Zone1 What "progressive" policies have turned out well in the past 50 years?

[jwoodie]

I wrote a report on this very thing. It goes like this:

Impact of the Disappearance of Social Security Funds on the U.S. Government and Economy

Executive Summary
The sudden disappearance of Social Security funds poses a grave threat to the U.S. economic structure and government's fiscal stability. This report examines the potential impacts of such an event across various sectors, including the economy, social welfare, defense, healthcare, and international commitments.

Who, besides you, is talking about "the sudden disappearance of Social Security"? Straw Man post.

 

[Timmy O. Goodwin]

it is that simple,,

and np long drawn out rant will change that,,

Opinions are personal and I respect yours. Have a nice day.

 

[progressive hunter]

Opinions are personal and I respect yours. Have a nice day.

I reject yours because its not fair and just dumb,,

 

[jwoodie]

The ACA's savings vastly exceeded its costs. By trillions of dollars. All while insuring tens of millions of people and improving the quality of American health care.

The ACA was passed as a "no cost" bill by comparing 10 years of revenue to 5 years of expenditures. Did you forget that?

 

[Timmy O. Goodwin]

Who, besides you, is talking about "the sudden disappearance of Social Security"? Straw Man post.

Who, besides you, is talking about "the sudden disappearance of Social Security"? Straw Man post.

It was in response to a query, and I am sorry if you perceive it as a distorted version of the argument.

 

[Greenbeard]

The ACA was passed as a "no cost" bill by comparing 10 years of revenue to 5 years of expenditures. Did you forget that?

In real life, the revenue turned out to be irrelevant.

The much-touted budget projections at the time were that it would cost $938B in new spending (on marketplace premium subsidies, Medicaid spending above the baseline due to the Medicaid expansion, and small employer tax credits) over the first ten years, paid for by ~$500B in cumulative reductions of Medicare spending below the baseline and the remainder more than made up for by the new revenue sources in the ACA.

In real life, new spending came in at ~$300B and the Medicare savings below the baseline over that period were ~$900B. In other words, we're already $600 billion ahead before you count any of the new revenues. And the big reason is that health care cost growth plummeted after the ACA passed, which nobody was expecting. All while uninsurance was pushed to all-time lows and the quality of American health care was improving.

The extent to which the ACA was a massive fiscal success (beyond even the rosiest projections of the most ardent boosters) is remarkably underappreciated.

 

[Foxfyre]

It used to be only the wealthy were educated because it cost a lot of money. Mass education was created because mass production was created industry needed people who could read, write, and talk in mass quantities, and armies needed literate people.

What was is interesting in various ways including what we can learn from it. History is not for us to judge morally but to understand and learn from.

What was, however, is usually not what is now.

The towns people, via social contract, used to agree to join together to build a school house and hire a teacher to educate the children. The one room school house gave way to far more elaborate school systems over time, but as long as the local community, parents, teachers controlled and funded the process, education was pretty darn good in the USA. When the state took over control of the schools and then the federal government, the quality of education began to erode and became far more expensive.

Bigger is not always better. And government does very few things more efficiently and effectively than the people will choose to do for themselves via social contract.

 

[progressive hunter]

What was is interesting in various ways including what we can learn from it. History is not for us to judge morally but to understand and learn from.

What was, however, is usually not what is now.

The towns people, via social contract, used to agree to join together to build a school house and hire a teacher to educate the children. The one room school house gave way to far more elaborate school systems over time, but as long as the local community, parents, teachers controlled and funded the process, education was pretty darn good in the USA. When the state took over control of the schools and then the federal government, the quality of education began to erode and became far more expensive.

Bigger is not always better. And government does very few things more efficiently and effectively than the people will choose to do for themselves via social contract.

the government closest to the people governs best,,

I have always said its easier to go to your local mayor or state governor than it is to go to DC when you have a grievance,,, and its harder for them to ignore you,,

 

[Foxfyre]

Who has the best health care in the world?

I don't know but it sure isn't us.

 

[Foxfyre]

the government closest to the people governs best,,

I have always said its easier to go to your local mayor or state governor than it is to go to DC when you have a grievance,,, and its harder for them to ignore you,,

That is true. And for the most part the local government is usually--not always but usually--going to be more responsive and less self serving than many/most in federal government. And a far sight less expensive in most cases.

 

[Foxfyre]

I wrote a report on this very thing. It goes like this:

Impact of the Disappearance of Social Security Funds on the U.S. Government and Economy

Executive Summary
The sudden disappearance of Social Security funds poses a grave threat to the U.S. economic structure and government's fiscal stability. This report examines the potential impacts of such an event across various sectors, including the economy, social welfare, defense, healthcare, and international commitments.

Background
Social Security is a fundamental component of the United States' social safety net, funded primarily through payroll taxes. It provides financial assistance to retirees, disabled individuals, and survivors of deceased workers. In 2022, the program collected approximately $1.3 trillion in total income, primarily from payroll taxes, and paid out about $1.2 trillion in benefits.

Potential Impacts

Economic and Fiscal Stability
Revenue Loss: The immediate loss of payroll tax revenue would create a significant shortfall in the federal budget, requiring increased borrowing, higher taxes, or spending cuts elsewhere.
Increased Demand on Other Social Programs: The absence of Social Security benefits would lead to increased demand for other welfare programs, straining both federal and state budgets.
Consumer Spending: A decrease in consumer spending due to the loss of income for millions would negatively impact the economy, potentially leading to a recession.

Sector-Specific Impacts

Military and Defense: Potential reallocation of funds could affect military readiness and international obligations.
Healthcare (Medicare/Medicaid): Increased pressure on healthcare programs due to the loss of integrated Social Security benefits, potentially leading to budgetary constraints.
Space Programs: Non-essential programs like space exploration could face budget cuts.
Immigration Services: Reduced funding could affect processing times and border security.
Foreign Affairs and NATO: The U.S.'s ability to meet international commitments, including NATO defense spending and foreign aid, could be compromised.
Climate Change Initiatives: Funding for efforts to combat climate change could be reduced.
UN Assistance: Financial contributions to the United Nations for peacekeeping and humanitarian aid could decrease.
Long-Term Challenges
Public Confidence: The disappearance of Social Security could undermine public confidence in the government's ability to provide financial security, leading to social unrest.
Policy Response and Reform: Addressing the void left by Social Security would require substantial policy innovation and potentially significant changes to the social safety net.

Conclusion
The sudden disappearance of Social Security funds would not only create immediate financial hardship for millions of Americans but also challenge the overall structural integrity of the entire U.S. economy and the government's fiscal system. The ripple effects would extend across all sectors of government activity, from defense and healthcare to environmental and foreign aid commitments. Addressing such a scenario would require a concerted effort from all levels of government, significant policy reform, and likely a reevaluation of the social contract in the United States and even then, there would be no guarantee the US would come out of it in one piece.

For sure once the government makes us dependent on government for anything whether that be subsidies or income or whatever, discontinuing whatever that is will be very traumatic for those made dependent. Which is why the federal government should not be doing anything that cannot be done more efficiently, effectively, economically by the private sector.

 

[progressive hunter]

For sure once the government makes us dependent on government for anything whether that be subsidies or income or whatever, discontinuing whatever that is will be very traumatic for those made dependent. Which is why the federal government should not be doing anything that cannot be done more efficiently, effectively, economically by the private sector.

that is one of the favored tactics of progressives,,

they cant control you if you dont need them,,
so they get you hooked on handouts and then they can threaten to take them away if you dont do as they say,, in most cases its just voting to maintain the handout,,

another is kicking the father out of the house to keep getting welfare,,

 

[jwoodie]

In real life, the revenue turned out to be irrelevant.

The much-touted budget projections at the time were that it would cost $938B in new spending (on marketplace premium subsidies, Medicaid spending above the baseline due to the Medicaid expansion, and small employer tax credits) over the first ten years, paid for by ~$500B in cumulative reductions of Medicare spending below the baseline and the remainder more than made up for by the new revenue sources in the ACA.

In real life, new spending came in at ~$300B and the Medicare savings below the baseline over that period were ~$900B. In other words, we're already $600 billion ahead before you count any of the new revenues. And the big reason is that health care cost growth plummeted after the ACA passed, which nobody was expecting. All while uninsurance was pushed to all-time lows and the quality of American health care was improving.

The extent to which the ACA was a massive fiscal success (beyond even the rosiest projections of the most ardent boosters) is remarkably underappreciated.

WRONG. The NET COST of the ACA was originally estimated to be $940 billion over ten years. It is now $1.68 trillion.

 

[Greenbeard]

WRONG. The NET COST of the ACA was originally estimated to be $940 billion over ten years.

…and it ended up costing a third of that. 2010-19 is in the past, the data are in. The ACA was much cheaper, and its savings far larger, than anyone predicted.

 

[Libby von H]

I was trying to think of a "progressive" policy that has worked out well during the past 50 years, but I couldn't come up with any. Can you?

Woodrow Wilson's Income Tax
"established a one percent tax on income above $3,000 per year; the tax affected approximately three percent of the population."

Yes, I'm kidding.Wanted you to see an early Joe Biden move

 

[TheParser]

I was trying to think of a "progressive" policy that has worked out well during the past 50 years, but I couldn't come up with any. Can you?

Well, no!

For a time in the 1960s, we all were excited that there would finally be harmony in our country as new laws were passed.

But, sadly, "certain" folks have only become worse in their behavior since the 1960s.

 

[otto105]

Woodrow Wilson's Income Tax
"established a one percent tax on income above $3,000 per year; the tax affected approximately three percent of the population."

Yes, I'm kidding.Wanted you to see an early Joe Biden move

Hilariously funny olde white grandma

What would have Woodrow done with South African nepo billionaires?

 

[AqlAlim]

I was trying to think of a "progressive" policy that has worked out well during the past 50 years, but I couldn't come up with any. Can you?

In the last 50 years, since the early 70s, we haven't had any progressive policies. On the contrary, for the most part, our nation has been pro-right. Most of the so-called "progressive policies" past between the 1930s and late 1960s. Clinton made sure children always have access to Medicaid, and Obama made sure that health insurance can't deny you coverage over a past ailment but he failed to increase competition, continuing to support the insurance oligopolies, resulting in premiums going through the roof. Biden signed some labor protection laws making easier for workers to unionize.

Social Security, worker-comp, "unemployment" insurance benefits, 40-hour work week, labor union protections, Medicare, Medicaid, programs like JobCorps....

Job Corps | Careers Begin Here

Job Corps is the largest free residential education and job training program for young adults ages 16-24. We connect you with the skills and education you need to get the career you want!

www.jobcorps.gov

​

Are all leftist, "socialistic" government policies and programs?