Communist California to require Solar Panels on all new homes

[bripat9643]

Exactly. The net change is $0.00. Zero, zip, nada, nothing.

Bingo! The trust fund reduced the amount of debt the Treasury had to sell to the public.

Not by one cent.

$2 trillion in the Trust Fund didn't reduce borrowing from the public by $2 trillion?

Why not?

Because the public is the only party that can pay off the bonds. You keep ignoring the fact that the bonds are an obligation of the taxpayer.

kinda like talking to a garden slug, isn't it?

Sorry, I don't know any slugs that understand accounting.

You obviously don't understand accounting if you believe the so-called "Trust Fund" is worth anything.

 

[Redfish]

wrong that 5% statistic means that 95% of the people who want to work have a job. note "who want to work". The actual unemployment rate is more like 20% when you consider retired people, students, people with physical and mental handicaps, high school drop outs hanging out on the street corners, and those who are just plain too lazy to work.

The employment rate is a measure of those in or who wish to be in the labor market.
It's not and has never been a measure of all able bodied Americans who could work.

5% is considered full as there is always a percentage between jobs for one reason or another at any given time.

once again, you are buying into the propaganda. your choice.

Once again, I say, post your proof or **** off.
I gave you a link. You've given nothing.

It's known what the output of a panel is over it's lifetime. You need to find the power cost of production for that panel and compare.

I don't need to prove anything, I am merely questioning the "solar is wonderful" rhetoric, you are the one making the claims, the burden of proof is on you.

tell me why subsidies are necessary to get anyone to buy solar. If the payback is as you say, but its not. and you know it.

Looks like you just made a claim.

Subsidized solar has been slowly being rolled back

wrong that 5% statistic means that 95% of the people who want to work have a job. note "who want to work". The actual unemployment rate is more like 20% when you consider retired people, students, people with physical and mental handicaps, high school drop outs hanging out on the street corners, and those who are just plain too lazy to work.

The employment rate is a measure of those in or who wish to be in the labor market.
It's not and has never been a measure of all able bodied Americans who could work.

5% is considered full as there is always a percentage between jobs for one reason or another at any given time.

once again, you are buying into the propaganda. your choice.

Once again, I say, post your proof or **** off.
I gave you a link. You've given nothing.

It's known what the output of a panel is over it's lifetime. You need to find the power cost of production for that panel and compare.

I don't need to prove anything, I am merely questioning the "solar is wonderful" rhetoric, you are the one making the claims, the burden of proof is on you.

tell me why subsidies are necessary to get anyone to buy solar. If the payback is as you say, but its not. and you know it.

All energy is subsidized, so why would you want to kneecap solar?

Here is a great article, you'll hate it.

The Truth About Solar Subsidies

Here is an excerpt from the article:

It can be said that comparing solar subsidies to coal or nuclear subsidies is like “comparing apples and oranges.” A true side-by-side comparison can be very hard to make, considering all of the variables and all of the differences between the different energy sectors. There is one thing that everyone can agree on, though. David Hochschild, a California Energy Commissioner said it best:

“There is a myth around subsidies, but there is no such thing as an unsubsidized unit of energy.”

Hochschild was speaking at the Energy Productivity Summer Study in 2016. He made the case that energy production, be it renewable or fossil, is subsidized to some degree by the government. Hochschild showed a graph that shows the accumulated energy subsidies in the US under federal programs, starting in 1918. Oil and gas and nuclear are historically the biggest winners in the subsidy game. Federal renewable energy subsidies are a small fraction. “The fossil fuel industry hates to talk about that,” said Hochschild.

Here is a chart from that article:

Here is some more shit for you to ignore from the article:

As of 2015, before the presidential election, the US federal government was allocating only about $5 billion to energy research, which is a small fraction of what competitors like China spend annually on energy R&D. The funding was distributed like this:

• Nuclear – $1 billion
• Coal and carbon sequestration research- $350 million
• Solar – $188 million
• Wind – $90 million
• Oil and gas research – $25 million

The research dollars for nuclear and coal far outstrip the funding for solar, and always have. However, one solar project above all others gave solar R & D investments a bad name: Solyndra.

when did I say that I was in favor of any kind of government subsidies? I also object to the government paying farmers to NOT plant crops. The government needs to get the hell out of private industry and let the free market operate instead of trying to control it.

 

[Redfish]

Exactly. The net change is $0.00. Zero, zip, nada, nothing.

Bingo! The trust fund reduced the amount of debt the Treasury had to sell to the public.

Not by one cent.

$2 trillion in the Trust Fund didn't reduce borrowing from the public by $2 trillion?

Why not?

Because the public is the only party that can pay off the bonds. You keep ignoring the fact that the bonds are an obligation of the taxpayer.

kinda like talking to a garden slug, isn't it?

Sorry, I don't know any slugs that understand accounting.

says slug number one. only a slug would think that a bond was an asset to the entity selling the bond, its a liability, an account payable in high school bookkeeping.

 

[HappyJoy]

Oh, you're making excuses. The poverty rate among the elderly has dropped drastically due to social security. But please don't go changing your views on SS, it's one of many things that makes the far right unpopular.

I hate to break it to you, but that's alway been my view of SS. But I'm happy to hear how accurate your crystal ball is when you say all those people would be in poverty today without SS. That's because my parents are both on SS, and THEY WOULD be in poverty today if that was all they had. However my father planned well ahead of time for these years.

Oh, I don't question this has always been your belief, as unpopular as it is. What I want you to do is keep preaching about it and be sure to identify yourself as a conservative. Thanks!

Remember what I said about the two words "government" and "force" when combined. There is a reason we never had the option of paying into SS instead of it being mandated.

Oh know, the government is forcing people to save for retirement, the horror. Good, it's helped keep people out of poverty.

Poverty is an arbitrary word and if your goal is to stay above that line (just above it), enjoy. Most of us look forward to more.

No, we already established it;s the poverty limit, that's what we are going by.

The 22 million who would be in poverty might not be if they had saved and not depended on it.

All 22 million? Most?

In that sense, it is simply shifting money and did not do anything independent of what a private program would do.

But we already know the poverty rate dropped among the elderly with the introduction of social security. You seem to want to ignore this point.

With the exception of the really poor...but even then I am not so sure.

A good friend is living in India because her S.S. can't even pay for an apartment in the U.S.

Social Security was never meant to be lived on solely, you;'re still expected to save, I'm sue you know this and not sure what your friends lack of planning has to do with this.

Social Security was never meant to be lived on solely, you;'re still expected to save,

Saving is a lot harder when the government takes 12.4% of your lifetime earnings...…..

American's don't save enough anyway, so its' best for society when they have to hold your hand.

 

[bripat9643]

I hate to break it to you, but that's alway been my view of SS. But I'm happy to hear how accurate your crystal ball is when you say all those people would be in poverty today without SS. That's because my parents are both on SS, and THEY WOULD be in poverty today if that was all they had. However my father planned well ahead of time for these years.

Oh, I don't question this has always been your belief, as unpopular as it is. What I want you to do is keep preaching about it and be sure to identify yourself as a conservative. Thanks!

Remember what I said about the two words "government" and "force" when combined. There is a reason we never had the option of paying into SS instead of it being mandated.

Oh know, the government is forcing people to save for retirement, the horror. Good, it's helped keep people out of poverty.

Poverty is an arbitrary word and if your goal is to stay above that line (just above it), enjoy. Most of us look forward to more.

No, we already established it;s the poverty limit, that's what we are going by.

The 22 million who would be in poverty might not be if they had saved and not depended on it.

All 22 million? Most?

In that sense, it is simply shifting money and did not do anything independent of what a private program would do.

But we already know the poverty rate dropped among the elderly with the introduction of social security. You seem to want to ignore this point.

With the exception of the really poor...but even then I am not so sure.

A good friend is living in India because her S.S. can't even pay for an apartment in the U.S.

Social Security was never meant to be lived on solely, you;'re still expected to save, I'm sue you know this and not sure what your friends lack of planning has to do with this.

Social Security was never meant to be lived on solely, you;'re still expected to save,

Saving is a lot harder when the government takes 12.4% of your lifetime earnings...…..

American's don't save enough anyway, so its' best for society when they have to hold your hand.

FICA taxes aren't "savings." They are spent the minute the goverment receives them.

 

[HappyJoy]

The employment rate is a measure of those in or who wish to be in the labor market.
It's not and has never been a measure of all able bodied Americans who could work.

5% is considered full as there is always a percentage between jobs for one reason or another at any given time.

once again, you are buying into the propaganda. your choice.

Once again, I say, post your proof or **** off.
I gave you a link. You've given nothing.

It's known what the output of a panel is over it's lifetime. You need to find the power cost of production for that panel and compare.

I don't need to prove anything, I am merely questioning the "solar is wonderful" rhetoric, you are the one making the claims, the burden of proof is on you.

tell me why subsidies are necessary to get anyone to buy solar. If the payback is as you say, but its not. and you know it.

Looks like you just made a claim.

Subsidized solar has been slowly being rolled back

The employment rate is a measure of those in or who wish to be in the labor market.
It's not and has never been a measure of all able bodied Americans who could work.

5% is considered full as there is always a percentage between jobs for one reason or another at any given time.

once again, you are buying into the propaganda. your choice.

Once again, I say, post your proof or **** off.
I gave you a link. You've given nothing.

It's known what the output of a panel is over it's lifetime. You need to find the power cost of production for that panel and compare.

I don't need to prove anything, I am merely questioning the "solar is wonderful" rhetoric, you are the one making the claims, the burden of proof is on you.

tell me why subsidies are necessary to get anyone to buy solar. If the payback is as you say, but its not. and you know it.

All energy is subsidized, so why would you want to kneecap solar?

Here is a great article, you'll hate it.

The Truth About Solar Subsidies

Here is an excerpt from the article:

It can be said that comparing solar subsidies to coal or nuclear subsidies is like “comparing apples and oranges.” A true side-by-side comparison can be very hard to make, considering all of the variables and all of the differences between the different energy sectors. There is one thing that everyone can agree on, though. David Hochschild, a California Energy Commissioner said it best:

“There is a myth around subsidies, but there is no such thing as an unsubsidized unit of energy.”

Hochschild was speaking at the Energy Productivity Summer Study in 2016. He made the case that energy production, be it renewable or fossil, is subsidized to some degree by the government. Hochschild showed a graph that shows the accumulated energy subsidies in the US under federal programs, starting in 1918. Oil and gas and nuclear are historically the biggest winners in the subsidy game. Federal renewable energy subsidies are a small fraction. “The fossil fuel industry hates to talk about that,” said Hochschild.

Here is a chart from that article:

Here is some more shit for you to ignore from the article:

As of 2015, before the presidential election, the US federal government was allocating only about $5 billion to energy research, which is a small fraction of what competitors like China spend annually on energy R&D. The funding was distributed like this:

• Nuclear – $1 billion
• Coal and carbon sequestration research- $350 million
• Solar – $188 million
• Wind – $90 million
• Oil and gas research – $25 million

The research dollars for nuclear and coal far outstrip the funding for solar, and always have. However, one solar project above all others gave solar R & D investments a bad name: Solyndra.

when did I say that I was in favor of any kind of government subsidies? I also object to the government paying farmers to NOT plant crops. The government needs to get the hell out of private industry and let the free market operate instead of trying to control it.

Never said you did, I'm pointing out how pointless it is single out solar subsidizes.

 

[Flopper]

Who said he's playing?

A lot of conservatives in this forum seem to have a mental block when it comes to Social Security. They just an't admit that it's a huge swindel.

That's lifted many a senior citizen out of poverty.

Social Security Keeps 22 Million Americans Out of Poverty: A State-By-State Analysis

Remember when we had poor houses? Yeah, not in my lifetime either.

They may not be institutions...but they exist.

Not like the good old days.

According to my link SS keeps 22 million out of poverty. So, deal with that 'bad' news.

There is no way to actually know that.

Many people didn't put anything away because there is SS. If not for SS, and you were just SOL if you didn't save, I would be willing to bet most of those people would have done what we are doing today with our IRA's.

I wish all the money I (and my employers) contributed to the program were in a conservative growth account all these years. What I would be worth today....... Plus the fact that if I die before I get to use it, or use very little of it, my heirs would have a nice jump in life. They would be able to buy a home, payoff the home they have, or even move to a larger and better home. Maybe start a nice college fund for their kids.

Yes, there is no doubt you and everyone else would be far better off if the social security trust had been invested in the market. Being that hindsight is perfect, that's an easy conclusion. However, there’s no guarantee the market will continue to go higher, and the solvency of the system could be compromised if the market had a prolonged crash.

There is another issue to be considered. Investing Social Security assets in stocks would place way too much market authority in the hands of those in Washington. The $2.9 trillion currently in the Social Security trust fund represents about 14% of the value of all the stocks on the New York Stock Exchange. Even just a portion of it would allow for the government to purchase a commanding share of almost every major company in the U.S. The way the government managed its voting rights could effectively allow it to “pick winners” among corporate entities.

 

[bripat9643]

A lot of conservatives in this forum seem to have a mental block when it comes to Social Security. They just an't admit that it's a huge swindel.

That's lifted many a senior citizen out of poverty.

Social Security Keeps 22 Million Americans Out of Poverty: A State-By-State Analysis

Remember when we had poor houses? Yeah, not in my lifetime either.

They may not be institutions...but they exist.

Not like the good old days.

According to my link SS keeps 22 million out of poverty. So, deal with that 'bad' news.

There is no way to actually know that.

Many people didn't put anything away because there is SS. If not for SS, and you were just SOL if you didn't save, I would be willing to bet most of those people would have done what we are doing today with our IRA's.

I wish all the money I (and my employers) contributed to the program were in a conservative growth account all these years. What I would be worth today....... Plus the fact that if I die before I get to use it, or use very little of it, my heirs would have a nice jump in life. They would be able to buy a home, payoff the home they have, or even move to a larger and better home. Maybe start a nice college fund for their kids.

Yes, there is no doubt you and everyone else would be far better off if the social security trust had been invested in the market. Being that hindsight is perfect, that's an easy conclusion. However, there’s no guarantee the market will continue to go higher, and the solvency of the system could be compromised if the market had a prolonged crash.

There is another issue to be considered. Investing Social Security assets in stocks would place way too much market authority in the hands of those in Washington. The $2.9 trillion currently in the Social Security trust fund represents about 14% of the value of all the stocks on the New York Stock Exchange. Even just a portion of it would allow for the government to purchase a commanding share of almost every major company in the U.S. The way the government managed its voting rights could effectively allow it to “pick winners” among corporate entities.

The solution is to allow each person to have a personal account with his own personal funds. Of course, the swamp crocodiles are firmly against that because it would remove them from having control.

 

[HappyJoy]

That's lifted many a senior citizen out of poverty.

Social Security Keeps 22 Million Americans Out of Poverty: A State-By-State Analysis

Remember when we had poor houses? Yeah, not in my lifetime either.

They may not be institutions...but they exist.

Not like the good old days.

According to my link SS keeps 22 million out of poverty. So, deal with that 'bad' news.

There is no way to actually know that.

Many people didn't put anything away because there is SS. If not for SS, and you were just SOL if you didn't save, I would be willing to bet most of those people would have done what we are doing today with our IRA's.

I wish all the money I (and my employers) contributed to the program were in a conservative growth account all these years. What I would be worth today....... Plus the fact that if I die before I get to use it, or use very little of it, my heirs would have a nice jump in life. They would be able to buy a home, payoff the home they have, or even move to a larger and better home. Maybe start a nice college fund for their kids.

Yes, there is no doubt you and everyone else would be far better off if the social security trust had been invested in the market. Being that hindsight is perfect, that's an easy conclusion. However, there’s no guarantee the market will continue to go higher, and the solvency of the system could be compromised if the market had a prolonged crash.

There is another issue to be considered. Investing Social Security assets in stocks would place way too much market authority in the hands of those in Washington. The $2.9 trillion currently in the Social Security trust fund represents about 14% of the value of all the stocks on the New York Stock Exchange. Even just a portion of it would allow for the government to purchase a commanding share of almost every major company in the U.S. The way the government managed its voting rights could effectively allow it to “pick winners” among corporate entities.

The solution is to allow each person to have a personal account with his own personal funds. Of course, the swamp crocodiles are firmly against that because it would remove them from having control.

You can do that right now, anyone can.

 

[ph3iron]

No more free choice. They decide, you kneel.

Fortune: California to Require Solar Panels for All New Homes

Tell my daughter who has a $150000000 solar business.
Maybe a few more brains than you?
I haven't read it but is it a law or a fortune article?
Doubt the law
Ah progress, can't have it.
Maybe they should move WV coal polluted boys to California

 

[ph3iron]

That's lifted many a senior citizen out of poverty.

Social Security Keeps 22 Million Americans Out of Poverty: A State-By-State Analysis

Remember when we had poor houses? Yeah, not in my lifetime either.

They may not be institutions...but they exist.

Not like the good old days.

According to my link SS keeps 22 million out of poverty. So, deal with that 'bad' news.

There is no way to actually know that.

Many people didn't put anything away because there is SS. If not for SS, and you were just SOL if you didn't save, I would be willing to bet most of those people would have done what we are doing today with our IRA's.

I wish all the money I (and my employers) contributed to the program were in a conservative growth account all these years. What I would be worth today....... Plus the fact that if I die before I get to use it, or use very little of it, my heirs would have a nice jump in life. They would be able to buy a home, payoff the home they have, or even move to a larger and better home. Maybe start a nice college fund for their kids.

Yes, there is no doubt you and everyone else would be far better off if the social security trust had been invested in the market. Being that hindsight is perfect, that's an easy conclusion. However, there’s no guarantee the market will continue to go higher, and the solvency of the system could be compromised if the market had a prolonged crash.

There is another issue to be considered. Investing Social Security assets in stocks would place way too much market authority in the hands of those in Washington. The $2.9 trillion currently in the Social Security trust fund represents about 14% of the value of all the stocks on the New York Stock Exchange. Even just a portion of it would allow for the government to purchase a commanding share of almost every major company in the U.S. The way the government managed its voting rights could effectively allow it to “pick winners” among corporate entities.

The solution is to allow each person to have a personal account with his own personal funds. Of course, the swamp crocodiles are firmly against that because it would remove them from having control.

Hope you have $20000000 in your account when you get confined to hospital.
How much have you got now?
I presume you have been stockpiling and not sucking off your socialist Medicare benefits?
Btw the crocodiles are. The insurance companies

 

[Flopper]

"Works", perhaps yes. Efficiently? Not at all. Other than the fact that temperatures are far lower than, say my area of North Florida where it is still extremely unpopular.

Here is an IKEA in Washington with a solar roof

It's viable and now some solar panels work best in defused light so they are more productive on cloudy days.

I'm sorry solar is 'extremely' unpopular in North Florida but that's kind of the shitty part of the state anyway.

The fact that IKEA put it on their roof proves nothing. You have no idea how much the spent or how much power it produces. It could be a big money loser, for all you know.

The fact that IKEA has it on their roof and you don't proves IKEA is smart.

I'm pretty sure they did the math before throwing it up on the roof, it's not like it's a god damned mystery or anything.

For all I know, it's a money saver for me.

That's lifted many a senior citizen out of poverty.

Social Security Keeps 22 Million Americans Out of Poverty: A State-By-State Analysis

Remember when we had poor houses? Yeah, not in my lifetime either.

They may not be institutions...but they exist.

Not like the good old days.

According to my link SS keeps 22 million out of poverty. So, deal with that 'bad' news.

Social Security is bad news.

That fact that it keeps them out of poverty tells us very little about the rest.

It's bad news but yet you haven't posted and when I post good news about SS you completely disregard it. Makes total sense.

It's an argument that requires a great many definitions.

1. What is "good" news.
2. What is "bad" news.
3. What is poverty (which I realize has a specific defintion...but isn't one everybody thinks is correct...it is somewhat arbitrary.....and can become an entire debate on it's own).
4. The alternatives certainly are not discussed.

So when someone touts it as keeping people out of poverty, I find that meaningless. My response is no more meaningful.....

Your good news isn't so good to me. My bad news is just as meaningless. It's what we do in America.

BTW: While I totally understand the basis for Social Security when it was established.....poor houses were a very very tiny thing in reality....but they made great propaganda.

If there were no social security, the welfare rolls would be far larger today. Some people would have saved for retirement but as before social security, millions would spend their money on their family, providing a better home, or just spending more on themselves. During bad times, they would exhaust their saving, never to be replaced. When these people were no longer able to keep up will younger workers because of old age or health problems they would be shown the door to live with their kids or joint the ranks of the destitute. It is far better for society that government mandate retirement savings than having to pick up all the cost of supporting millions who didn't set aside funds for retirement.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Exactly. The net change is $0.00. Zero, zip, nada, nothing.

Bingo! The trust fund reduced the amount of debt the Treasury had to sell to the public.

Not by one cent.

$2 trillion in the Trust Fund didn't reduce borrowing from the public by $2 trillion?

Why not?

Because the public is the only party that can pay off the bonds. You keep ignoring the fact that the bonds are an obligation of the taxpayer.

Because the public is the only party that can pay off the bonds.

The taxpayers, not the public. That's how government bonds work.
Whether they're sold to the public or sold to the trust funds.

Public, in this discussion means bonds held outside government trust funds.


View attachment 193947

Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)

You keep ignoring the fact that the bonds are an obligation of the taxpayer.

I've never ignored that. Not once, not ever.

You ignore it every time you imply the bonds are worth something.

I own some Treasury Bonds. Do you feel they're worth something?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Not by one cent.

$2 trillion in the Trust Fund didn't reduce borrowing from the public by $2 trillion?

Why not?

Because the public is the only party that can pay off the bonds. You keep ignoring the fact that the bonds are an obligation of the taxpayer.

kinda like talking to a garden slug, isn't it?

Sorry, I don't know any slugs that understand accounting.

You obviously don't understand accounting if you believe the so-called "Trust Fund" is worth anything.

You obviously don't understand accounting if you believe the so-called "Trust Fund" is worth nothing.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Not by one cent.

$2 trillion in the Trust Fund didn't reduce borrowing from the public by $2 trillion?

Why not?

Because the public is the only party that can pay off the bonds. You keep ignoring the fact that the bonds are an obligation of the taxpayer.

kinda like talking to a garden slug, isn't it?

Sorry, I don't know any slugs that understand accounting.

says slug number one. only a slug would think that a bond was an asset to the entity selling the bond, its a liability, an account payable in high school bookkeeping.

only a slug would think that a bond was an asset to the entity selling the bond, its a liability,

I agree. Who thinks the bonds in the Trust Funds are an asset to the US Treasury?
They're an asset for the trust fund, they're a liability to the US Treasury.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I hate to break it to you, but that's alway been my view of SS. But I'm happy to hear how accurate your crystal ball is when you say all those people would be in poverty today without SS. That's because my parents are both on SS, and THEY WOULD be in poverty today if that was all they had. However my father planned well ahead of time for these years.

Oh, I don't question this has always been your belief, as unpopular as it is. What I want you to do is keep preaching about it and be sure to identify yourself as a conservative. Thanks!

Remember what I said about the two words "government" and "force" when combined. There is a reason we never had the option of paying into SS instead of it being mandated.

Oh know, the government is forcing people to save for retirement, the horror. Good, it's helped keep people out of poverty.

Poverty is an arbitrary word and if your goal is to stay above that line (just above it), enjoy. Most of us look forward to more.

No, we already established it;s the poverty limit, that's what we are going by.

The 22 million who would be in poverty might not be if they had saved and not depended on it.

All 22 million? Most?

In that sense, it is simply shifting money and did not do anything independent of what a private program would do.

But we already know the poverty rate dropped among the elderly with the introduction of social security. You seem to want to ignore this point.

With the exception of the really poor...but even then I am not so sure.

A good friend is living in India because her S.S. can't even pay for an apartment in the U.S.

Social Security was never meant to be lived on solely, you;'re still expected to save, I'm sue you know this and not sure what your friends lack of planning has to do with this.

Social Security was never meant to be lived on solely, you;'re still expected to save,

Saving is a lot harder when the government takes 12.4% of your lifetime earnings...…..

American's don't save enough anyway, so its' best for society when they have to hold your hand.

Speak for yourself, I'd do much better with my own 12.4%.

 

[AntonToo]

Oh, I don't question this has always been your belief, as unpopular as it is. What I want you to do is keep preaching about it and be sure to identify yourself as a conservative. Thanks!

Oh know, the government is forcing people to save for retirement, the horror. Good, it's helped keep people out of poverty.

Poverty is an arbitrary word and if your goal is to stay above that line (just above it), enjoy. Most of us look forward to more.

No, we already established it;s the poverty limit, that's what we are going by.

The 22 million who would be in poverty might not be if they had saved and not depended on it.

All 22 million? Most?

In that sense, it is simply shifting money and did not do anything independent of what a private program would do.

But we already know the poverty rate dropped among the elderly with the introduction of social security. You seem to want to ignore this point.

With the exception of the really poor...but even then I am not so sure.

A good friend is living in India because her S.S. can't even pay for an apartment in the U.S.

Social Security was never meant to be lived on solely, you;'re still expected to save, I'm sue you know this and not sure what your friends lack of planning has to do with this.

Social Security was never meant to be lived on solely, you;'re still expected to save,

Saving is a lot harder when the government takes 12.4% of your lifetime earnings...…..

American's don't save enough anyway, so its' best for society when they have to hold your hand.

Speak for yourself, I'd do much better with my own 12.4%.

So therefore everyone would?

NOPE, many would do worse and one way or another it would probably become on you to bail at least some of them.

 

[Flopper]

Not like the good old days.

According to my link SS keeps 22 million out of poverty. So, deal with that 'bad' news.

There is no way to actually know that.

Many people didn't put anything away because there is SS. If not for SS, and you were just SOL if you didn't save, I would be willing to bet most of those people would have done what we are doing today with our IRA's.

I wish all the money I (and my employers) contributed to the program were in a conservative growth account all these years. What I would be worth today....... Plus the fact that if I die before I get to use it, or use very little of it, my heirs would have a nice jump in life. They would be able to buy a home, payoff the home they have, or even move to a larger and better home. Maybe start a nice college fund for their kids.

Oh, you're making excuses. The poverty rate among the elderly has dropped drastically due to social security. But please don't go changing your views on SS, it's one of many things that makes the far right unpopular.

I hate to break it to you, but that's alway been my view of SS. But I'm happy to hear how accurate your crystal ball is when you say all those people would be in poverty today without SS. That's because my parents are both on SS, and THEY WOULD be in poverty today if that was all they had. However my father planned well ahead of time for these years.

Remember what I said about the two words "government" and "force" when combined. There is a reason we never had the option of paying into SS instead of it being mandated.

Social Security....at the time.....was probably one of the better options available to the government trying to deal with a society in transition.

The sad thing is that it really never did much for the elderly who had made super low incomes (relative to what it paid to people who made more money). In that sense it was something of retirement program.

But, while I don't like it, the fact is that the elderly were being marginalized as the country was going through the I.R. and G.D. The unemployment rate was over 50%. But it should not have been a permanent thing.

Politicians have so screwed it up and put so many people on the rolls that were not supposed to be there...that they are going to screw it up for the people who need it the most.

I am not a fan either and wish I had that money back too.

But, I can see why it was done at the time.

The one bad thing (I shouldn't say just one) about social programs is once they're in place, it's impossible to get rid of them. I call this my raccoon theory.

You see a raccoon digging in your garbage can. So you go in the house and get that nice meaty hambone you were going to throw away at the end of the week. The animal dines in delight. Now give it a few seconds and try to take that hambone back and see what happens.

This is exactly how government handouts work. Once you give it to people, they believe it rightfully belongs to them no matter who provided it. And politicians from both sides are afraid of getting their hand chewed off in an attempt to take it away.

What started off as benevolence turned into over 80 federal welfare programs in less than a century, and the Democrats only want to see more.

Now that we see the problems these programs are causing, it's certainly a good enough reason to never support a candidate or party that wants more of them.

Contrary to popular opinion, social security benefits do not contain any government handouts. All of the funds in the Social Security Trust fund come from three sources, contributions from employees, employers, and interest earned on treasury bills. The fund balance as on 12/31/2017 was 2.8 trillion dollars. In 2017 the fund grew by 44.1 million. The fund has increased in value 49 of the last 60 years. The 11 years the fund decreased in value was due to contributions and interest earned falling below benefits paid. These were all during periods of economic slowdown. The last time this occurred was 1981.

During these times the treasury redeemed the treasury bills owned by the fund sufficient to cover the shortfall. These transfers were assets of the fund and at no time did the treasury transfer taxpayers funds to the Social Security Trust Fund.
Trust Fund Data

 

[WEATHER53]

Social security is a good idea I’ve paid about $170,000 into it so have zero interest in some fluff balls who have paid Zero into it obtaining benefits

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Poverty is an arbitrary word and if your goal is to stay above that line (just above it), enjoy. Most of us look forward to more.

No, we already established it;s the poverty limit, that's what we are going by.

The 22 million who would be in poverty might not be if they had saved and not depended on it.

All 22 million? Most?

In that sense, it is simply shifting money and did not do anything independent of what a private program would do.

But we already know the poverty rate dropped among the elderly with the introduction of social security. You seem to want to ignore this point.

With the exception of the really poor...but even then I am not so sure.

A good friend is living in India because her S.S. can't even pay for an apartment in the U.S.

Social Security was never meant to be lived on solely, you;'re still expected to save, I'm sue you know this and not sure what your friends lack of planning has to do with this.

Social Security was never meant to be lived on solely, you;'re still expected to save,

Saving is a lot harder when the government takes 12.4% of your lifetime earnings...…..

American's don't save enough anyway, so its' best for society when they have to hold your hand.

Speak for yourself, I'd do much better with my own 12.4%.

So therefore everyone would?

NOPE, many would do worse and one way or another it would probably become on you to bail at least some of them.

So therefore everyone would?

Nope. Many people are quite clueless.