Maybe they should just become libertarians. Then they wouldn't have to walk on carpet that is lumpy from having so much swept under it.

I'll see your GOP youngster tolerating abortion and same-sex civil marriage and raise you two religious fundamentalist youngsters active in the primaries *and* the general election.

When the carpet's lumps grow twenty-feet tall it's no longer a carpet; it's one big tent. Welcome libertarians!

I'd like to be able to support the LP, but (A) they've never been, and are not likely to ever be, a serious factor in electoral politics, and (B) they're so irresponsible on defense, immigration, and foreign policy generally, that they're hard to take seriously.

I'd prefer to see libertarians do with the Republican party what socialists have done with the Democrats. Take it over from the inside.

So, Paul Ryan's budget plan will balance the budget in thirty years, and promises not to screw anyone over the age of 50.

I'm surprised there are any young Republicans left.

That would be preferable to no plan?

PJ,

Ron Paul's budget would do it faster, but hopefully, we'll make a thirty degree course change and put the cliff edge at a slight farther distance.

MarkD, it is NO different than "no plan."

You can't have a number of people as large as the Boomers and Silets combined, leaving the party room a complete mess, and expect the small and broke generations of X and Y to pick up all that trash before they get to use the room.

Ryan sold out in order to be electable. And you can't really blame him for wanting to keep his job, just like everyone else. If he even went as far as to say that he expected the current group to clean up HALF of their own mess, you'd have the AARP and every Tea Partier in the USA screaming their heads off about how he was screwing granny.

The average American voter would get far more utility from a helmet and a bib than they get from their voting rights. And that's really the problem - not this particular politician or that.

If we were really going to do the right thing, we've had both Ron Paul and Gary Johnson to choose from. Let's see how those results turn out, shall we? We're just hosed, and the problem is us.

For example, it's a common joke that entitlements are the third rail of politics. Everyone thinks it's a really funny joke, too. They smile and nod knowingly, and agree that any politician who tried to do the right thing would get thrown out of office.

Read that again: We elect leaders precisely to kick the can down the road, pass the trash, and do the wrong thing. And what do we say about the ones who would do the right thing? "Oh, they'll never win." Which is true - they don't.

Incrementalism is the biggest barrier to progress, Jim P. We can't make a 30-degree course change in another ten years. We needed to make a 90-degree change yesterday. Allowing an incremental, future change is really just another way of saying "kick the can some more."

The last two and a half generations left the place such a mess from their big, drunken party, the next two generations will spend their entire evening cleaning up the trash from the previous one - never mind having a party of their own.

Any plan that would place the entire burden of this mess on a bunch of people who hadn't or haven't even been born yet is just more of the same old status quo that got us here in the first place.

I think there are a lot of "independents" who are fiscally conservative and socially tolerant. People who would be otherwise on board with the republican message but for sacred the anti abortion and anti gay marriage platform.

Yes, the republicans are the party of slightly less government spending but at least it's something. And hopefully the focus will stay on the economy and the social issues will not derail it. If large numbers of young people coming into the party can open it up hopefully the democrats won't "own" tolerance in the future.

I think there are a lot of people in the democratic party for whom the social issues are in the forefront and if the democrats no longer own those issues then perhaps they would consider the other side, or at least not look at the other side as evil extremists.

I would very much like to see what the political landscape would look like if abortion for example were completely taken out of the equation.

P.J.,

I quite agree -- I would like to see about 90% of the national government disbanded. I'd like to have Woodrow Wilson and FDR exhumed and launch their remains into the sun. I'm still debating on Lincoln. Obama should join them. But it isn't going to happen.

So working with the frame we have now:

You have any number people that have never made much above minimum wage or have seen all their pensions, 401k's, and savings go down the crapper, multiple times. So now they are in their 50's, have been taxed for SS and Medicare their whole lives and you want to take that away? Yes the government lied about the lock box, but at this point we now have a dependency class that is aged 65 because the way laws were crafted.

Some little interesting things that you should note about SS and Medicare. You are required to start drawing SS by age 70. You cannot have anything but Medicare as your primary insurance over age 65. Insurers are legally barred from being your primary health insurance after 65. You can not draw SS without signing up for Medicare.

I'd like to get rid of SS and Medicare, but I sure as hell am not going to have my bipolar mother moving in with me. Add to that I don't think there is anyone drawing SS today that didn't pay in something. So the only way out is to fund it still for a number of years.

Now as far as unemployment -- there should be a 180 day cap, period. A minimum of 18 months between claims. Growing up there were some people that did road work, saved up the extra money and took the winter off. But the other 9 months worked 50-60 hours a week. That's a let it slide group. The steel workers would get a one-two week break as they cleaned up the plants. Most adults didn't want to be on unemployment. Now it is acceptable.

As far as EBT/Food Stamps -- it should be a bright, fluorescent pink card with "FOOD STAMPS" printed on it. And you have to have a state identification card to match the name on the card.

But none of this can be implemented in a day, a week, or a year.

If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.

Jim P., I'd like to know what you make of this:

http://reason.com/archives/2012/07/23/generational-warfare

It turns out the older generations are far, far wealthier than the younger ones. Statistically, your mother has a far lower likelihood of living in poverty than, say, your 30-year-old son. You're going to end up with one of them living with you, sorry Jim!

So now they are in their 50's, have been taxed for SS and Medicare their whole lives and you want to take that away?

As a matter of fact, in many cases I would delight in doing so, because that is precisely what they want to do to everyone younger than them.

The Silents and Boomers elected leadership that spent their trust fund, because they wanted all the stuff the money was spent on but didn't want their taxes to go up. Collectively, they just decided to keep borrowing from the 401K without ever paying it back, because the kids would be around to make the repayments.

We will see if the kids make the repayments. I suspect they might want to spend their taxes on other things. The only two ways out of our national debt now are either outright default or hyperinflation. The younger generations could make an excellent case for defaulting on it under the concepts of "odious debt" and "taxation without representation."

The concept of people being responsible for themselves has become a rare one, I agree. Living within ones means is referred to in the parlance of our times as "austerity" - and what's more, is widely regarded as unfair!

It turns out the older generations are far, far wealthier than the younger ones. Statistically, your mother has a far lower likelihood of living in poverty than, say, your 30-year-old son.

And, thanks to the estate tax going back up to 50% very soon (if not already), you and your son stand very little chance of inheriting anything substantial from Mom.

Good luck collecting Social Security in 20 years. Hope Junior got a good degree.

I say we throw a ten year long, world wide Logan's Run LARP with all safety features disabled, maybe make the cut off age 50 or 55 though, and then if things dont change do the same with the age around 30

As a matter of fact, in many cases I would delight in doing so, because that is precisely what they want to do to everyone younger than them. -- Pirate Jo at August 13, 2012 12:53 PM

Now let's get back to reality.

As a society, throwing anyone under the bus is not going to happen, as much as we'd like to see it. We now have an entitlement system that needs to be dismantled.

How to do it logically:

• Dump Obamacare


• Gradually dump SS and Medicare


• Make SSI and Medicaid what it was originally designed for.


• Severely restrict unemployment


• Severely restrict food stamps


• Cut the fed


• Overturn Wickard v. Filburn


• Disband 90% of the federal agencies


• Overturn the 16th Amendment


• _________________


• _________________


• _________________

I don't have all the answers. But dumping an 80 year old widow with dementia out the front door of a nursing home is not the answer.

You can say dump SS and Medicare tomorrow. But you then have to take all the rules out about employment and insurance for those over 65 at the same time. Employers need to know what the new rules are. Insurers also need to know the new rules. The states also have to change the rules on workers comp and insurance.

The national government is an 800 pound gorilla that has distorted every market it has ever touched. Killing that 800 pound gorilla is not a matter of stabbing it through the heart and hoping it bleeds out quickly, it is dismembering it piece by piece.

I say we throw a ten year long, world wide Logan's Run LARP with all safety features disabled, maybe make the cut off age 50 or 55 though, and then if things don't change do the same with the age around 30 -- lujlp at August 13, 2012 1:11 PM

I can agree with that idea. Just remember:

Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill. -- American Proverb

I'm just hoping Captain Trips comes soon.

Jim P. - Your list is a great start.

For the record, no I wouldn't dump an 80-year-old woman in a nursing home out on the street. But I also don't assume she's broke. If she's 80, she's already probably gotten 2-3 times out of the system what she paid in, and who's to say she isn't sitting on a half-mil of her own money? Why should we keep shoveling more money at her just because of her age? Remember, the older demographics are wealthier. That is generally speaking, though, and individually this may not be the case.

Speaking of getting back to reality, I just don't think there is any way to avoid collapse if you put the full weight of the program restructuring on only the people under the age of 55. There are plenty of people aged 55 and over who have plenty of their own money. They have paid into the system, but they have also benefitted from it already, because it took care of their parents, and they've also benefitted from the borrowing from the trust fund, in that they got the things the money could buy without paying higher taxes. If you borrow everything you put into your 401K and then spend it, you have *already* benefitted from that money. But you can't have that cake and eat it too - you must expect that your 401K will be empty.

Nobody wants to see an old, broke person thrown out into the street, but we can't simply dump all the burden on the younger people either. There just isn't enough money there, even if we wanted to.

Am I the only one that has read Albert Brooks' novel 2030? It was pretty scary in how it read very much NOT like fiction.

Speaking of getting back to reality, I just don't think there is any way to avoid collapse if you put the full weight of the program restructuring on only the people under the age of 55. There are plenty of people aged 55 and over who have plenty of their own money. -- Pirate Jo at August 14, 2012 7:40 AM

I know anecdotes are not data. My mother bought her condo/strip house at about $85K about 10-15 years ago with about $17K down and a modest mortgage. It's now worth about $85K. Her equity is about $55K. So for her to sell it and move into an apartment, she'd have about $55K in the bank. That is not wealthy.

Changing SS that those under 55 or 45 or 50, etc. can opt out, but are now responsible for their retirement including living on the streets and they no longer pay in. Those over X age get SS, but they have a means test. And they are required to still pay. I don't have the details worked out, and I'd likely be caught in the notch at this point.

Yes -- in a way it would tax the future generation as the end of the program occurs because the funds would have to come out of the general fund. But the lock box was raided by the general fund.

The other thing you need to remember is we would choke through the boomer generation and it would be the Gen Xers that would bear the brunt of the burden. Gen Yers would have to pay for some of the Gen Xers. But if the reform is done right -- the bonds for SS will not be allowed to be used in the general fund.

As I said -- there is no simple answer -- but if you, I, and everyone else comes out and says -- spending our fortune and sacred honor is not acceptable everyday, it may get through to Congress.

Another thing to remember is how much of the population actually pays attention. Walk up to someone and ask them "What do you think of Obama causing $4T in debt?" and about 65% would say "Huh?" Another large portion would say "He can just print more money."

The less than 25% that have considered this is far and few between.

I disagree JimP there are simple answers. They are painful and supposedly creul, but there are simple answers

I disagree Jim P there are simple answers. They are painful and supposedly cruel, but there are simple answers. -- lujlp at August 15, 2012 9:45 PM

Oh I agree -- there are simple answers:

• End Social Security
• End Medicare
• End the Department of Transportation
• End the Department of Education
• End the Department of Energy
• End the Department of Agriculture
• Kill Food Stamps
• Let the Unemployment Insurance to the states
• End Medicaid
• End Food Stamps
• End the Department of Labor
• Kill the EPA or severely restrict it
• End the Department of __________
• End the Department of __________
• End the Department of __________
• End the Department of __________

The problem with those simple answers is that someone has a vested interest in it and can they sway the mass of uninformed public why it is a bad idea to kill it.

The problem is that there are no longer the private charitable organizations that there once were before the government took over, such as orphanages, mass soup kitchens, etc.

To rebuild the community organizations back in the time it would take to just drop the departments could be done, but at what cost?

Weell, we can cut it now and use the cash saved for a few emergency centers for people who really need them, or we can cut it in a few years down the road when there wont be any cash to spare