Derby Trail Forums

Go Back   Derby Trail Forums > The Steve Dellinger Discourse Den
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #9  
Old 08-13-2011, 01:08 PM
Riot's Avatar
Riot Riot is offline
Keeneland
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,153
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Danzig View Post
lol
just like was said on the bloomberg show the other day, half-laws. and people wonder why there is hesitation on the parts of so many! what absurdity. using us and the economy as a guinea pig while they play around with this garbage.
I don't believe this. You diss the law repeatedly, then when you finally realize that what you've been dissing it for doesn't exist, you trash the law because it doesn't exist.

Seriously? Just stop making any pretense that your opinion about the law is remotely based upon any fact or objective observation regarding it's content.

Quote:
at any rate, i'd guess the first judges got it wrong, and these ones got it right.
Guess that's why it's going to the Supreme Court, as has been the intention from day one. The lower court decisions already made say "constitutional" outnumbers "not", but maybe the minority opinion will prevail in the high court as you guess.

Quote:
and you've also said, ad nauseum, that social security has traditionally been a success. doesn't make the future any different; as future expense becomes untenable. but you know that. oh, that's right.
just a itty bitty tweak needed...
You can either examine the math and predictions over decades from the government and from watchdog groups and believe it, or show where it's wrong. So show where it's wrong. Oh, wait! No, let's just dismiss it out of hand because we don't like what the answer is!

Social Security has been a success because we've run up against financial shortfall projections many, many times before, and we do tweek and fix them. The proof is there. Our success is there. We have never missed a Social Security payment. It is one of the most successful social programs ever created. We know the population, the amount of taxes taken in, changes over time, that why it's looked at regularly. This is just another one of those times, but we're not even really there yet - we have years.

Quote:
if you consider adjusting incoming and/or outgoing a tweak.
Geeshus cripes, 'Zig, do you not realize that we've done this 'tweek' multiple times in the past? That over 40 times, the conservative wing of government has threatened and screamed falsely about the imminent financial demise of Social Security? That projections have changed since it's inception, it's regularly reviewed, and yes, multiple "tweeks" are routinely done to Social Security all the time to keep it solvent?

The facts remain, the "outgoing current" with zero tweeks is 100% okay until 1937, then will continue to deliver 78% of current benefits for decades after that at current projections.

Quote:
of course you also have to consider just how big that little tweak becomes the further they kick that can down the road
.

This sentence makes it clear you haven't looked even superficially at the long-term Social Security financing projections, based upon adjustments now and planned adjustments in the future, because the problem is due primarily to the baby boomer bubble (and was accurately predicted about 20 years ago), and the increasing population smooths out after that.

There is no "can kicked down the road". We have always made the best adjustments we have to the next 50 years or so, based upon projected populations. The fact that determining something now based upon future projections doesn't last for 100 years doesn't indicate any flaw in the system at all. It indicates responsibility and planning for the future, that we do these very projections! That's why we look at this repeatedly over the past, and have adjusted it repeatedly over the past!

Quote:
then there's where you talk about the payouts being why the need a tweak, while ignoring the cbo report about what happens by 2080 to the fed budget, because of ss/medicare.
Yeah - that's exactly why we should change things now. You want to completely eliminate the program? Fine. But I, and plenty of other Americans, don't care to see us become just another second-world country.

And again, Social Security is strong, Medicare is not. Medicare is a problem (actually Medicaid more so), not Social Security. That's just the right's continuing battle cry to try and privatize it.

Glad it wasn't privatized by Wall Street since 2008, or on Friday, where would have lost huge percentages of it's value like private 401K's and other retirement plans did. Instead, our Social Security funds have weathered that storm.
__________________
"Have the clean racing people run any ads explaining that giving a horse a Starbucks and a chocolate poppyseed muffin for breakfast would likely result in a ten year suspension for the trainer?" - Dr. Andrew Roberts

Last edited by Riot : 08-13-2011 at 01:41 PM.
Reply With Quote
 


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:45 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.