CDZ Why Is It?

[DarkFury]

One cannot expect 'clean debate' when the thread premise fails as a false comparison fallacy.

In fairness, the OP just asks a question. It may be a legitimate inquiry rather than some sort of veiled attempt to lambaste welfare or SSI. We'll see...

I did not ask this question to be partisan. I asked it because we have been losing our ass for a long time now.

Well, I replied with an objective, non-partisan answer to your question.

Lets take Amtrack, that is non political. We invest in it every year and it never comes close to making money. Freight trains are privately owned and make money. So we HAVE to be doing something wrong.

 

[Fueri]

Because old people vote.

Scaring granny has become as common as the rest of lamo tactics, such as the 'war on women'

target those demographics, scare em good. lie as necessary....

 

[320 Years of History]

One cannot expect 'clean debate' when the thread premise fails as a false comparison fallacy.

In fairness, the OP just asks a question. It may be a legitimate inquiry rather than some sort of veiled attempt to lambaste welfare or SSI. We'll see...

I did not ask this question to be partisan. I asked it because we have been losing our ass for a long time now.

Well, I replied with an objective, non-partisan answer to your question.

Lets take Amtrack, that is non political. We invest in it every year and it never comes close to making money. Freight trains are privately owned and make money. So we HAVE to be doing something wrong.

Okay...you lost me there. Why would we "take Amtrack" when the thread topic is SSI?

Is there something you don't like about the answer I posted to the OP question being one for which there is no need to be partisan?

I don't even know where you are going with your remarks found the series of posts quoted herein. I stood up for the conceivable objectivity of your OP question and provided the objective answer to it. What is it you think you and I are discussing?

 

[DarkFury]

One cannot expect 'clean debate' when the thread premise fails as a false comparison fallacy.

In fairness, the OP just asks a question. It may be a legitimate inquiry rather than some sort of veiled attempt to lambaste welfare or SSI. We'll see...

I did not ask this question to be partisan. I asked it because we have been losing our ass for a long time now.

Well, I replied with an objective, non-partisan answer to your question.

Lets take Amtrack, that is non political. We invest in it every year and it never comes close to making money. Freight trains are privately owned and make money. So we HAVE to be doing something wrong.

Okay...you lost me there. Why would we "take Amtrack" when the thread topic is SSI?

Is there something you don't like about the answer I posted to the OP question being one for which there is no need to be partisan?

I don't even know where you are going with your remarks found the series of posts quoted herein. I stood up for the conceivable objectivity of your OP question and provided the objective answer to it. What is it you think you and I are discussing?

The topic is government or citizen investment. We invest in SS and we lose money. Iran invests in our government and draws investment plus interest.

So we take better care of other countries money then ours. We take such poor care of ours they say SS is going broke but welfare is not?

The money is being mis-handled somewhere.

 

[320 Years of History]

In fairness, the OP just asks a question. It may be a legitimate inquiry rather than some sort of veiled attempt to lambaste welfare or SSI. We'll see...

I did not ask this question to be partisan. I asked it because we have been losing our ass for a long time now.

Well, I replied with an objective, non-partisan answer to your question.

Lets take Amtrack, that is non political. We invest in it every year and it never comes close to making money. Freight trains are privately owned and make money. So we HAVE to be doing something wrong.

Okay...you lost me there. Why would we "take Amtrack" when the thread topic is SSI?

Is there something you don't like about the answer I posted to the OP question being one for which there is no need to be partisan?

I don't even know where you are going with your remarks found the series of posts quoted herein. I stood up for the conceivable objectivity of your OP question and provided the objective answer to it. What is it you think you and I are discussing?

The topic is government or citizen investment. We invest in SS and we lose money. Iran invests in our government and draws investment plus interest.

So we take better care of other countries money then ours. We take such poor care of ours they say SS is going broke but welfare is not?

The money is being mis-handled somewhere.

Myers, Robert J. 1993. Social Security. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

 

[Fishlore]

Social Security is funded separately from the various federal "welfare" programs. Social Security is fundamentally sound. President Sanders is going to eliminate the $160,000 cap on FICA and apply the tax to corporate gains as well as earned income. This will not raise the taxes on anyone making less than $160,000 a year but will have Social Security rolling in dough with plenty available for raising the minimum monthly amount.

As you know, most of the taxable wealth in this country goes to the richest 1% who are paying an effective tax rate that is lower than the rate for middle class folks. Going back to the marginal tax rates of the Ronald Reagan administration will provide enough money pay for "T bone" steaks for all the healthy young bucks who would rather sit around and get high than join the grumpy old men down at the mill. Good times a-comin'!

 

[Fishlore]

[...We invest in SS and we lose money. Iran invests in our government and draws investment plus interest.

Anyone who thinks a flat rate payroll tax is an "investment" or that Social Security is an insurance policy is so misinformend as to be useless in a discussion of policy issues. Better go back to AM talk radio and join the ther wailers.

 

[oldsoul]

The answer, sadly, and non-partisanly (as it is BOTH parties at fault here), is that both are political footballs in Washington. It's really all about power (votes), few people are going to get all excited about welfare running out of money. Most people will get excited about SSI running out. Simple as that. Same goes for most programs. If those in power think they can get more votes/power from saying a certain program is running out of money, they will, and we keep falling for it.

 

[320 Years of History]

In fairness, the OP just asks a question. It may be a legitimate inquiry rather than some sort of veiled attempt to lambaste welfare or SSI. We'll see...

I did not ask this question to be partisan. I asked it because we have been losing our ass for a long time now.

Well, I replied with an objective, non-partisan answer to your question.

Lets take Amtrack, that is non political. We invest in it every year and it never comes close to making money. Freight trains are privately owned and make money. So we HAVE to be doing something wrong.

Okay...you lost me there. Why would we "take Amtrack" when the thread topic is SSI?

Is there something you don't like about the answer I posted to the OP question being one for which there is no need to be partisan?

I don't even know where you are going with your remarks found the series of posts quoted herein. I stood up for the conceivable objectivity of your OP question and provided the objective answer to it. What is it you think you and I are discussing?

The topic is government or citizen investment. We invest in SS and we lose money. Iran invests in our government and draws investment plus interest.

So we take better care of other countries money then ours. We take such poor care of ours they say SS is going broke but welfare is not?

The money is being mis-handled somewhere.

Red:
Mishandling of funds has little to do with SSI's risk of default. The actuarial assumptions on which its funding is based are not materializing into reality. That's why, if nothing is done about it, it will "run out" of money. Even there, it's not so much "going flat broke" as it is not being able to fulfill it's obligations to the extent it promised it would. Think of it more as SSI's being able to do one or some combo of the following:

• pay some of the people all of what they are due, and pay some of them none of what they are due
• pay everyone something less than the entirety of what they are due, but pay everyone who is entitled to a benefit payment something

Still, that's of little comfort to people who paid into the program expecting a defined benefit upon retirement only to find out that the SSI program shortfall will unavoidably become their shortfall as well.

 

[DarkFury]

I did not ask this question to be partisan. I asked it because we have been losing our ass for a long time now.

Well, I replied with an objective, non-partisan answer to your question.

Lets take Amtrack, that is non political. We invest in it every year and it never comes close to making money. Freight trains are privately owned and make money. So we HAVE to be doing something wrong.

Okay...you lost me there. Why would we "take Amtrack" when the thread topic is SSI?

Is there something you don't like about the answer I posted to the OP question being one for which there is no need to be partisan?

I don't even know where you are going with your remarks found the series of posts quoted herein. I stood up for the conceivable objectivity of your OP question and provided the objective answer to it. What is it you think you and I are discussing?

The topic is government or citizen investment. We invest in SS and we lose money. Iran invests in our government and draws investment plus interest.

So we take better care of other countries money then ours. We take such poor care of ours they say SS is going broke but welfare is not?

The money is being mis-handled somewhere.

Red:
Mishandling of funds has little to do with SSI's risk of default. The actuarial assumptions on which its funding is based are not materializing into reality. That's why, if nothing is done about it, it will "run out" of money. Even there, it's not so much "going flat broke" as it is not being able to fulfill it's obligations to the extent it promised it would. Think of it more as SSI's being able to do one or some combo of the following:

• pay some of the people all of what they are due, and pay some of them none of what they are due
• pay everyone something less than the entirety of what they are due, but pay everyone who is entitled to a benefit payment something

Still, that's of little comfort to people who paid into the program expecting a defined benefit upon retirement only to find out that the SSI program shortfall will unavoidably become their shortfall as well.

How about doing it like the real world? NO charity {overseas aid} until the home front is taken care of.

 

[320 Years of History]

Well, I replied with an objective, non-partisan answer to your question.

Lets take Amtrack, that is non political. We invest in it every year and it never comes close to making money. Freight trains are privately owned and make money. So we HAVE to be doing something wrong.

Okay...you lost me there. Why would we "take Amtrack" when the thread topic is SSI?

Is there something you don't like about the answer I posted to the OP question being one for which there is no need to be partisan?

I don't even know where you are going with your remarks found the series of posts quoted herein. I stood up for the conceivable objectivity of your OP question and provided the objective answer to it. What is it you think you and I are discussing?

The topic is government or citizen investment. We invest in SS and we lose money. Iran invests in our government and draws investment plus interest.

So we take better care of other countries money then ours. We take such poor care of ours they say SS is going broke but welfare is not?

The money is being mis-handled somewhere.

Red:
Mishandling of funds has little to do with SSI's risk of default. The actuarial assumptions on which its funding is based are not materializing into reality. That's why, if nothing is done about it, it will "run out" of money. Even there, it's not so much "going flat broke" as it is not being able to fulfill it's obligations to the extent it promised it would. Think of it more as SSI's being able to do one or some combo of the following:

• pay some of the people all of what they are due, and pay some of them none of what they are due
• pay everyone something less than the entirety of what they are due, but pay everyone who is entitled to a benefit payment something

Still, that's of little comfort to people who paid into the program expecting a defined benefit upon retirement only to find out that the SSI program shortfall will unavoidably become their shortfall as well.

How about doing it like the real world? NO charity {overseas aid} until the home front is taken care of.

That's certainly one possible solution approach. I don't know how much of a "dent" it would make in solving the problem, yet I would not out of hand reject it as a viable option among many, even though I would hope it won't come to having to take that particular measure.

 

[DarkFury]

Lets take Amtrack, that is non political. We invest in it every year and it never comes close to making money. Freight trains are privately owned and make money. So we HAVE to be doing something wrong.

Okay...you lost me there. Why would we "take Amtrack" when the thread topic is SSI?

Is there something you don't like about the answer I posted to the OP question being one for which there is no need to be partisan?

I don't even know where you are going with your remarks found the series of posts quoted herein. I stood up for the conceivable objectivity of your OP question and provided the objective answer to it. What is it you think you and I are discussing?

The topic is government or citizen investment. We invest in SS and we lose money. Iran invests in our government and draws investment plus interest.

So we take better care of other countries money then ours. We take such poor care of ours they say SS is going broke but welfare is not?

The money is being mis-handled somewhere.

Red:
Mishandling of funds has little to do with SSI's risk of default. The actuarial assumptions on which its funding is based are not materializing into reality. That's why, if nothing is done about it, it will "run out" of money. Even there, it's not so much "going flat broke" as it is not being able to fulfill it's obligations to the extent it promised it would. Think of it more as SSI's being able to do one or some combo of the following:

• pay some of the people all of what they are due, and pay some of them none of what they are due
• pay everyone something less than the entirety of what they are due, but pay everyone who is entitled to a benefit payment something

Still, that's of little comfort to people who paid into the program expecting a defined benefit upon retirement only to find out that the SSI program shortfall will unavoidably become their shortfall as well.

How about doing it like the real world? NO charity {overseas aid} until the home front is taken care of.

That's certainly one possible solution approach. I don't know how much of a "dent" it would make in solving the problem, yet I would not out of hand reject it as a viable option among many, even though I would hope it won't come to having to take that particular measure.

You take the entire overseas aid budget and cut it by 20% YEARLY for five years. And everybody learns to stand on their own two feet.

 

[Agit8r]

Okay...you lost me there. Why would we "take Amtrack" when the thread topic is SSI?

Is there something you don't like about the answer I posted to the OP question being one for which there is no need to be partisan?

I don't even know where you are going with your remarks found the series of posts quoted herein. I stood up for the conceivable objectivity of your OP question and provided the objective answer to it. What is it you think you and I are discussing?

The topic is government or citizen investment. We invest in SS and we lose money. Iran invests in our government and draws investment plus interest.

So we take better care of other countries money then ours. We take such poor care of ours they say SS is going broke but welfare is not?

The money is being mis-handled somewhere.

Red:
Mishandling of funds has little to do with SSI's risk of default. The actuarial assumptions on which its funding is based are not materializing into reality. That's why, if nothing is done about it, it will "run out" of money. Even there, it's not so much "going flat broke" as it is not being able to fulfill it's obligations to the extent it promised it would. Think of it more as SSI's being able to do one or some combo of the following:

• pay some of the people all of what they are due, and pay some of them none of what they are due
• pay everyone something less than the entirety of what they are due, but pay everyone who is entitled to a benefit payment something

Still, that's of little comfort to people who paid into the program expecting a defined benefit upon retirement only to find out that the SSI program shortfall will unavoidably become their shortfall as well.

How about doing it like the real world? NO charity {overseas aid} until the home front is taken care of.

That's certainly one possible solution approach. I don't know how much of a "dent" it would make in solving the problem, yet I would not out of hand reject it as a viable option among many, even though I would hope it won't come to having to take that particular measure.

You take the entire overseas aid budget and cut it by 20% YEARLY for five years. And everybody learns to stand on their own two feet.

 

[320 Years of History]

The topic is government or citizen investment. We invest in SS and we lose money. Iran invests in our government and draws investment plus interest.

So we take better care of other countries money then ours. We take such poor care of ours they say SS is going broke but welfare is not?

The money is being mis-handled somewhere.

Red:
Mishandling of funds has little to do with SSI's risk of default. The actuarial assumptions on which its funding is based are not materializing into reality. That's why, if nothing is done about it, it will "run out" of money. Even there, it's not so much "going flat broke" as it is not being able to fulfill it's obligations to the extent it promised it would. Think of it more as SSI's being able to do one or some combo of the following:

• pay some of the people all of what they are due, and pay some of them none of what they are due
• pay everyone something less than the entirety of what they are due, but pay everyone who is entitled to a benefit payment something

Still, that's of little comfort to people who paid into the program expecting a defined benefit upon retirement only to find out that the SSI program shortfall will unavoidably become their shortfall as well.

How about doing it like the real world? NO charity {overseas aid} until the home front is taken care of.

That's certainly one possible solution approach. I don't know how much of a "dent" it would make in solving the problem, yet I would not out of hand reject it as a viable option among many, even though I would hope it won't come to having to take that particular measure.

You take the entire overseas aid budget and cut it by 20% YEARLY for five years. And everybody learns to stand on their own two feet.

View attachment 62179

Based on the chart above, if SSI can be made solvent with just twenty percent of the international development and humanitarian aid budget, it doesn't even make sense that folks are raising the red flag about its impending insolvency. One percent of the "other" section of the budget would be more than adequate to cover the gap. More likely is the entirety of the "international" budget is insufficient to fill the gap.