Your arguments are all "you don't care about such and such" and "what about these poor [insert group of people here]". These are all emotional arguments; are they not?

I'm merely stating a fact. You care more about the emotional argument of "who is being help" than the rational argument of "is this even sustainable". I think this is clearly shown in this thread. You haven't once responded to anyone saying it is completely unsustainable; without saying something like "what about the poor people".

As for saying me saying that you need more self-confidence; I was referring to your insistence that I need a safety net to avoid financial disaster; which in my mind is bull. I have confidence in my ability to plan my own financial future; maybe there are bumps in the road; but I can deal with them; the way I always have. This is called self-confidence; I think you would benefit from also having this outlook in life. Nuff said.

I've made extensive philosophical arguments to support my position I've cited Rawls, Habermas, and Ricoeur. I think feeling and emotion are part of our ethical life. It doesn't mean those feelings cannot be subject to a rational analysis or can't be justified by dispassionate argumentation. The fact that you refuse to acknowledge the rationality of anything I've written is yet further proof of your almost pathological arrogance.

Once again; how do you respond to the argument of the current system of entitlements being unsustainable?

We need reasoned reform undertaken in the public good. What we don't need is radical ideological posturing or cronyism.

But we disagree on the issue of sustainability. IMO we need to increase gov't revenue through a more effective tax system, namely by raising taxes and closing loopholes on the rich and corporations.

Well of course the current state of entitlements is unstable. The big argument isn't if it's broken, it's about how to fix it.

IMO, the govt really needs to revamp how the elderly entitlements work bc once the boomers fully hit the age of elderly entitlements, an even larger chunk of shit is going to hit the fan.

Honestly, I really need to read into the ins and outs of medicare/aid in order to truly criticize it. One thing is for sure tho, if we maintain the status quo, it's just going to get worse

So raise taxes and no cuts in spending? Or do you also want cuts in spending and if so; cuts to what?

sounds like he wants to raise the taxes and also increase the spending...?

and boogy, lol @ thinking that a university degree means jackshit in todays america. hell, my eventual phd will hardly be worth squat.

I don't object to cuts in principle. But I do object to cuts made for purely ideological reasons. Ineffective programs ought to be cut; and the money should be reallocated to more important and effective spending. And I would accept some degree of austerity if it was the only option for securing the financial sustainability of the government. But I'm not a policy researcher or advocate, so I really don't know what the government's options are.

Monte I said "it doesn't matter". But I do think a quality university education, especially in the liberal arts, teaches people how to think critically and to express themselves rationally. I was responding to Code's accusation that I'm incapable of rational thought. Believe me, I'm no elitist or snob about education.

well the way that both of yall are talking down to each other makes me think that you have nothing past elementary education. this is all reminiscent of the old dead/veta 'discussions' that quickly would revert to mudslinging, and accusations about how the other person was arrogant and condescending.

i suggest you both look in a mirror. youre both going off the deep-end slinging some irrational accusations at each other about education/cognition/whatever. really.