If given a choice to opt-out of Social Security

[EyeKhan]

That part is quite clear.

That's a cheap shot if I ever saw one. . . . .

If I understand it correctly, and I may not, the big problem with SS is that its funded mostly by current contributions. I pay in, old people today get a check. 25 years from now, the old people of today will be dead, I'll be getting a check, and the work stiffs will be paying in to fund it. Where the trouble comes in is the Baby Boomers are a big bubble of old people moving into draw check mode and by comparison there are fewer workers paying in, meaning a net loss. Now, the system has a surplus, but not that much of a surplus (and Congress has "borrowed" from the surplus over and over again, so it technically isn't there....). Once the baby boomers are dead, however, the system should work as advertised, no? That is if we can keep the conservatives from moving it to the stock market to enrich their constituents give us more risk of getting soaked "choices."

[Being]

That's a cheap shot if I ever saw one. . . . .

Aw I was just Kaneing him.

If I understand it correctly, and I may not, the big problem with SS is that its funded mostly by current contributions. I pay in, old people today get a check. 25 years from now, the old people of today will be dead, I'll be getting a check, and the work stiffs will be paying in to fund it. Where the trouble comes in is the Baby Boomers are a big bubble of old people moving into draw check mode and by comparison there are fewer workers paying in, meaning a net loss. Now, the system has a surplus, but not that much of a surplus (and Congress has "borrowed" from the surplus over and over again, so it technically isn't there....). Once the baby boomers are dead, however, the system should work as advertised, no? That is if we can keep the conservatives from moving it to the stock market to enrich their constituents give us more risk of getting soaked "choices."

And removing the cap will easily get us past the hump.

[']['ear]

If I understand it correctly, and I may not, the big problem with SS is that its funded mostly by current contributions. I pay in, old people today get a check. 25 years from now, the old people of today will be dead, I'll be getting a check, and the work stiffs will be paying in to fund it. Where the trouble comes in is the Baby Boomers are a big bubble of old people moving into draw check mode and by comparison there are fewer workers paying in, meaning a net loss. Now, the system has a surplus, but not that much of a surplus (and Congress has "borrowed" from the surplus over and over again, so it technically isn't there....). Once the baby boomers are dead, however, the system should work as advertised, no? That is if we can keep the conservatives from moving it to the stock market to enrich their constituents give us more risk of getting soaked "choices."

Also, if the Republicans would stop driving us into a deficit every time things look remotely good. Examples: 1) Bush sees a budget surplus! Rather than put that toward the deficit like hiks dad and Clinton did, thus stimulating economic growth, he cuts taxes almost exclusively on the very rich. Yay, ballooning deficits! 2) The current Republicans have making the Bush tax cuts permanent as the centerpiece of their new contract gimmick. Oh, that and fiscal responsibility.

Aw I was just Kaneing him.

Like Chaloobi said....

[Lewkowski]

Bush sees a budget surplus! Rather than put that toward the deficit like hiks dad and Clinton did, thus stimulating economic growth, he cuts taxes almost exclusively on the very rich.

Well there are a few ways to look at the Clinton years. One can look at it the "uh duh he was the president everything that occurs is cus of him!!" or one can look at the reality that the Republicans took back the house in 94. The biggest increases of debt is always when one party controls both branches of government. Even with that being said the total amount of debt increased during the Clinton years, so you are off base.

[']['ear]

Even with that being said the total amount of debt increased during the Clinton years, so you are off base.

God, but that's a slimy-ass way of playing with the numbers, mainly because he inherited the tail end of Regan's deficit.

Look at big increases in deficit spending, and they come from Reagan, Bush II, and to a lesser degree Obama (but his was just a change in slope, and that only transient, and he's the only one with an excuse: an existential threat). Bush I, in contrast, caused a downward inflection point in deficit. Clinton presided over a reversal, to deficit reduction. The Reps had only the house. As soon as they had all three, house, pres and senate, the deficit ballooned at the fastest rate ever. There's no way anybody can make a case for the Reps being deficit reducers since Nixon. They tossed Bush I out of office for being fiscally responsible and trying to build the economy.

[Lewkowski]

The Reps had only the house. As soon as they had all three, house, pres and senate, the deficit ballooned at the fastest rate ever. There's no way anybody can make a case for the Reps being deficit reducers since Nixon. They tossed Bush I out of office for being fiscally responsible and trying to build the economy.

Oh I'll agree the Republicans haven't done a good job of being deficit hawks. Utter failures during the Bush years BUT look at the flip side when the Democrats have control. The Deficit IS spiraling out of control right now. And frankly you really do ignore the reality that when one party has full control they spend like crazy. When they don't... it becomes more contained.

Hell I bet if the Republicans take back the house and Senate (unlikely for the Senate) and the deficit is cut during the following two years you will credit Obama!

[']['ear]

There's a lot of whining about the deficit, but at least so far Obama is growing it far less than Bush. The exception is the bailout, but a) that was an existential crisis, IMO the only acceptable reason for large deficit spending (unless you're a Republican buying votes, of course), and b) a good chunk of that it coming back to the treasury.

Depends who pushes their budget through, Lewk. It is never clear unless one party has all three branches of government. Well, we saw what the Reps did with that.

Once again:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US..._President.jpg

The graph don't lie. Fact is that unless Obama increases the slope, he can't really be blamed.

[Loki]

And the excuse for us still having a gigantic deficit is?

[Lewkowski]

LOL if the slope remains even as we wind down the wars you aren't going to blame Obama? Gee it must be nice that he can basically do no wrong in regards to the deficit.

[Flixy]

There's a lot of whining about the deficit, but at least so far Obama is growing it far less than Bush. The exception is the bailout, but a) that was an existential crisis, IMO the only acceptable reason for large deficit spending (unless you're a Republican buying votes, of course), and b) a good chunk of that it coming back to the treasury.

Depends who pushes their budget through, Lewk. It is never clear unless one party has all three branches of government. Well, we saw what the Reps did with that.

Once again:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US..._President.jpg

The graph don't lie. Fact is that unless Obama increases the slope, he can't really be blamed.

I haven't the faintest idea if he's doing good or bad, but just because he isn't worse doesn't mean he's doing well, or that he can't be blamed.

[Loki]

Especially since the spike in 2008 was meant to be temporary.

[']['ear]

And the excuse for us still having a gigantic deficit is?

Right! Absolutely true that he should have slashed the government budget and left our preposterously inefficient health care system in place when the worst economy since the Great Depression was blowing up the US! That would have been fucking brilliant! He is such a horrible president for not causing a depression.

Look, you've been pounding away at Obama's ass since well before he got the nomination (starting, in fact, around when we heard what a Jew-hater he was). Fact is we can't judge a prez's performance in the middle of such a crisis. But there is one thing I am pretty confident of: I'm damned glad he didn't slash taxes for the wealthy. McCain weould have let banks go under, and at least one major auto maker, too (GM). If you think Obama's unemployment was bad, McCain would have train wrecked this country. And I wonder what the liberal version of the Tea Party would have been?

And let's not forget: I was saying throughout the Bush presidency that the only excuse for serious deficit spending was an existential crisis. Now we have one, and Obama can't spend ENOUGH because of fucking Bush. Figures that you don't have the integrity to recall me saying that over and over, or to recognize that Obama's hands are tied by Republican profligacy.

LOL if the slope remains even as we wind down the wars you aren't going to blame Obama? Gee it must be nice that he can basically do no wrong in regards to the deficit.

I recommend not playing Loki's "let's see how many straw men I can squeeze into one thread" game. It's really unpopular with me when some little troll dishonestly shoves words in my mouth. I think others agree.

[Loki]

I'm not even sure what you're talking about. The full cost of Obama's healthcare plan isn't going to be felt for several more years. The reason the deficit didn't fall is because virtually none of the "temporary" spending was really temporary (surprising, I know).

Good to know that your idea of an existential crisis is a 10% unemployment rate and low (but positive) economic growth.

[Being]

Good to know that your idea of an existential crisis is a 10% unemployment rate and low (but positive) economic growth.

10%? The Actual number is damn near double that at 18.7%. At the peak of the Great Depression, U3 was 67% of U6. Today U3 is only 58% of U6. So you can see that today we are 10% further from reality when we use U3 to report unemployment. Quite convenient for a few who wish to downplay the extent of the current crisis.


But don't take my word for it, http://www.scribd.com/doc/13282170/U...1930s-vs-Today


Back on topic.
Half the families in the U.S. are collecting food stamps. Should these families have the option of opting out of SS?

[Loki]

10%? The Actual number is damn near double that at 18.7%. At the peak of the Great Depression, U3 was 67% of U6. Today U3 is only 58% of U6. So you can see that today we are 10% further from reality when we use U3 to report unemployment. Quite convenient for a few who wish to downplay the extent of the current crisis.

What kind of idiots do you take us for? U3 as a percentage of U6 is a totally meaningless statistic. U6 right now is about 15%, compared to over 35% at the peak of the recession. The only thing we can see is your willingness to lie when it suits you.

[Being]

What kind of idiots do you take us for? U3 as a percentage of U6 is a totally meaningless statistic. U6 right now is about 15%, compared to over 35% at the peak of the recession. The only thing we can see is your willingness to lie when it suits you.

The ratio of U3 to U6 is important because it shows that U3 is becoming even more useless in reporting employment percentage of the available workforce.

And calling me a liar doesn't change the arithmetic, idiot. U6 is 26,161,154. Workforce is 139,559,023. That makes actual unemployment 18.7%. You can call that ABOUT 15% if you want but we all know that's a political stunt.

[Lewkowski]

I recommend not playing Loki's "let's see how many straw men I can squeeze into one thread" game. It's really unpopular with me when some little troll dishonestly shoves words in my mouth. I think others agree.

Oh? So what exactly did you mean by this -

The graph don't lie. Fact is that unless Obama increases the slope, he can't really be blamed.

Two wars winding down and the slope stays steady and you can't blame Obama? Really? What I wrote isn't off the mark based on this statement.

[EyeKhan]

Oh? So what exactly did you mean by this -



Two wars winding down and the slope stays steady and you can't blame Obama? Really? What I wrote isn't off the mark based on this statement.

what do you mean by winding down??? Afghanistan? Really? And Iraq, instead of costing a trillion dollars a year it's giong to cost what? 250 billion? A hundred billion? winding down....

[Lewkowski]

what do you mean by winding down??? Afghanistan? Really? And Iraq, instead of costing a trillion dollars a year it's giong to cost what? 250 billion? A hundred billion? winding down....

Well Obama is in office through 2012. My understanding of Obama's campaign platform was to begin ending the wars.

[EyeKhan]

Well Obama is in office through 2012. My understanding of Obama's campaign platform was to begin ending the wars.

Begin ending.... right now Afghanistan is still being escalated. Its too soon to talk about winding down. Iraq, yeah, its winding down at least some, but still its going to cost a ton.... which is one reason why we should have never gone in there.

[Being]

What kind of idiots do you take us for? U3 as a percentage of U6 is a totally meaningless statistic...

Oh really...

The worst the uncounted number has been (historically) was 1/3. Well today it's 1 to 1.

http://cnn.com/video/?/video/us/2010...employment.cnn