iiinova — where your digital self keeps evolving

Another problem in our democratic society is that too many people think that voters don't have the primary responsibility to elect good leaders - and they think it is so self-evident as to be obviously 'fact'. And by extension it is not primarily the voter's fault when good leaders are not elected.

100

4/ centrists when they too use silly labels. Pitting the fallacious against the fallacious seems like as good a use of fallacy as I can think of.

100

3/ label me a lefty. I think people see what they want to see that is least disruptive and challenging to what they have already decided to believe. But, I am grateful for the silly use of a label to try and make a point, o logician that you are, because I can use a screen shot of it to needle

100

2/ legitimately using other types of reasoning to arrive at our conclusions, and thereby both our conclusions remain in the messy world of opinion. One of us has the insight to see this, though, and the other does not. It is - so cute - that you label me a centrist. Many left of center centrists

100

1/ But, you aren't arriving at your opinion solely through deductive reasoning, and not even primarily through it. I am sure it plays a part, but there just aren't enough established facts out there in the world right now to establish the truth you seek to establish. We are both

100

It is interesting that you think I don't think you used logic to arrive at your opinion when I didn't say anything of the sort. You continue to make rookie mistakes and I can't straighten them all out. Exhausting. As for waiting a day and a half: LOL. I have lots of fun things to do with people.

100

4/ to the realm of fact vanishingly rarely. In any case, there is a vast branch of philosophy seeking to know when we actually know things. Suffice it to say here that it is not a simple matter. Once you have subjected yourself to it, you learn to spot one thing clearly. The arrogance of ignorance

000

3/ And because of this, they also involve considerable time. It should be wholly unsurprising to us that reasoning is actually inherently a social process requiring long patience, but people do forget it often. It is because of all this that analysis of complex political matters become elevated

100

2/ Rigorous deductive logic can be part of the process of transforming conjecture into truth. But, this transformation is so tricky, a set of formal processes has been built up around it. One striking feature of these processes is that they involve groups of people, not people acting alone.

100

1/ One of the problems we have today in the world is people believing there is a difference between logic and opinion. Doing our best to personally apply logic to a situation doesn’t transform our conclusions from opinion to fact. I had said “In your opinion.” And this was the response:

100

Gas prices will be high right now regardless of what crude does because the wars have reduced refining capacity. Crude and Gas prices are decoupled at the moment. The focus needs to be refining capacity.

000

Because pilots sometimes fly places as passengers? Probably quite frequently? I don't think this is even a question to be worth anyone's time asking.

060

3/ (or actually a progressive marginal tax equivalent to be perfectly clear). These extra taxes will amount to welfare. And I believe and have always believed welfare is a good thing. That's why I call it what it is.

000

2/ to review what was said and recognize where you made assumptions. As I said previously, the 25% shortfall should be funded by a lifting of the cap and then in addition a surtax on high earners. I will now specify: I believe the surtax needs to be an additional 11% tax above the lifting of cap.

100

1/ LOL. I am sorry to laugh at you, but if you're going to stay silly, you deserve it. Once someone tells you that you haven't understood what they have said, you need to step back. I know you're invested in thinking you're winning an argument, but you aren't. You really do need

100

I never used it like a dirty word. YOU saw it as a dirty word, and through that lens falsely saw me as saying something I wasn't saying. I am glad you finally are getting it. Just a bit further, and your understanding will be complete. I have already said what I think must be done to fund it.

100

Welfare is a good thing. That is my point. Stop the stigma around it. At its most basic level, welfare is simply the transfer of wealth from the wealthy to the less wealthy. Whether it is SNAP benefits or maintaining extra SS benefits, it is the same thing. Stop pretending it isn't. It is vital.

100

I've already said what I think the remedy for that extra amount should be. But, we could be taxing the wealthy with a 50% surtax and giving beneficiaries twice the benefits we are now and you'd still be calling it 'social insurance' supplementary payments or something. It is preposterous.

000

3/ And transfers are usually what we refer to as 'welfare'.

100

2/ The removal of the cap will provide for about 16% of current benefits. We don't want to decrease benefits by even 12%, which is the remaining 25% or so in shortfall, so we'll need those extra funds from someplace. I say a surtax on the wealthy. Yet another transfer.

1/ You're removing the cap on taxes but not the cap on benefits for the 'social insurance' for high earners. A rose is a rose even if called by another name. Transfer. But we are in agreement: Remove the cap on taxes without removing the tax on benefits and make up the difference with other taxes.

200

3/ This is why there needs to be courage in our convictions and clear understanding of why it is moral to transfer wealth.

000

2/ It is this second thing to which I am opposed. It is utterly unfair that current beneficiaries will have paid in less than future beneficiaries of similar income levels for the same level of benefits. So, I believe there needs to be a surtax on the wealthy to make up the rest of the difference.

100

1/ Furthermore, it is a myth that merely removing the cap will make SS able to pay current levels of benefits. This is one of the reasons I am so clear about the notion of transfers. Because, to pay current benefits, the cap would have to be removed AND SS taxes raised on current workers.

200

Calling it 'social insurance' is specious (and also even more of a 'political label') when the obvious intent is to take from the rich and give to others who need it. Just have the courage of your convictions. Why is that so hard?

000

No, I agree that there should be these transfers. But, I think we need to be clear about what they are.

000

Again: I'm not making a connection between 'raid' or lack thereof and 'transfer'. See my other responses.

000

4/ myself to justify what I think ought to be done. I think it is better if we say "rich people should have to help out the rest of society" and act on it with a clear head. Rather than playing semantic games about it.

000

3/ It effectively becomes partially a transfer of funds from high earners to poor. It is wildly disingenuous and convenient not to see it this way. I believe it *should* take from high earners and transfer those funds to low earners. But, I call things what they actually are. I don't deceive

100

2? much longer is because not enough is being brought in to pay the level of benefits. If high earners are brought in to continue paying benefits to lower earners, and will certainly receive far less than they pay in, it really remains only partially a social insurance matter.

100

1/ I'm not calling the bond or repayment situation a 'transfer'. That is entirely a separate issue. People bring it up like SS was robbed and that is their reason for it being 'insolvent'. This is false. The reason the 'social insurance' doesn't have enough to pay current benefits for very

100

If they had paid their "fair share" and gotten less than they paid in, then it would be solvent. But, again, this is then effectively a transfer payment system (i.e welfare).

100

Yes. Exactly. So it is a myth that funds were taken and not repaid. Bonds are part of the reserve, and we'll still run out of reserve soon. When reserves run out, there won't be any unpaid bonds, no unrepaid debt owed to SS.

And so far when the bonds come due the money has been paid back because they are treasury bonds and if they weren't paid, our credit rating would tank. But, it is a myth that the money is 'missing' or that it isn't or won't be paid back. Full repayment is part of the reserve and is included.

100

You do earn it through payroll taxes, but the benefit level has to comport exactly with the amount paid in for it to avoid being effectively a transfer. You can play semantics, but when someone says "I just want back what I paid in" they are usually asking for a benefit cut without knowing it.

Most people get back from Social Security more than they pay in. Social Security reserve is invested and the interest earned added to the benefits paid out.

100

It is a myth that Reagan and Bush 'raided' it for the general fund.

100

It would still be a transfer from the wealthy to the less wealthy and poor. So, it wouldn't change the fact that it has some characteristics of welfare. This is fine, but is the truthful way to view it.

000

This would still be a transfer payment from the wealthy to the less wealthy, just like welfare. I am not saying it is wrong, just that it makes the claim "I paid in for everything I am getting back" false.

While this is true, we didn’t pay in enough to cover current levels of benefits. That’s why the reserve is being drawn down. Part of the benefit is like being on welfare because we didn’t actually pay for it.

510

Well when this all was laid down the states wanted to be like little nations joined in a union, semi-autonomous and living and creating law according to their own values. It was a little like the EU, which also doesn’t have uniform laws in this matter.

001

Yes I’m sure in the real world complex things ever turn out black and white.

000