly via charity. Humans are weird like that.
Ignore that. I was reading a parent's post and reply to the wrong parent comment.
Many people agree with you that people should take care of themselves, and that Social Security and Medicare should be, at most, a safety net for people who would otherwise be old folks on the streets without healthcare. Such a policy is usually referred to as "means testing" retirement benefits.
No, this is not what I advocated. I advocated that the family should resume the role of caretakers(or what been eroded by government) instead of leaving old folks alone in old people homes. Old people can then serve as babysitters, teachers, etc, to grandchildren. That is assuming, that they do have them.
Eliminating government retirement benefits altogether will never happen because no one likes seeing 70 year-olds suffering in poverty, but they don't dislike it enough to ameliorate the problem directly via charity. Humans are weird like that.
Maybe some. But this is ignoring the option of creating mutual aid societies. Fraternities organizations used to exists in large number and large number of Americans join them, regardless of their race and class. They provide orphanage, hospitals, and even home for elderly. Now the welfare state serve some of these functions, some said, poorly.
What do you think should happen to those who are unable to reproduce, or who choose not to, or whose children die before them, or whose children are just jerks who won't help their parents out?
So this is saying that we should need a government to help out all these old people that do not have anybody to help them.
That's nice, but government aid have crowding out effect on mutual aid societies and the like, and that's assuming that government aid are actually better than family based, charity based, mutual aid societies and other voluntary assistance.
Beside, the increasing wealth of society and technological development should eventually help those old folks out. Charity would eventually be able to buy more food and shelter per dollars.
Look, my suggestion isn't perfect and won't cover all the case scenario. But government is a tradeoff. You might be paying it through taxes, increased bureaucracy, less innovations amongst charity, etc.
All things being equal, I think I consider a voluntary effort to support the old people to be more ethical than coercing people to support these people.
I am merely suggesting that we should return the care of elderly to the families, who are in better position to know what their elders need.
I am also suggesting that people should invest in anti-aging research so that social security would be entirely unnecessary.