Do Democrats know...

[hortysir]

So...it'll run out of money, but don't worry cause there's gonna be a solution sometime, but we just don't know what? And pray you're not in the 22% of people who will receive nothing by a methodology to be determined later?

Come back when you got some game, son. You're getting eaten alive here.

And for you it's a swing and a miss (as usual). You can continue to run around like all of your right wing buddies and cry "The sky is falling"!!!! When you finally learn who the biggest voting bloc is and which lobby is the most powerful in Washington you'll begin to open your eyes and see you're crying for nothing.

You also claim to have paid into a 401k for 15 years. Yet you argue politics like a teenager. For supposedly being at least in your 30's (which I highly doubt) you sure haven't learned much, have you?

You especially showed your immature ignorance when you implied that nothing bad can ever happen to anyone that they cannot overcome. You called them "idiots who had no idea how to prepare for the future". What a sheltered life you must lead!! Are you still living with mommy and daddy?

You have also shown you know about as much about unions as you do about how the SS system works, which sure isn't much.

Game? I've got plenty of it and will give you all you can handle. But I don't think you're old enough to waste my time with because you know so little about life. Come back when you've grown up a bit, son.

So....you got a lot of bluster and bluff, but no facts to counter anything I said? Figures.

I told you to bring your game. You didn't. You lost. I would have thought you would have learned to live with losing by now though.

Radio, you're arguing with a union hack.
Save your fingers, bro....

 

[RadiomanATL]

And for you it's a swing and a miss (as usual). You can continue to run around like all of your right wing buddies and cry "The sky is falling"!!!! When you finally learn who the biggest voting bloc is and which lobby is the most powerful in Washington you'll begin to open your eyes and see you're crying for nothing.

You also claim to have paid into a 401k for 15 years. Yet you argue politics like a teenager. For supposedly being at least in your 30's (which I highly doubt) you sure haven't learned much, have you?

You especially showed your immature ignorance when you implied that nothing bad can ever happen to anyone that they cannot overcome. You called them "idiots who had no idea how to prepare for the future". What a sheltered life you must lead!! Are you still living with mommy and daddy?

You have also shown you know about as much about unions as you do about how the SS system works, which sure isn't much.

Game? I've got plenty of it and will give you all you can handle. But I don't think you're old enough to waste my time with because you know so little about life. Come back when you've grown up a bit, son.

So....you got a lot of bluster and bluff, but no facts to counter anything I said? Figures.

I told you to bring your game. You didn't. You lost. I would have thought you would have learned to live with losing by now though.

Radio, you're arguing with a union hack.
Save your fingers, bro....

Funny thing is, I didn't say anything anti-union though.

I just said that they are a business....which they are.

 

[hortysir]

So....you got a lot of bluster and bluff, but no facts to counter anything I said? Figures.

I told you to bring your game. You didn't. You lost. I would have thought you would have learned to live with losing by now though.

Radio, you're arguing with a union hack.
Save your fingers, bro....

Funny thing is, I didn't say anything anti-union though.

I just said that they are a business....which they are.

In the business of taking money from it's members to support the collective and/or the political whims of its leadership

 

[RadiomanATL]

Radio, you're arguing with a union hack.
Save your fingers, bro....

Funny thing is, I didn't say anything anti-union though.

I just said that they are a business....which they are.

In the business of taking money from it's members to support the collective and/or the political whims of its leadership

No, they do more than that for the workers.

The thing is, are the actions they take things that the workers couldn't do on their own? Or is it even things that every worker agrees to? Or can a worker opt out if they do disagree?

Most of the time, the answers to all three questions are "no".

 

[DaGoose]

It's gonna go broke!

No!

Yes!

Nuh-uh!

uh-huh!


does either side have any intention of presenting the numbers?

Why do numbers need to be posted.

We both agree that the model is unsustainable. He just says that it will be sustained 'cause.....something......is going to make it OK.

But you're the one running around crying that it is lost and cannot be fixed. I say that's bullshit. It can and will. It may take a combination of benefit adjustments and tax increases but at some point it will happen.

And you also imply that nothing can ever happen in your life that could cause you to ever need SS. I say that's incredibly naive.

 

[DaGoose]

Funny thing is, I didn't say anything anti-union though.

I just said that they are a business....which they are.

In the business of taking money from it's members to support the collective and/or the political whims of its leadership

No, they do more than that for the workers.

The thing is, are the actions they take things that the workers couldn't do on their own? Or is it even things that every worker agrees to? Or can a worker opt out if they do disagree?

Most of the time, the answers to all three questions are "no".

The thing is, are the actions they take things that the workers couldn't do on their own?

Only if they're at or near 100% unified in what they want so in most cases the answer would be YES.

Or is it even things that every worker agrees to?

Not everyone agrees 100% of the time so the answer is NO nealry all of the time.

Or can a worker opt out if they do disagree?

Now this depends on whether or not one lives in a "Right To Work" state. Twenty two states are "Right To Work" so you would only be half right on the last one.

 

[RadiomanATL]

It's gonna go broke!

No!

Yes!

Nuh-uh!

uh-huh!


does either side have any intention of presenting the numbers?

Why do numbers need to be posted.

We both agree that the model is unsustainable. He just says that it will be sustained 'cause.....something......is going to make it OK.

But you're the one running around crying that it is lost and cannot be fixed. I say that's bullshit. It can and will. It may take a combination of benefit adjustments and tax increases but at some point it will happen.

And you also imply that nothing can ever happen in your life that could cause you to ever need SS. I say that's incredibly naive.

Nope.

I never said it cannot be fixed. You lose again.

 

[asterism]

1) And the truth disagrees with you. As I've said, no politician will ever let SS die.

2) That will depend on how long you live. It's very likely you can collect more than you pay in.

3) No....hard truth my friend. I've seen it and again, it's easy to say you won't be a burden but in reality if you are old and broke you WILL be a burden.

About #2, do you have statistics on the likelihood of recipients getting out more than they pay in? If so, post them. If not, retract your point.

When Social Security was instituted, life expectancy was only estimated to reach 63, and beneficiaries would not be able to collect unless and until they reached 65. Today, life expectancy is 78 (varying a few points between men and women) due to huge medical and scientific advancements. Therefore, it is not unusual for a recipient to get far more out of their Social Security fund than they actually paid in.

Valid concepts, but those aren't statistics. All you're showing is the structural problems with how it was created.

Who would ever voluntarily contribute to a system they would most likely not benefit from?

 

[asterism]

1. I don't listen to talk radio. When losing an argument, trot out the ole "Yeah, well yer just stoopid because you listen to talk radio".

2. Average life expectancy is around 75. 10 or so years of benefits versus 50 years of paying in? Are you this mathematically challenged?

3. Once again you're assuming that I'll end up with no money in my old age. This may be what is in your future because you do not know how to handle your wealth, but I assure you it's not in mine.

1) You could have surprised me.

2) From Wiki...."Social Security benefits can exceed market returns of retirement investments under some circumstances, because as an insurance program it pays benefits not only for retirement, but for disability, as well as paying survivors and dependents (see FICA above), and this coverage begins shortly after a worker starts contributing. It can also be argued that part of Social Security's "return" is not only benefits actually paid, but the coverage against risk a worker and their family has in the event of loss of income from retirement, disability and death, even if disability and death occur at a relatively young age."

3) No, I'm not assuming anything. YOU said you would forego welfare in the event that your investments don't work out. I just pointed out that what you said was bullshit, that if you needed welfare you would apply for it like anyone else regardless of what you're saying now.

And it is because of point #3 that I can safely assume that you're pretty young, son. You put forth an aura of invincibility and while that's admirable it's also childish. I have seen better, harder working men than you beaten down. And anyone who's been around and seen what the market forces have done to 401k's knows what I'm talking about.

1. I bet you're easily surprised.

2. Under some certain circumstances. So if I am disabled at a very young age, and then die, and my widow and children can continue to collect. Sounds highly unlikely to me. Quite a contrast to your original claim of:

2) That will depend on how long you live. It's very likely you can collect more than you pay in.

I don't allow people to move goalposts. So...epic fail on your part there.

3. So...another epic fail on your part? Appeal to authority logical fallacy combined with weak anecdotal evidence? Strike 3, yer out.

BTW: I've seen my 401k grow at a rate of about 8% over the course of the last 15 years. Some years were in double digits. Some years less than a percentage point. But over the long term, roughly 8%.

7.2% annualized gain for 18 years after the crash. I went to cash right after and haven't gotten back in yet, so I missed some gains.

 

[RadiomanATL]

In the business of taking money from it's members to support the collective and/or the political whims of its leadership

No, they do more than that for the workers.

The thing is, are the actions they take things that the workers couldn't do on their own? Or is it even things that every worker agrees to? Or can a worker opt out if they do disagree?

Most of the time, the answers to all three questions are "no".

Only if they're at or near 100% unified in what they want so in most cases the answer would be YES.

What? A worker cannot negotiate a compensation contract on their own? What are you smoking?

Or is it even things that every worker agrees to?

Not everyone agrees 100% of the time so the answer is NO nealry all of the time.

Yup. And those that do not agree just have no choice. I despise not having choices. There are those that need others to think for them though. So I guess maybe thats why you're OK with it.

Or can a worker opt out if they do disagree?

Now this depends on whether or not one lives in a "Right To Work" state. Twenty two states are "Right To Work" so you would only be half right on the last one.

Wrong. A worker cannot opt out of part of a union negotiated term and keep their jobs in most cases.

 

[asterism]

Well you're obviously trusting somebody that's feeding you and millions of others a line of bullshit. Let's address YOUR gullibility, shall we?

Social Security going broke has frequently been used to argue for dismantling the system. And it's technically true, and assuming (as we shouldn't) that the federal government does nothing until the surplus that's been deliberately built is altogether depleted.

This surplus, often referred to as the trust fund, is currently about $2.5 trillion. As the New York Times reported in March, the trustees have projected that it will be down to zero in 2037. Even this doesn't mean the system will be broke. Workers and their employers will still be paying Social Security payroll taxes. Left unchanged, they'll be enough to cover about 78 percent of benefits.

Five Big Myths About Social Security | Poverty in America | Change.org

So...it'll run out of money, but don't worry cause there's gonna be a solution sometime, but we just don't know what? And pray you're not in the 22% of people who will receive nothing by a methodology to be determined later?

Come back when you got some game, son. You're getting eaten alive here.

And for you it's a swing and a miss (as usual). You can continue to run around like all of your right wing buddies and cry "The sky is falling"!!!! When you finally learn who the biggest voting bloc is and which lobby is the most powerful in Washington you'll begin to open your eyes and see you're crying for nothing.

You also claim to have paid into a 401k for 15 years. Yet you argue politics like a teenager. For supposedly being at least in your 30's (which I highly doubt) you sure haven't learned much, have you?

You especially showed your immature ignorance when you implied that nothing bad can ever happen to anyone that they cannot overcome. You called them "idiots who had no idea how to prepare for the future". What a sheltered life you must lead!! Are you still living with mommy and daddy?

You have also shown you know about as much about unions as you do about how the SS system works, which sure isn't much.

Game? I've got plenty of it and will give you all you can handle. But I don't think you're old enough to waste my time with because you know so little about life. Come back when you've grown up a bit, son.

Arguing the fiscal "wisdom" of Social Security by pointing to the voting bloc that doesn't see what a ponzi scheme it is but are really only concerned for themselves not really supporting the point you are trying to make about the viability of Social Security as a wise place to put money.

 

[DaGoose]

Why do numbers need to be posted.

We both agree that the model is unsustainable. He just says that it will be sustained 'cause.....something......is going to make it OK.

But you're the one running around crying that it is lost and cannot be fixed. I say that's bullshit. It can and will. It may take a combination of benefit adjustments and tax increases but at some point it will happen.

And you also imply that nothing can ever happen in your life that could cause you to ever need SS. I say that's incredibly naive.

Nope.

I never said it cannot be fixed. You lose again.

So when you posted, "Who said anything about letting it die? It's going to be broke." you were just kidding around?

You didn't say "it might go broke", or "it could go broke". You said, "It's going to be broke" without a qualifier which implies it cannot be fixed.

You lose.

 

[DaGoose]

So...it'll run out of money, but don't worry cause there's gonna be a solution sometime, but we just don't know what? And pray you're not in the 22% of people who will receive nothing by a methodology to be determined later?

Come back when you got some game, son. You're getting eaten alive here.

And for you it's a swing and a miss (as usual). You can continue to run around like all of your right wing buddies and cry "The sky is falling"!!!! When you finally learn who the biggest voting bloc is and which lobby is the most powerful in Washington you'll begin to open your eyes and see you're crying for nothing.

You also claim to have paid into a 401k for 15 years. Yet you argue politics like a teenager. For supposedly being at least in your 30's (which I highly doubt) you sure haven't learned much, have you?

You especially showed your immature ignorance when you implied that nothing bad can ever happen to anyone that they cannot overcome. You called them "idiots who had no idea how to prepare for the future". What a sheltered life you must lead!! Are you still living with mommy and daddy?

You have also shown you know about as much about unions as you do about how the SS system works, which sure isn't much.

Game? I've got plenty of it and will give you all you can handle. But I don't think you're old enough to waste my time with because you know so little about life. Come back when you've grown up a bit, son.

Arguing the fiscal "wisdom" of Social Security by pointing to the voting bloc that doesn't see what a ponzi scheme it is but are really only concerned for themselves not really supporting the point you are trying to make about the viability of Social Security as a wise place to put money.

That "voting bloc really only concerned for themselves " are your parents and grandparents that have held up their end of the bargain. They are the ones who raised you and cared for you. Now they only ask to grow old with dignity and SS has helped MILLIONS do that. And now you call them stupid and selfish. How sad.

Ponzi scheme????

Why Social Security is not a Ponzi scheme - Jan. 7, 2009

 

[RadiomanATL]

But you're the one running around crying that it is lost and cannot be fixed. I say that's bullshit. It can and will. It may take a combination of benefit adjustments and tax increases but at some point it will happen.

And you also imply that nothing can ever happen in your life that could cause you to ever need SS. I say that's incredibly naive.

Nope.

I never said it cannot be fixed. You lose again.

So when you posted, "Who said anything about letting it die? It's going to be broke." you were just kidding around?

You didn't say "it might go broke", or "it could go broke". You said, "It's going to be broke" without a qualifier which implies it cannot be fixed.

You lose.

I'm sorry. I didn't realize you needed common sense and obvious facts posted for you. I didn't realize that you had none to draw on yourself.

It's going to go broke, unless something is done.

Do you really think that I was saying it was going to go broke, no matter what was done? You must have.

I won't over-estimate you again. No worries. Do you need to be spoon-fed something else as well?

 

[DaGoose]

No, they do more than that for the workers.

The thing is, are the actions they take things that the workers couldn't do on their own? Or is it even things that every worker agrees to? Or can a worker opt out if they do disagree?

Most of the time, the answers to all three questions are "no".

Only if they're at or near 100% unified in what they want so in most cases the answer would be YES.

What? A worker cannot negotiate a compensation contract on their own? What are you smoking?

Yup. And those that do not agree just have no choice. I despise not having choices. There are those that need others to think for them though. So I guess maybe thats why you're OK with it.

Or can a worker opt out if they do disagree?

Now this depends on whether or not one lives in a "Right To Work" state. Twenty two states are "Right To Work" so you would only be half right on the last one.

Wrong. A worker cannot opt out of part of a union negotiated term and keep their jobs in most cases.

1) First of all you said "workers" in the plural sense. If they were all united I would say they could "negotiate a compensation contract". One the other hand, someone in a group that went in and did it on his or her own would be a sniveling suck-ass.

2) They have a choice much like we all do in a democracy. They can vote out the ones they feel don't represent their best interests.

3) I don't live in a Right To Work state but this is from Wiki...."Right-to-work laws are statutes enforced in twenty-two U.S. states, mostly in the southern or western U.S., allowed under provisions of the Taft-Hartley Act, which prohibit agreements between labor unions and employers making membership or payment of union dues or fees a condition of employment, either before or after hiring."

Sounds to me like they can......

 

[DaGoose]

Nope.

I never said it cannot be fixed. You lose again.

So when you posted, "Who said anything about letting it die? It's going to be broke." you were just kidding around?

You didn't say "it might go broke", or "it could go broke". You said, "It's going to be broke" without a qualifier which implies it cannot be fixed.

You lose.

I'm sorry. I didn't realize you needed common sense and obvious facts posted for you. I didn't realize that you had none to draw on yourself.

It's going to go broke, unless something is done.

Do you really think that I was saying it was going to go broke, no matter what was done? You must have.

I won't over-estimate you again. No worries. Do you need to be spoon-fed something else as well?

"It's going to go broke, unless something is done" is far removed from what you were stating. You see, that's called a "qualifier" my friend. Hell, EVERYBODY agrees with that!!! That's a "DUH".

Now let's suppose that President Obama got on national TV and said "We are bombing the Soviet Union" and then sat back down. He would cause a panic, no? (Kinda like what that idiot Reagan did) Now if he said "We are bombing the Soviet Union if they bomb us first" that would be saying something entirely different.

See how that works?

 

[RadiomanATL]

Only if they're at or near 100% unified in what they want so in most cases the answer would be YES.

What? A worker cannot negotiate a compensation contract on their own? What are you smoking?

Yup. And those that do not agree just have no choice. I despise not having choices. There are those that need others to think for them though. So I guess maybe thats why you're OK with it.

Now this depends on whether or not one lives in a "Right To Work" state. Twenty two states are "Right To Work" so you would only be half right on the last one.

Wrong. A worker cannot opt out of part of a union negotiated term and keep their jobs in most cases.

1) First of all you said "workers" in the plural sense. If they were all united I would say they could "negotiate a compensation contract". One the other hand, someone in a group that went in and did it on his or her own would be a sniveling suck-ass.

2) They have a choice much like we all do in a democracy. They can vote out the ones they feel don't represent their best interests.

3) I don't live in a Right To Work state but this is from Wiki...."Right-to-work laws are statutes enforced in twenty-two U.S. states, mostly in the southern or western U.S., allowed under provisions of the Taft-Hartley Act, which prohibit agreements between labor unions and employers making membership or payment of union dues or fees a condition of employment, either before or after hiring."

Sounds to me like they can......

1. Plural, but not collectively plural. Big difference.

2. But still do not have the option to represent their own interests.

3. You conveniently left out this part "The Act, however, permitted employers and unions to operate under a union shop rule, which required all new employees to join the union after a minimum period after their hire. Under union shop rules, employers are obliged to fire any employees who have avoided paying membership dues necessary to maintain membership in the union;"

The very definition of a distinction without a difference. So you wanna try again on how an employee can opt out of a union in a union shop and keep their job? Or even get hired in the first place?

 

[RadiomanATL]

So when you posted, "Who said anything about letting it die? It's going to be broke." you were just kidding around?

You didn't say "it might go broke", or "it could go broke". You said, "It's going to be broke" without a qualifier which implies it cannot be fixed.

You lose.

I'm sorry. I didn't realize you needed common sense and obvious facts posted for you. I didn't realize that you had none to draw on yourself.

It's going to go broke, unless something is done.

Do you really think that I was saying it was going to go broke, no matter what was done? You must have.

I won't over-estimate you again. No worries. Do you need to be spoon-fed something else as well?

"It's going to go broke, unless something is done" is far removed from what you were stating. You see, that's called a "qualifier" my friend. Hell, EVERYBODY agrees with that!!! That's a "DUH".

So you say that everyone agrees with that, which is what I said, and then want to argue that this wasn't implied with my original statement?

Logic and you don't get along to well, do you?

 

[DaGoose]

What? A worker cannot negotiate a compensation contract on their own? What are you smoking?

Yup. And those that do not agree just have no choice. I despise not having choices. There are those that need others to think for them though. So I guess maybe thats why you're OK with it.



Wrong. A worker cannot opt out of part of a union negotiated term and keep their jobs in most cases.

1) First of all you said "workers" in the plural sense. If they were all united I would say they could "negotiate a compensation contract". One the other hand, someone in a group that went in and did it on his or her own would be a sniveling suck-ass.

2) They have a choice much like we all do in a democracy. They can vote out the ones they feel don't represent their best interests.

3) I don't live in a Right To Work state but this is from Wiki...."Right-to-work laws are statutes enforced in twenty-two U.S. states, mostly in the southern or western U.S., allowed under provisions of the Taft-Hartley Act, which prohibit agreements between labor unions and employers making membership or payment of union dues or fees a condition of employment, either before or after hiring."

Sounds to me like they can......

1. Plural, but not collectively plural. Big difference.

2. But still do not have the option to represent their own interests.

3. You conveniently left out this part "The Act, however, permitted employers and unions to operate under a union shop rule, which required all new employees to join the union after a minimum period after their hire. Under union shop rules, employers are obliged to fire any employees who have avoided paying membership dues necessary to maintain membership in the union;"

The very definition of a distinction without a difference. So you wanna try again on how an employee can opt out of a union in a union shop and keep their job? Or even get hired in the first place?

Damn you're thickheaded.

"So you wanna try again on how an employee can opt out of a union in a union shop and keep their job? Or even get hired in the first place?"

Question: If I work in a Right to Work state, can I resign my union membership and cut off any further dues collections from my salary?

Answer: If you work primarily in a Right to Work state, except on federal property or for a railway or airline, you have a right to resign from union membership and not pay union dues or fees.

.........In a Right to Work state, you can resign your union membership by simply sending your union a written letter stating that you are resigning effective immediately. You should check your union's constitution and bylaws to see if it has any provision specifying to whom a resignation must be submitted; such requirements have been upheld by the courts and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)...............

NOW....you want to explain why a worker CAN'T opt out of a Union or not join in the first place which is the cornerstone of a RIGHT TO WORK STATE?

http://www.nrtw.org/a/RTWresignIntro.htm

 

[DaGoose]

I'm sorry. I didn't realize you needed common sense and obvious facts posted for you. I didn't realize that you had none to draw on yourself.

It's going to go broke, unless something is done.

Do you really think that I was saying it was going to go broke, no matter what was done? You must have.

I won't over-estimate you again. No worries. Do you need to be spoon-fed something else as well?

"It's going to go broke, unless something is done" is far removed from what you were stating. You see, that's called a "qualifier" my friend. Hell, EVERYBODY agrees with that!!! That's a "DUH".

So you say that everyone agrees with that, which is what I said, and then want to argue that this wasn't implied with my original statement?

Logic and you don't get along to well, do you?

Nope. You changed the goal posts my friend. Stop trying to deny it.