see was that so hard? damn
Narrock wrote:1. There's not enough industry to guarantee work for everybody, especially when you take into consideration the massive influx of immigrants, both legal and illegal, as well as our naturalized-citizen population explosion. We're going to run into sustainability issues in the near future as it is.
2. We are already forced to pay into the social security issue, but the problem is... the stupid government is spending more from that fund than it's taking in. I've heard that 700 million bucks was "borrowed" from social security to fund "obamacare" but I'll have to google more on that claim later. Social Security should be privatized so the government can't steal it in the form of "borrowing" it.
3. I still don't get what this is all about, but I'm all for encroaching (a bit) onto BLM land to build more housing, including "affordable housing."
4. Who, or what governing body gets to determine which person gets to own which thing (thing, referring to "everything"), and what percentage?
5. Credit Unions are good enough for reasons I already stated.
1. that is an interesting stance to take. one problem with it is that you're basically saying, and i am inclined to agree, that even in a best-case scenario (i.e. with no illegals) there's not enough work for everyone to be productive and support themselves. it then follows that in any less-than-best-case scenario there isn't even
close to enough work for everyone to support themselves - yes, especially considering all the illegal workers. so a) is it fair to blame those who literally can't find work for being unemployed when there are mathematically
way more people than jobs? and b) what are we to do with all those people?
you are also correct to be concerned about sustainability, but IMHO it goes far beyond the problem of the unemployed outnumbering jobs 3-to-1 (or worse) especially as the cost of fossil fuels continues to rise.
2. i think you've been sold misleading right wing rhetoric. the truth is that part of the ACA reduces spending increases (not current spending) in medicare over the next couple decades, and uses that savings to put toward medicaid expansion and tax subsidies to help the poor get insurance. nothing was "stolen" at all.
anyway, yes, the govt is spending more on SS than it's taking in, but that's because the wealthy pay a MUCH smaller percentage into the trust fund than everyone else (yes,
percentage, not dollar amount). as arlos and i have already pointed out, doing away with that $120k/yr cap will fix SS sustainability for the next century and possibly beyond. that's why tax rates need to be progressive* - so people like you and me don't get stuck with footing the whole bill.
*not the same as "progressive politics"
3. as i said i'm iffy on this one but the basic gist seems to stray into the philosophical: what does it mean to actually own a building? you'll have to read the article to really get at what he's talking about
it is interesting that you point to the need for more affordable housing, but the fact is that vacant homes currently outnumber homeless people by more than a 5-to-1 ratio (3.5m homeless, 19m vacant homes). where's the sense in that? solutions are available, but no one in govt has the political will to try anything for fear of angering donors.
4. same as 3, i'm not really willing to follow him across the line between democratic socialism and real socialism.
5. i'll concede this one, as CUs are pretty great. i still think ND's model is pretty badass though!