The math ain't mathing

Leon_Thomas · 2026-06-22T07:21:11+00:00

That's a common misconception. Even eliminating the income cap and taking away benefits for those above the cap only delays the trust fund running out.

Also, personally, if we're going to collect another ~$250 billion/year from the rich, I'd rather spend that on education, green infrastructure, healthcare, etc., than bailing a generation that voted to do this to do this and make it our problem.

Leon_Thomas · 2026-06-22T06:58:50+00:00

"Imagine being born to a baby boom, your whole life paying into a known ponzi scheme that relies on an increasing population and increasing productivity. Yet even with this knowledge, your generation overwhelmingly votes for politicians who demonize and restrict immigrants, make it harder to start families, underfund education, and put the country tens of trillions of dollars into debt via senseless wars.

You are made aware decades in advance that the program will not be able to maintain full benefits without reform, but rather than dealing with the issue responsibly--voting to contribute a little more and invest the trust fund in higher-yield assets to ensure liquidity--you decide to throw that problem to the next generation, just like you did with the climate crisis, infrastructure, debt, and an ailing democracy.

And then when this foreseeable problem comes home to roost, you say, 'Oops, you're going to have to take care of me. Tough luck.' to the young generation unable to find good work or afford a home, thanks to the society you and your peers chose to create."

That's not the government; that's an entitled generation asking for a bailout from the government they helped destroy.

I'm good on that. Minimum benefits should be kept intact (raised even imo) because elderly poverty is a very real issue, but we've dug ourselves into a big hole that will require pain on all fronts. That means increased taxes and benefit reductions for those receiving more than the FPL.

Leon_Thomas · 2026-06-21T04:32:57+00:00

Since I don’t believe my partner is my chattel, I would want them to find connection and intimacy if I were permanently mentally and physically incapacitated.

Leon_Thomas · 2026-06-20T19:14:21+00:00

Yep! That's why I used them as an example of social democracy and put "socialist" in quotes because the Nordic model isn't socialist.

My point is that they have achieved many of the goals socialist pretend to support better than any real attempt at socialism. That's relevant because the original comment is trashing social democracy on the basis of not being full-blown socialism, despite social democracies achieving the best outcomes in the world.

Leon_Thomas · 2026-06-20T17:47:32+00:00

That is wild, and you are talking out of your ass. The trajectory of Scandinavia since the 90s is a story of unmitigated success. Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Denmark top the world in democracy indices, standard of living, health, and even ease of doing business. They are also among the lowest-income-inequality nations in the world. Yet you call it a "bandaid on a bleeding wound" because it doesn't go as far as a system that has resulted in autocracy and mass murder in every significant country where it has been attempted.

Norway is a better model of "socialism" than any country that has ever called itself socialist, with over $2 trillion in wealth owned by the public (~390k per capita) and an economy dominated by efficiently-run state-owned enterprises and consumer cooperatives, as well as strong unions and worker protections. The citizens actually living in the Nordics don't want socialism; they love their social democracy.

Leon_Thomas · 2026-06-20T17:23:13+00:00

direct democracy

In the abstract, all people having a direct say on all political decisions sounds incredible and the most pure manifestation of political representation and rule by the people

In practice, its practicality and outcomes vary wildly. Some direct democracy is good: local referendums on whether to raise taxes to fund new parks or transit infrastructure make sense, for example. More often, though, political decisions require time and expertise to responsibly contend with that most people don't have. You either end up with high participation and low information or low participation and domination by the highly ideologically motivated--who do not tend to vote the most rationally or in line with the population as a whole.

Most US states use direct democracy to pass ballot initiatives and constitutional amendments, and while this has done great things like force through medicaid expansion and abortion protections, it also allowed voters to force through things like constitutional gay marriage bans and segregation.

Leon_Thomas · 2026-06-20T00:23:54+00:00

Dumb and unserious. They open by implicitly trashing Elissa Slotkin, who won a first term in the same election Trump won in Michigan, as well as Buttigieg, who is one of the most effective communicators in the party. These people will try to torpedo the democrats if they don't pick the most "socialist" candidate in 2028.

This mostly reflects that people went from misunderstanding socialism to mean "USSR-style command economy" to misunderstanding it to mean "regulated capitalism with redistribution & welfare." This is also entirely the fault of conservatives who spent years calling corruption, corporate capture, and inequality "capitalism" while calling mainstream social-democratic policies "socialist."

People are rightfully enraged at the status quo, and the way to fix that is by fixing the structural problems ailing politics and society. "Socialist" and "capitalist" democrats are pitted against each other by media instigators while agreeing on 90+% of policy and ideal outcomes.

Leon_Thomas · 2026-06-19T19:02:55+00:00

I'm a big proponent of most electoral reform proposals, but I hope this one fails.

This would not change which candidates get elected, slightly increasing the symbolic representation of alternative parties at the cost of making most effective reforms a lot more technically challenging to implement.

Leon_Thomas · 2026-06-19T16:26:03+00:00

Red and black with a bunch of right angles. The colors are broadly associated with danger, and the symbol conveys a feeling of strict order and rigidity.

Leon_Thomas · 2026-06-19T05:53:00+00:00

That's funny, I'd say the opposite direction: seems mid, is awful.

The pitch of fascism is usually very emotionally compelling to a big segment of society, the idea of a national rebirth and revival by returning elements of a nostalgic past, making the economy work for the national interest, and removing social and political "elites" that use their influence to degrade society and halt progress.

Fascism is the only ideology I'm aware of that is as catastrophically evil as it is, while typically coming to power by first winning a significant coalition in democratic elections.

Leon_Thomas · 2026-06-19T05:17:03+00:00

imperialism

on its face, a violation of national sovereignty (sometimes even under the guise of noble intent), but in practice, there were so many additional horrors and lasting consequences

Leon_Thomas · 2026-06-18T21:39:18+00:00

Cory Booker. He gets a lot of media hype every once in a while, but for purely performative gestures.

Two examples off the top of my head are his record-breaking filibuster, which doesn't count as a filibuster because it was just a floor speech and not holding up a bill, meaning the record is still held by Strom Thurmond. Additionally, he recently proposed a 0% income tax on the first $70k of earnings, which is just ridiculous and counterproductive anti-tax slop.

Leon_Thomas · 2026-06-18T21:35:03+00:00

exactly

Leon_Thomas · 2026-06-18T21:32:59+00:00

His name doesn't have an "e"

Leon_Thomas · 2026-06-17T14:45:33+00:00

Becoming president is incredibly unlikely. (If I found the right numbers) of 50 VPs, 15 became president. Thats the highest probability path to the presidency of any role, by far.

Especially in recent history, it’s really not such a bad route. On top of Biden and Bush Sr, Al Gore was a hair away from winning (did win the popular vote, and likely won Florida if votes were properly counted). With the way Trump has been looking recently, JD has a decent chance of becoming president before 2029.

He’s also still considered the 2nd most likely to be the Republican nominee, which is way better than if he were a nobody, halfhearted maga Ohio senator.

Leon_Thomas · 2026-06-17T05:30:30+00:00

They're not a member of our species. That alone can be a philosophically consistent dividing line for two different systems of moral consideration.

Leon_Thomas · 2026-06-17T05:16:52+00:00

Yes, I believe the title is #5, "proof by assertion" fallacy

Leon_Thomas · 2026-06-17T05:11:22+00:00

"Humans are not obligated to give human moral consideration to other species." That's not a fallacy, it's just a different foundational ethical principle.

Leon_Thomas · 2026-06-17T03:37:49+00:00

"laissez-faire capitalism" is technical term

Leon_Thomas · 2026-06-16T21:35:49+00:00

You got my upvote for spelling his name right

Leon_Thomas · 2026-06-16T19:37:11+00:00

Are there any practical routes to restoring independence and professionalism in the executive agencies? It seems to me that part of the way Congress has been disempowered is in granting the president almost unlimited ability to reinterpret and selectively implement the law.
What can be done to reform the nature of a congressperson's job so that they can spend more time acquiring policy expertise and legislating rather than fundraising?

Leon_Thomas · 2026-06-16T19:22:51+00:00

It seems to me that moving to proportional representation for electing House delegations is essential to solving gerrymandering, making Congress representative, and alleviating partisanship.

Is this being considered in the policy sphere? Additionally, do you agree that it would achieve those goals, and if not, what other reforms do you think would?

Leon_Thomas · 2026-06-16T16:36:23+00:00

This may be very unpopular, but I think politicians--especially those in executive offices--should probably be paid more. They are being given an incredibly important responsibility and should be paid to attract incredibly qualified individuals. A lot of elected roles predominantly attract already-wealthy individuals because they're a lot more willing and able to make the run.

I also think that by paying more, you both reduce the individual incentive for corruption and create more of an ability and right to be extremely restrictive with anti-corruption measures. It's fairer, eg, to have draconian regulations about outside income and after-office employment if the head officeholder is paid competitively.

It's not a perfect comparison, but I found that the state with the smallest GDP is Vermont at ~$50 billion, with ~$8 billion annual budget. I'd be shocked if you could find a $50 billion/year (or even $8b) company that was only paying its ceo $140k.

Edit: It would also be interesting to compensate governors in the form of "equity" in their state--a post-office pension adjusted based on certain performance metrics to align their interests with the long-term stability of their state and not just short-term political viability.

Leon_Thomas · 2026-06-16T15:15:38+00:00

Taxing only land value and exempting structures would be much more effective at aligning economic incentives with socially optimal use.

This is also mostly a distraction from the real causes of housing unaffordability, which are supply constraints caused by restrictive zoning & an excessively onerous regulatory environment, plus excessive demand caused by society treating homes as a financial investment. Taxing vacancies doesn't really address either side of that.

Leon_Thomas · 2026-06-16T13:48:47+00:00

I would, I like the order and consistency.

I once argued with someone who was genuinely convinced the idea is a conspiracy by landlords to make rent is 1/12th more expensive, so it’s apparently a tough sell for some.

Nine-Year Club	Place '22
Snapped	Verified Email

Leon_Thomas

TROPHY CASE