Of the listed options in the recommendations.
#1 is a non-starter, because it would take money away from the “JCs”.
#2 is a non-starter, because it would do the same as #1.
#3 is a non-starter, because it would increase costs for the corporate persons.
#4 is a non-starter, because it would do the same as #1.
#1 is a non-starter, because it takes money away from the “JCs”.
#2 would be acceptable, because it takes money away from proles.
#3 would be acceptable, because it takes money away from proles.
Then there is “plan Steve”: eliminate the SS old age pension, to force able bodied geezers to work until they are too feeble and broken up to be useful anymore. Then they go on disability.
Some want to save it. Some just want it to burn down. But this is a problem known about for decades and it has seldom been addressed. I personally have no faith anything can be done because the political will does not exist.
Frankly, while I feel the system is very beneficial to the country, I find the percentages “invested” and the benefits given are pretty out of whack. But I also think the partial privatization schemes are just awful.
SS is not a problem at all. We have demand-side economics now. Over time SS payments will increase beyond cost colas.
The problem was supply-side economics. How do we afford anything when we do not produce much? Talk about crap that was never economics. At least no one is directly pushing those lies like gold silverware for ejits any longer. If you find someone who wants supply-side econ tar and feather them.
The solution a great deal more factory production in the US. There are total lazy behinds against that. Americans pride themselves on work so they won’t support the rhetoric of the lazy.
One of the people in the debate tonight was proclaiming the 2017 tax cut, that he voted for, as validation for the Laffer curve.
@steve203 Absolutely their economics have not changed. But the label is gone because public opinion has caught up with them. Supply-side pushes are fragmented into a few positions that must be somehow presented as palatable. There is no overarching support for the economics as they lead to nowhere.