Current Events > AOC on CNN asks why we have endless money for wars and corporate tax cuts but w

Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3
tennisdude818 07/24/19 12:22:53 PM #104:	Balrog0 posted... Medicare and social security aren't redistributed from the rich to the poor. They're financed by broad based payroll taxes and given back to you more or less in proportion to what you've paid in. They are about allowing old people not to die in miserable poverty or work themselves to dearth, not about addressing poverty more broadly. So what are we doing to 'throw money' at the problem of poverty? That 7% on medicaid that finances basically half of all births in this nation and is a major source of child health coverage along with CHIP, an even smaller budget item? Y'all are crazy Would you be supportive of Ron Pauls proposal to make participation in those programs optional? Because the government is blowing the contributions and replacing them with IOUs, Im confident that Im a better steward of my own money than they are. --- "Those who need leaders are not qualified to choose them." -Michael Malice <cite>tennisdude818 posted [p:925120211] in AOC on CNN... [t:77884890]...</cite> <quote>Balrog0 posted...</cite> <quote>Medicare and social security aren't redistributed from the rich to the poor. They're financed by broad based payroll taxes and given back to you more or less in proportion to what you've paid in. They are about allowing old people not to die in miserable poverty or work themselves to dearth, not about addressing poverty more broadly. So what are we doing to 'throw money' at the problem of poverty? That 7% on medicaid that finances basically half of all births in this nation and is a major source of child health coverage along with CHIP, an even smaller budget item? Y'all are crazy</quote> Would you be supportive of Ron Pauls proposal to make participation in those programs optional? Because the government is blowing the contributions and replacing them with IOUs, Im confident that Im a better steward of my own money than they are.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
AlephZero 07/24/19 12:28:18 PM #105:	The answer, as always, to "How will we pay for Medicare For All," is large tax increases across all income levels including the middle class. Framing it as cutting the defense budget or only taxing the rich muddies the waters. $2.5T per year is an enormous amount of money and most of it will have to come from significant middle class tax increases. --- "life is overrated" - Seiichi Omori 01001100 01010101 01000101 00100000 00110100 00110000 00110010 <cite>AlephZero posted [p:925120417] in AOC on CNN... [t:77884890]...</cite> <quote>The answer, as always, to "How will we pay for Medicare For All," is large tax increases across all income levels including the middle class. Framing it as cutting the defense budget or only taxing the rich muddies the waters. $2.5T per year is an enormous amount of money and most of it will have to come from significant middle class tax increases.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Balrog0 07/24/19 12:28:30 PM #106:	tennisdude818 posted... Would you be supportive of Ron Pauls proposal to make participation in those programs optional? Because the government is blowing the contributions and replacing them with IOUs, Im confident that Im a better steward of my own money than they are. What does that have to do with the conversation at hand? --- But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. <cite>Balrog0 posted [p:925120422] in AOC on CNN... [t:77884890]...</cite> <quote>tennisdude818 posted...</cite> <quote>Would you be supportive of Ron Pauls proposal to make participation in those programs optional? Because the government is blowing the contributions and replacing them with IOUs, Im confident that Im a better steward of my own money than they are.</quote> What does that have to do with the conversation at hand?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
DarkRoast 07/24/19 12:34:01 PM #107:	You're missing the point, which is why do we question how to pay to help our citizens, yet we don't question how to pay for an increased military budget or tax cuts? Just because we spend a large amount of our budget on social services doesn't mean we're not spending too much on defense. We spent over twice as much last year on military as the entire rest of the world combined. That's ridiculous. You're not wrong about the military and cost, but you are wrong to imply that cutting military expenditures will significantly impact our social services. That is simply mathematically untrue. The reality is that we're already spending far too much money on social services and getting very little in the way of results. They add up to half the federal budget, yet we seemingly have nothing to show for it. Other countries spend way less yet paradoxically have much better social safety nets. The solution isn't more money. Nor is it to scapegoat what amounts to 20% of the federal budget and imply that it's the problem. --- Well allons-y, Alonso! <cite>DarkRoast posted [p:925120657] in AOC on CNN... [t:77884890]...</cite> <quote>You're missing the point, which is why do we question how to pay to help our citizens, yet we don't question how to pay for an increased military budget or tax cuts? Just because we spend a large amount of our budget on social services doesn't mean we're not spending too much on defense. We spent over twice as much last year on military as the entire rest of the world combined. That's ridiculous. You're not wrong about the military and cost, but you are wrong to imply that cutting military expenditures will significantly impact our social services. That is simply mathematically untrue. The reality is that we're already spending far too much money on social services and getting very little in the way of results. They add up to half the federal budget, yet we seemingly have nothing to show for it. Other countries spend way less yet paradoxically have much better social safety nets. The solution isn't more money. Nor is it to scapegoat what amounts to 20% of the federal budget and imply that it's the problem.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Grischnak 07/24/19 12:34:39 PM #108:	Her logic is like defending wasting money on spending $20 at Starbucks everyday by saying "Well, our sports car costs even more then that". Yeah...she's right but instead of using one to justify the other, we shouldn't do either. <cite>Grischnak posted [p:925120682] in AOC on CNN... [t:77884890]...</cite> <quote>Her logic is like defending wasting money on spending $20 at Starbucks everyday by saying "Well, our sports car costs even more then that". Yeah...she's right but instead of using one to justify the other, we shouldn't do either.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
DarkRoast 07/24/19 12:36:49 PM #109:	AlephZero posted... The answer, as always, to "How will we pay for Medicare For All," is large tax increases across all income levels including the middle class. Framing it as cutting the defense budget or only taxing the rich muddies the waters. $2.5T per year is an enormous amount of money and most of it will have to come from significant middle class tax increases. No. Our healthcare system is grotesquely overpriced. The answer isn't to throw more money at it. The rest of the world spends a fraction of what we spend federally on healthcare, and they have universal systems. Money isn't the solution. It's time to man up and accept that fact. As I said before, if someone offers to sell you a $1M car, the solution isn't to find a way to raise that much money. The solution is to buy a car at a normal price. I agree that military expenditures need to be cut, but that's completely irrelevant to the need to address social services spending. --- Well allons-y, Alonso! <cite>DarkRoast posted [p:925120765] in AOC on CNN... [t:77884890]...</cite> <quote>AlephZero posted...</cite> <quote>The answer, as always, to "How will we pay for Medicare For All," is large tax increases across all income levels including the middle class. Framing it as cutting the defense budget or only taxing the rich muddies the waters. $2.5T per year is an enormous amount of money and most of it will have to come from significant middle class tax increases.</quote> No. Our healthcare system is grotesquely overpriced. The answer isn't to throw more money at it. The rest of the world spends a fraction of what we spend federally on healthcare, and they have universal systems. Money isn't the solution. It's time to man up and accept that fact. As I said before, if someone offers to sell you a $1M car, the solution isn't to find a way to raise that much money. The solution is to buy a car at a normal price. I agree that military expenditures need to be cut, but that's completely irrelevant to the need to address social services spending.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
tennisdude818 07/24/19 12:40:19 PM #110:	Balrog0 posted... tennisdude818 posted... Would you be supportive of Ron Pauls proposal to make participation in those programs optional? Because the government is blowing the contributions and replacing them with IOUs, Im confident that Im a better steward of my own money than they are. What does that have to do with the conversation at hand? If the number of people covered by those programs decreased substantially, that should impact their contribution to the budget. --- "Those who need leaders are not qualified to choose them." -Michael Malice <cite>tennisdude818 posted [p:925120891] in AOC on CNN... [t:77884890]...</cite> <quote>Balrog0 posted...</cite> <quote>tennisdude818 posted...</cite> <quote>Would you be supportive of Ron Pauls proposal to make participation in those programs optional? Because the government is blowing the contributions and replacing them with IOUs, Im confident that Im a better steward of my own money than they are.</quote> What does that have to do with the conversation at hand?</quote> If the number of people covered by those programs decreased substantially, that should impact their contribution to the budget.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
BaiusGaltar 07/24/19 12:41:06 PM #111:	DarkRoast posted... AlephZero posted... The answer, as always, to "How will we pay for Medicare For All," is large tax increases across all income levels including the middle class. Framing it as cutting the defense budget or only taxing the rich muddies the waters. $2.5T per year is an enormous amount of money and most of it will have to come from significant middle class tax increases. No. Our healthcare system is grotesquely overpriced. The answer isn't to throw more money at it. The rest of the world spends a fraction of what we spend federally on healthcare, and they have universal systems. Money isn't the solution. It's time to man up and accept that fact. As I said before, if someone offers to sell you a $1M car, the solution isn't to find a way to raise that much money. The solution is to buy a car at a normal price. I agree that military expenditures need to be cut, but that's completely irrelevant to the need to address social services spending. Part of the solution is getting rid of lobbyist that let the insurance and medical industries fuck us. --- Previously, on Gattelstar Balactica... <cite>BaiusGaltar posted [p:925120932] in AOC on CNN... [t:77884890]...</cite> <quote>DarkRoast posted...</cite> <quote>AlephZero posted...</cite> <quote>The answer, as always, to "How will we pay for Medicare For All," is large tax increases across all income levels including the middle class. Framing it as cutting the defense budget or only taxing the rich muddies the waters. $2.5T per year is an enormous amount of money and most of it will have to come from significant middle class tax increases.</quote> No. Our healthcare system is grotesquely overpriced. The answer isn't to throw more money at it. The rest of the world spends a fraction of what we spend federally on healthcare, and they have universal systems. Money isn't the solution. It's time to man up and accept that fact. As I said before, if someone offers to sell you a $1M car, the solution isn't to find a way to raise that much money. The solution is to buy a car at a normal price. I agree that military expenditures need to be cut, but that's completely irrelevant to the need to address social services spending.</quote> Part of the solution is getting rid of lobbyist that let the insurance and medical industries fuck us.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
DarkRoast 07/24/19 12:46:19 PM #112:	Part of the solution is getting rid of lobbyist that let the insurance and medical industries fuck us. That should be done first before we start to discuss increasing healthcare budget. Otherwise we're just throwing our money into a black hole. --- Well allons-y, Alonso! <cite>DarkRoast posted [p:925121144] in AOC on CNN... [t:77884890]...</cite> <quote>Part of the solution is getting rid of lobbyist that let the insurance and medical industries fuck us. That should be done first before we start to discuss increasing healthcare budget. Otherwise we're just throwing our money into a black hole.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Balrog0 07/24/19 12:50:20 PM #113:	DarkRoast posted... You're not wrong about the military and cost, but you are wrong to imply that cutting military expenditures will significantly impact our social services. That is simply mathematically untrue. half of the defense budget is enough to double the amount we spend on safety net programs if you exclude SS and medicare/medicaid https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-budget/policy-basics-where-do-our-federal-tax-dollars-go Safety net programs include: the refundable portions of the Earned Income Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit, which assist low- and moderate-income working families; programs that provide cash payments to eligible individuals or households, including Supplemental Security Income for the elderly or disabled poor and unemployment insurance; various forms of in-kind assistance for low-income people, including SNAP (food stamps), school meals, low-income housing assistance, child care assistance, and help meeting home energy bills; and various other programs such as those that aid abused and neglected children. HUD's 2020 budget was less than $50 billion, for example. DarkRoast posted... The reality is that we're already spending far too much money on social services and getting very little in the way of results. They add up to half the federal budget, yet we seemingly have nothing to show for it. https://www.nber.org/aginghealth/summer04/w10466.html Applying this estimate to the change in Social Security benefits between 1967 and 2000 suggests that the increase in benefits can explain all of the 17 percentage point decline in poverty that occurred during this period. The authors also find that higher benefits lead some elderly to live independently rather than with family members, and conclude that the effect of Social Security on poverty would have been even more dramatic in the absence of these changes in living arrangements. https://www.nber.org/papers/w11609 We study the impact of the introduction of one of the major pillars of the social insurance system in the United States: the introduction of Medicare in 1965. Our results suggest that, in its first 10 years, the establishment of universal health insurance for the elderly had no discernible impact on their mortality. However, we find that the introduction of Medicare was associated with a substantial reduction in the elderlys exposure to out of pocket medical expenditure risk. Specifically, we estimate that Medicares introduction is associated with a forty percent decline in out of pocket spending for the top quartile of the out of pocket spending distribution. A stylized expected utility framework suggests that the welfare gains from such reductions in risk exposure alone may be sufficient to cover between half and three-quarters of the costs of the Medicare program. These findings underscore the importance of considering the direct insurance benefits from public health insurance programs, in addition to any indirect benefits from an effect on health. Medicaid covers roughly half of child births in this country, and medicaid coverage is associated with long-term reductions in health care utilization and increases in life time earnings. Recent evidence from the ACA expansion also shows similar benefits and is associated with reduced mortality: https://www.nber.org/papers/w26081 https://www.nber.org/digest/may15/w20929.html https://www.nber.org/papers/w20835 --- But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. <cite>Balrog0 posted [p:925121286] in AOC on CNN... [t:77884890]...</cite> <quote>DarkRoast posted...</cite> <quote>You're not wrong about the military and cost, but you are wrong to imply that cutting military expenditures will significantly impact our social services. That is simply mathematically untrue.</quote> half of the defense budget is enough to double the amount we spend on safety net programs if you exclude SS and medicare/medicaid https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-budget/policy-basics-where-do-our-federal-tax-dollars-go Safety net programs include: the refundable portions of the Earned Income Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit, which assist low- and moderate-income working families; programs that provide cash payments to eligible individuals or households, including Supplemental Security Income for the elderly or disabled poor and unemployment insurance; various forms of in-kind assistance for low-income people, including SNAP (food stamps), school meals, low-income housing assistance, child care assistance, and help meeting home energy bills; and various other programs such as those that aid abused and neglected children. HUD's 2020 budget was less than $50 billion, for example. DarkRoast posted...</cite> <quote>The reality is that we're already spending far too much money on social services and getting very little in the way of results. They add up to half the federal budget, yet we seemingly have nothing to show for it. </quote> https://www.nber.org/aginghealth/summer04/w10466.html Applying this estimate to the change in Social Security benefits between 1967 and 2000 suggests that the increase in benefits can explain all of the 17 percentage point decline in poverty that occurred during this period. The authors also find that higher benefits lead some elderly to live independently rather than with family members, and conclude that the effect of Social Security on poverty would have been even more dramatic in the absence of these changes in living arrangements. https://www.nber.org/papers/w11609 We study the impact of the introduction of one of the major pillars of the social insurance system in the United States: the introduction of Medicare in 1965. Our results suggest that, in its first 10 years, the establishment of universal health insurance for the elderly had no discernible impact on their mortality. However, we find that the introduction of Medicare was associated with a substantial reduction in the elderlys exposure to out of pocket medical expenditure risk. Specifically, we estimate that Medicares introduction is associated with a forty percent decline in out of pocket spending for the top quartile of the out of pocket spending distribution. A stylized expected utility framework suggests that the welfare gains from such reductions in risk exposure alone may be sufficient to cover between half and three-quarters of the costs of the Medicare program. These findings underscore the importance of considering the direct insurance benefits from public health insurance programs, in addition to any indirect benefits from an effect on health. Medicaid covers roughly half of child births in this country, and medicaid coverage is associated with long-term reductions in health care utilization and increases in life time earnings. Recent evidence from the ACA expansion also shows similar benefits and is associated with reduced mortality: https://www.nber.org/papers/w26081 https://www.nber.org/digest/may15/w20929.html https://www.nber.org/papers/w20835</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Balrog0 07/24/19 12:53:49 PM #114:	DarkRoast posted... Other countries spend way less yet paradoxically have much better social safety nets. they spend way more on everything except for health is the main reason why https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2015/oct/us-health-care-global-perspective tennisdude818 posted... If the number of people covered by those programs decreased substantially, that should impact their contribution to the budget. Right. I don't understand how that relates to this conversation. It's like asking if I would like to make contributions to the military voluntary. Idk, what does that have to do with how our budget works now? --- But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. <cite>Balrog0 posted [p:925121411] in AOC on CNN... [t:77884890]...</cite> <quote>DarkRoast posted...</cite> <quote>Other countries spend way less yet paradoxically have much better social safety nets.</quote> they spend way more on everything except for health is the main reason why https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2015/oct/us-health-care-global-perspective tennisdude818 posted...</cite> <quote>If the number of people covered by those programs decreased substantially, that should impact their contribution to the budget. </quote> Right. I don't understand how that relates to this conversation. It's like asking if I would like to make contributions to the military voluntary. Idk, what does that have to do with how our budget works now?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
tennisdude818 07/24/19 1:00:59 PM #115:	Balrog0 posted... Right. I don't understand how that relates to this conversation. It's like asking if I would like to make contributions to the military voluntary. Idk, what does that have to do with how our budget works now? Its not like the military. The idea behind military spending is that we all benefit from it, so there is no way to opt out and not freeload. --- "Those who need leaders are not qualified to choose them." -Michael Malice <cite>tennisdude818 posted [p:925121688] in AOC on CNN... [t:77884890]...</cite> <quote>Balrog0 posted...</cite> <quote> Right. I don't understand how that relates to this conversation. It's like asking if I would like to make contributions to the military voluntary. Idk, what does that have to do with how our budget works now?</quote> Its not like the military. The idea behind military spending is that we all benefit from it, so there is no way to opt out and not freeload.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Balrog0 07/24/19 1:04:37 PM #116:	tennisdude818 posted... Balrog0 posted... Right. I don't understand how that relates to this conversation. It's like asking if I would like to make contributions to the military voluntary. Idk, what does that have to do with how our budget works now? Its not like the military. The idea behind military spending is that we all benefit from it, so there is no way to opt out and not freeload. It's not any different conceptually. There's no question in my mind that I benefit more indirectly from medicare or ss than I do from defense spending. Particularly if you price into defense all the subsidies we give veterans to incentivize enlistment, though that's not typically included in military spending as I indicated above. --- But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. <cite>Balrog0 posted [p:925121833] in AOC on CNN... [t:77884890]...</cite> <quote>tennisdude818 posted...</cite> <quote>Balrog0 posted...</cite> <quote> Right. I don't understand how that relates to this conversation. It's like asking if I would like to make contributions to the military voluntary. Idk, what does that have to do with how our budget works now?</quote> Its not like the military. The idea behind military spending is that we all benefit from it, so there is no way to opt out and not freeload.</quote> It's not any different conceptually. There's no question in my mind that I benefit more indirectly from medicare or ss than I do from defense spending. Particularly if you price into defense all the subsidies we give veterans to incentivize enlistment, though that's not typically included in military spending as I indicated above.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
tennisdude818 07/24/19 1:13:27 PM #117:	Balrog0 posted... tennisdude818 posted... Balrog0 posted... Right. I don't understand how that relates to this conversation. It's like asking if I would like to make contributions to the military voluntary. Idk, what does that have to do with how our budget works now? Its not like the military. The idea behind military spending is that we all benefit from it, so there is no way to opt out and not freeload. It's not any different conceptually. There's no question in my mind that I benefit more indirectly from medicare or ss than I do from defense spending. Particularly if you price into defense all the subsidies we give veterans to incentivize enlistment, though that's not typically included in military spending as I indicated above. Im not saying that out defense budget actually makes our lives better, Im just speaking to the social studies 101 argument for making everyone pay. SS was meant to be a mandatory retirement savings program. How are you benefiting from that? --- "Those who need leaders are not qualified to choose them." -Michael Malice <cite>tennisdude818 posted [p:925122179] in AOC on CNN... [t:77884890]...</cite> <quote>Balrog0 posted...</cite> <quote>tennisdude818 posted...</cite> <quote>Balrog0 posted...</cite> <quote> Right. I don't understand how that relates to this conversation. It's like asking if I would like to make contributions to the military voluntary. Idk, what does that have to do with how our budget works now?</quote> Its not like the military. The idea behind military spending is that we all benefit from it, so there is no way to opt out and not freeload.</quote> It's not any different conceptually. There's no question in my mind that I benefit more indirectly from medicare or ss than I do from defense spending. Particularly if you price into defense all the subsidies we give veterans to incentivize enlistment, though that's not typically included in military spending as I indicated above.</quote> Im not saying that out defense budget actually makes our lives better, Im just speaking to the social studies 101 argument for making everyone pay. SS was meant to be a mandatory retirement savings program. How are you benefiting from that?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Balrog0 07/24/19 1:20:19 PM #118:	tennisdude818 posted... Im not saying that out defense budget actually makes our lives better, Im just speaking to the social studies 101 argument for making everyone pay. who cares about that? Trying to characterize a public good is more about being able to make a useful model than it is about explaining reality. You'd be really hard pressed to find a good example of a true public good. Even light houses don't qualify any more: https://economicsdetective.com/2018/04/lightships-public-goods-vincent-geloso/ tennisdude818 posted... SS was meant to be a mandatory retirement savings program. How are you benefiting from that? Nothing if you consider everything in an atomized way. But SS lifts more people out of poverty than any other social program we have, which has big benefits to me in terms of state-level social programs even if I don't consider what my own out of pocket costs might be to take care of my parents, for example. It's almost certainly true that we get a bigger multiplier effect than the military, but it's harder to make that argument because military projects have big benefits to a much smaller concentrated group of people (e.g., which ever community gets to make the new whatever the fuck for Boeing vs. widespread benefits across the country) --- But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. <cite>Balrog0 posted [p:925122446] in AOC on CNN... [t:77884890]...</cite> <quote>tennisdude818 posted...</cite> <quote>Im not saying that out defense budget actually makes our lives better, Im just speaking to the social studies 101 argument for making everyone pay.</quote> who cares about that? Trying to characterize a public good is more about being able to make a useful model than it is about explaining reality. You'd be really hard pressed to find a good example of a true public good. Even light houses don't qualify any more: https://economicsdetective.com/2018/04/lightships-public-goods-vincent-geloso/ tennisdude818 posted...</cite> <quote>SS was meant to be a mandatory retirement savings program. How are you benefiting from that? </quote> Nothing if you consider everything in an atomized way. But SS lifts more people out of poverty than any other social program we have, which has big benefits to me in terms of state-level social programs even if I don't consider what my own out of pocket costs might be to take care of my parents, for example. It's almost certainly true that we get a bigger multiplier effect than the military, but it's harder to make that argument because military projects have big benefits to a much smaller concentrated group of people (e.g., which ever community gets to make the new whatever the fuck for Boeing vs. widespread benefits across the country)</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Balrog0 07/24/19 1:21:28 PM #119:	anyway, anyone who starts the conversation by saying we have nothing to show for our social spending is clearly arguing in bad faith --- But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. <cite>Balrog0 posted [p:925122482] in AOC on CNN... [t:77884890]...</cite> <quote>anyway, anyone who starts the conversation by saying we have nothing to show for our social spending is clearly arguing in bad faith</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
tennisdude818 07/24/19 1:39:16 PM #120:	My comment about military spending was about the theoretical model rather than reality... As for SS, you already said that its not about redistribution to poor people. So why is SS better than letting people save for themselves? --- "Those who need leaders are not qualified to choose them." -Michael Malice <cite>tennisdude818 posted [p:925123291] in AOC on CNN... [t:77884890]...</cite> <quote>My comment about military spending was about the theoretical model rather than reality... As for SS, you already said that its not about redistribution to poor people. So why is SS better than letting people save for themselves?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Balrog0 07/24/19 1:41:35 PM #121:	tennisdude818 posted... My comment about military spending was about the theoretical model rather than reality... And my question was why should I care about that? tennisdude818 posted... As for SS, you already said that its not about redistribution to poor people. So why is SS better than letting people save for themselves? because people are bad at saving for themselves --- But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. <cite>Balrog0 posted [p:925123407] in AOC on CNN... [t:77884890]...</cite> <quote>tennisdude818 posted...</cite> <quote>My comment about military spending was about the theoretical model rather than reality...</quote> And my question was why should I care about that? tennisdude818 posted...</cite> <quote>As for SS, you already said that its not about redistribution to poor people. So why is SS better than letting people save for themselves?</quote> because people are bad at saving for themselves</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
DarkRoast 07/24/19 1:44:00 PM #122:	because people are bad at saving for themselves If SS's solvency is any indication, the government isn't exactly that much better at it. --- Well allons-y, Alonso! <cite>DarkRoast posted [p:925123519] in AOC on CNN... [t:77884890]...</cite> <quote>because people are bad at saving for themselves If SS's solvency is any indication, the government isn't exactly that much better at it.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Balrog0 07/24/19 1:47:38 PM #123:	DarkRoast posted... If SS's solvency is any indication, the government isn't exactly that much better at it. lmao it's perfectly on brand of you to ignore everything else I've directed at you ITT to interject with a surface-level truism devoid of any intellectual worth It's true that SS does need to be reformed. It's also true that the trust fund is solvent for the next 15 years without any policy changes, and that even after that point payments could be continued at a reduced rate indefinitely (about 3/4 of what they're actually owed). I bet tat that's a much better track record than most people have trying to save for retirement on their own, not that you have any interest in trying to figure that out as it would detract from your ability to sound smart --- But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. <cite>Balrog0 posted [p:925123683] in AOC on CNN... [t:77884890]...</cite> <quote>DarkRoast posted...</cite> <quote>If SS's solvency is any indication, the government isn't exactly that much better at it.</quote> lmao it's perfectly on brand of you to ignore everything else I've directed at you ITT to interject with a surface-level truism devoid of any intellectual worth It's true that SS does need to be reformed. It's also true that the trust fund is solvent for the next 15 years without any policy changes, and that even after that point payments could be continued at a reduced rate indefinitely (about 3/4 of what they're actually owed). I bet tat that's a much better track record than most people have trying to save for retirement on their own, not that you have any interest in trying to figure that out as it would detract from your ability to sound smart</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
tennisdude818 07/24/19 1:48:41 PM #124:	DarkRoast posted... because people are bad at saving for themselves If SS's solvency is any indication, the government isn't exactly that much better at it. This. I was waiting for you (Balrog0) to try and make that argument. SS just traps everyone in a system that will go down in flames later. You referenced reform, but you also know that meaningful cuts arent politically possible. And even if that wasnt the case, if I have to accept a major cut in the future while paying 100% now, thats a terrible deal. And instead of being a wealth transfer from the rich to the poor, its just a wealth transfer to boomers from younger generations. --- "Those who need leaders are not qualified to choose them." -Michael Malice <cite>tennisdude818 posted [p:925123732] in AOC on CNN... [t:77884890]...</cite> <quote>DarkRoast posted...</cite> <quote>because people are bad at saving for themselves If SS's solvency is any indication, the government isn't exactly that much better at it.</quote> This. I was waiting for you (Balrog0) to try and make that argument. SS just traps everyone in a system that will go down in flames later. You referenced reform, but you also know that meaningful cuts arent politically possible. And even if that wasnt the case, if I have to accept a major cut in the future while paying 100% now, thats a terrible deal. And instead of being a wealth transfer from the rich to the poor, its just a wealth transfer to boomers from younger generations.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
EdgeMaster 07/24/19 1:49:50 PM #125:	DarkProto05 posted... The problem is people who don't deserve SSI and food stamps are getting them. With so many people getting them those budgets are getting cut which hurt the people who actually need those services. Literally everyone in my state because of how the laws are set up. If you make more than $1200 per month before taxes, you arent eligible for food stamps. You know what that means? If you make minimum wage and work 40 hours a week, jokes on you. You make too much to get food stamps despite being in poverty. Congrats you just fucked yourself. Sell drugs, be unemployed and collect government benefits like the leech you are if you need help. An earnest effort and hard work will get you fuck all if youre struggling and need government assistance. --- If you don't have anything nice to say, say it on the internet. ****poster Extraordinaire <cite>EdgeMaster posted [p:925123782] in AOC on CNN... [t:77884890]...</cite> <quote>DarkProto05 posted...</cite> <quote>The problem is people who don't deserve SSI and food stamps are getting them. With so many people getting them those budgets are getting cut which hurt the people who actually need those services.</quote> Literally everyone in my state because of how the laws are set up. If you make more than $1200 per month before taxes, you arent eligible for food stamps. You know what that means? If you make minimum wage and work 40 hours a week, jokes on you. You make too much to get food stamps despite being in poverty. Congrats you just fucked yourself. Sell drugs, be unemployed and collect government benefits like the leech you are if you need help. An earnest effort and hard work will get you fuck all if youre struggling and need government assistance.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Balrog0 07/24/19 1:56:13 PM #126:	tennisdude818 posted... This. I was waiting for you (Balrog0) to try and make that argument. SS just traps everyone in a system that will go down in flames later. So, in response to the fact that elderly poverty rates have been reduced 17 percentage points (not a 17% reduction!) you think that the argument "if we don't reform SS in the next 15 years, people will start receiving 75% of the benefits they would otherwise be entitled to" is a good argument that the government is worse at saving than individuals? I think that's very motivated reasoning that doesn't even try to address the reduction in elderly poverty. More like sidesteps it to make a point you (admittedly!) already wanted to make. --- But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. <cite>Balrog0 posted [p:925124085] in AOC on CNN... [t:77884890]...</cite> <quote>tennisdude818 posted...</cite> <quote> This. I was waiting for you (Balrog0) to try and make that argument. SS just traps everyone in a system that will go down in flames later. </quote> So, in response to the fact that elderly poverty rates have been reduced 17 percentage points (not a 17% reduction!) you think that the argument "if we don't reform SS in the next 15 years, people will start receiving 75% of the benefits they would otherwise be entitled to" is a good argument that the government is worse at saving than individuals? I think that's very motivated reasoning that doesn't even try to address the reduction in elderly poverty. More like sidesteps it to make a point you (admittedly!) already wanted to make.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
tennisdude818 07/24/19 2:09:47 PM #127:	Balrog0 posted... tennisdude818 posted... This. I was waiting for you (Balrog0) to try and make that argument. SS just traps everyone in a system that will go down in flames later. So, in response to the fact that elderly poverty rates have been reduced 17 percentage points (not a 17% reduction!) you think that the argument "if we don't reform SS in the next 15 years, people will start receiving 75% of the benefits they would otherwise be entitled to" is a good argument that the government is worse at saving than individuals? I think that's very motivated reasoning that doesn't even try to address the reduction in elderly poverty. More like sidesteps it to make a point you (admittedly!) already wanted to make. The historical changes to the elderly poverty rate is a poor proxy for what SS will do to elderly people in the future. Its a much worse deal for todays young workers. It forces everyone to make a shitty investment with every paycheck in their career, under the assumption that this money would otherwise be blown in the private sector if you really think its still a net gain. The fiscal irresponsibility of Uncle Sam is made more obvious when you consider the fact that the trust fund is largely made up of treasuries. Calling that an asset is garbage accounting. --- "Those who need leaders are not qualified to choose them." -Michael Malice <cite>tennisdude818 posted [p:925124705] in AOC on CNN... [t:77884890]...</cite> <quote>Balrog0 posted...</cite> <quote>tennisdude818 posted...</cite> <quote> This. I was waiting for you (Balrog0) to try and make that argument. SS just traps everyone in a system that will go down in flames later. </quote> So, in response to the fact that elderly poverty rates have been reduced 17 percentage points (not a 17% reduction!) you think that the argument "if we don't reform SS in the next 15 years, people will start receiving 75% of the benefits they would otherwise be entitled to" is a good argument that the government is worse at saving than individuals? I think that's very motivated reasoning that doesn't even try to address the reduction in elderly poverty. More like sidesteps it to make a point you (admittedly!) already wanted to make.</quote> The historical changes to the elderly poverty rate is a poor proxy for what SS will do to elderly people in the future. Its a much worse deal for todays young workers. It forces everyone to make a shitty investment with every paycheck in their career, under the assumption that this money would otherwise be blown in the private sector if you really think its still a net gain. The fiscal irresponsibility of Uncle Sam is made more obvious when you consider the fact that the trust fund is largely made up of treasuries. Calling that an asset is garbage accounting.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
tennisdude818 07/24/19 2:19:04 PM #128:	Also, for the sake of argument Im not debating against the idea the SS has historically been the main driver for the change in the elderly poverty rate. Even if thats true, you have to account for the fact that what used to be a good deal for yesterdays elderly will turn into a bad deal for tomorrows elderly. --- "Those who need leaders are not qualified to choose them." -Michael Malice <cite>tennisdude818 posted [p:925125134] in AOC on CNN... [t:77884890]...</cite> <quote>Also, for the sake of argument Im not debating against the idea the SS has historically been the main driver for the change in the elderly poverty rate. Even if thats true, you have to account for the fact that what used to be a good deal for yesterdays elderly will turn into a bad deal for tomorrows elderly.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ButteryMales 07/24/19 6:31:33 PM #129:	tennisdude818 posted... Also, for the sake of argument Im not debating against the idea the SS has historically been the main driver for the change in the elderly poverty rate. Even if thats true, you have to account for the fact that what used to be a good deal for yesterdays elderly will turn into a bad deal for tomorrows elderly. Just give us your Crystal Ball and we'll win some other countries's lottery. You don't know if it will become catastrophic and hypocritically support ideas like voluntary governments. <cite>ButteryMales posted [p:925136461] in AOC on CNN... [t:77884890]...</cite> <quote>tennisdude818 posted...</cite> <quote>Also, for the sake of argument Im not debating against the idea the SS has historically been the main driver for the change in the elderly poverty rate. Even if thats true, you have to account for the fact that what used to be a good deal for yesterdays elderly will turn into a bad deal for tomorrows elderly.</quote> Just give us your Crystal Ball and we'll win some other countries's lottery. You don't know if it will become catastrophic and hypocritically support ideas like voluntary governments.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
tennisdude818 07/24/19 7:20:51 PM #130:	ButteryMales posted... tennisdude818 posted... Also, for the sake of argument Im not debating against the idea the SS has historically been the main driver for the change in the elderly poverty rate. Even if thats true, you have to account for the fact that what used to be a good deal for yesterdays elderly will turn into a bad deal for tomorrows elderly. Just give us your Crystal Ball and we'll win some other countries's lottery. You don't know if it will become catastrophic and hypocritically support ideas like voluntary governments. I mean Barog0 was using government estimates that show a 25% hit in disbursements and thought that helped his case. If you cant do better than that while investing your own money I dont know what to tell you. --- "Those who need leaders are not qualified to choose them." -Michael Malice <cite>tennisdude818 posted [p:925138507] in AOC on CNN... [t:77884890]...</cite> <quote>ButteryMales posted...</cite> <quote>tennisdude818 posted...</cite> <quote>Also, for the sake of argument Im not debating against the idea the SS has historically been the main driver for the change in the elderly poverty rate. Even if thats true, you have to account for the fact that what used to be a good deal for yesterdays elderly will turn into a bad deal for tomorrows elderly.</quote> Just give us your Crystal Ball and we'll win some other countries's lottery. You don't know if it will become catastrophic and hypocritically support ideas like voluntary governments.</quote> I mean Barog0 was using government estimates that show a 25% hit in disbursements and thought that helped his case. If you cant do better than that while investing your own money I dont know what to tell you.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ButteryMales 07/24/19 7:29:06 PM #131:	tennisdude818 posted... ButteryMales posted... tennisdude818 posted... Also, for the sake of argument Im not debating against the idea the SS has historically been the main driver for the change in the elderly poverty rate. Even if thats true, you have to account for the fact that what used to be a good deal for yesterdays elderly will turn into a bad deal for tomorrows elderly. Just give us your Crystal Ball and we'll win some other countries's lottery. You don't know if it will become catastrophic and hypocritically support ideas like voluntary governments. I mean Barog0 was using government estimates that show a 25% hit in disbursements and thought that helped his case. If you cant do better than that while investing your own money I dont know what to tell you. Exactly, you just shrug at anyone who fails your social Darwinism plan. You don't give two shits about the elderly poverty rate. <cite>ButteryMales posted [p:925138846] in AOC on CNN... [t:77884890]...</cite> <quote>tennisdude818 posted...</cite> <quote>ButteryMales posted...</cite> <quote>tennisdude818 posted...</cite> <quote>Also, for the sake of argument Im not debating against the idea the SS has historically been the main driver for the change in the elderly poverty rate. Even if thats true, you have to account for the fact that what used to be a good deal for yesterdays elderly will turn into a bad deal for tomorrows elderly.</quote> Just give us your Crystal Ball and we'll win some other countries's lottery. You don't know if it will become catastrophic and hypocritically support ideas like voluntary governments.</quote> I mean Barog0 was using government estimates that show a 25% hit in disbursements and thought that helped his case. If you cant do better than that while investing your own money I dont know what to tell you.</quote> Exactly, you just shrug at anyone who fails your social Darwinism plan. You don't give two shits about the elderly poverty rate.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
tennisdude818 07/24/19 8:13:12 PM #132:	ButteryMales posted... tennisdude818 posted... ButteryMales posted... tennisdude818 posted... Also, for the sake of argument Im not debating against the idea the SS has historically been the main driver for the change in the elderly poverty rate. Even if thats true, you have to account for the fact that what used to be a good deal for yesterdays elderly will turn into a bad deal for tomorrows elderly. Just give us your Crystal Ball and we'll win some other countries's lottery. You don't know if it will become catastrophic and hypocritically support ideas like voluntary governments. I mean Barog0 was using government estimates that show a 25% hit in disbursements and thought that helped his case. If you cant do better than that while investing your own money I dont know what to tell you. Exactly, you just shrug at anyone who fails your social Darwinism plan. You don't give two shits about the elderly poverty rate. For you to still think thats a real argument you have to believe one of the following: 1. SS is welfare. Thats not how it was originally advertised, but you wouldnt be the only leftist who wants to turn it into welfare. 2. US citizens are so fucking stupid that they have to be forced into making an awful investment with every paycheck to not be destitute in their golden years. Obviously it worked out for the earlier participants in the mandatory Ponzi Scheme, but thats apparently ending in 15 years at most. --- "Those who need leaders are not qualified to choose them." -Michael Malice <cite>tennisdude818 posted [p:925140575] in AOC on CNN... [t:77884890]...</cite> <quote>ButteryMales posted...</cite> <quote>tennisdude818 posted...</cite> <quote>ButteryMales posted...</cite> <quote>tennisdude818 posted...</cite> <quote>Also, for the sake of argument Im not debating against the idea the SS has historically been the main driver for the change in the elderly poverty rate. Even if thats true, you have to account for the fact that what used to be a good deal for yesterdays elderly will turn into a bad deal for tomorrows elderly.</quote> Just give us your Crystal Ball and we'll win some other countries's lottery. You don't know if it will become catastrophic and hypocritically support ideas like voluntary governments.</quote> I mean Barog0 was using government estimates that show a 25% hit in disbursements and thought that helped his case. If you cant do better than that while investing your own money I dont know what to tell you.</quote> Exactly, you just shrug at anyone who fails your social Darwinism plan. You don't give two shits about the elderly poverty rate.</quote> For you to still think thats a real argument you have to believe one of the following: 1. SS is welfare. Thats not how it was originally advertised, but you wouldnt be the only leftist who wants to turn it into welfare. 2. US citizens are so fucking stupid that they have to be forced into making an awful investment with every paycheck to not be destitute in their golden years. Obviously it worked out for the earlier participants in the mandatory Ponzi Scheme, but thats apparently ending in 15 years at most.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ButteryMales 07/24/19 8:28:44 PM #133:	tennisdude818 posted... ButteryMales posted... tennisdude818 posted... I mean Barog0 was using government estimates that show a 25% hit in disbursements and thought that helped his case. If you cant do better than that while investing your own money I dont know what to tell you. Exactly, you just shrug at anyone who fails your social Darwinism plan. You don't give two shits about the elderly poverty rate. For you to still think thats a real argument you have to believe one of the following: You literally said you don't know what to tell me if I made bad investments regardless of what I believe. How would a voluntary government save me from starvation if it's not Social Darwinism? tennisdude818 posted... 1. SS is welfare. Thats not how it was originally advertised, but you wouldnt be the only leftist who wants to turn it into welfare. What does it matter if it's welfare or not? What we do know it's an effective government funding measure and an effective way to keep the elderly out of poverty. How would a voluntary tax structure be better? tennisdude818 posted... 2. US citizens are so f*ing stupid that they have to be forced into making an awful investment with every paycheck to not be destitute in their golden years. Obviously it worked out for the earlier participants in the mandatory Ponzi Scheme, but thats apparently ending in 15 years at most. I'm not going to defend the intelligence of Americans when some are pro-concentration camp. <cite>ButteryMales posted [p:925141163] in AOC on CNN... [t:77884890]...</cite> <quote>tennisdude818 posted...</cite> <quote>ButteryMales posted...</cite> <quote>tennisdude818 posted...</cite> <quote>I mean Barog0 was using government estimates that show a 25% hit in disbursements and thought that helped his case. If you cant do better than that while investing your own money I dont know what to tell you.</quote> Exactly, you just shrug at anyone who fails your social Darwinism plan. You don't give two shits about the elderly poverty rate.</quote> For you to still think thats a real argument you have to believe one of the following:</quote> You literally said you don't know what to tell me if I made bad investments regardless of what I believe. How would a voluntary government save me from starvation if it's not Social Darwinism? tennisdude818 posted...</cite> <quote>1. SS is welfare. Thats not how it was originally advertised, but you wouldnt be the only leftist who wants to turn it into welfare.</quote> What does it matter if it's welfare or not? What we do know it's an effective government funding measure and an effective way to keep the elderly out of poverty. How would a voluntary tax structure be better? tennisdude818 posted...</cite> <quote>2. US citizens are so f*ing stupid that they have to be forced into making an awful investment with every paycheck to not be destitute in their golden years. Obviously it worked out for the earlier participants in the mandatory Ponzi Scheme, but thats apparently ending in 15 years at most.</quote> I'm not going to defend the intelligence of Americans when some are pro-concentration camp.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Balrog0 07/24/19 10:19:07 PM #134:	tennisdude818 posted... The historical changes to the elderly poverty rate is a poor proxy for what SS will do to elderly people in the future. Its a much worse deal for todays young workers. It forces everyone to make a shitty investment with every paycheck in their career, under the assumption that this money would otherwise be blown in the private sector if you really think its still a net gain. The fiscal irresponsibility of Uncle Sam is made more obvious when you consider the fact that the trust fund is largely made up of treasuries. Calling that an asset is garbage accounting. Is it a shitty investment? Under the worst case scenario where we fail to address SS at all, governmental dysfunction almost certainly assures a bad return on most conventional investment instruments, too... Whether or not we should buy bonds from ourselves is one thing, but that's not garbage accounting at all, and is treasury bonds are getting risky, the private sector is feeling it, too. tennisdude818 posted... 1. SS is welfare. Thats not how it was originally advertised, but you wouldnt be the only leftist who wants to turn it into welfare. I don't know what welfare is supposed to mean in this context. I assume you mean 'anything that keeps people from being poor' but that's a much broader concept than straight up redistribution. Either way, I don't. think it follows I need to think this. tennisdude818 posted... 2. US citizens are so fucking stupid that they have to be forced into making an awful investment with every paycheck to not be destitute in their golden years. Obviously it worked out for the earlier participants in the mandatory Ponzi Scheme, but thats apparently ending in 15 years at most. Well, yes, lots of people are stupid. Even more people are bad at future planning and coo conceptualizing risk. You still don't need to think either of those things to understand how SS helps people, though. Its a pretax retirement investment for people who don't have the luxury of things like a 401k and for whom things like IRAs are infeasible. --- But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. <cite>Balrog0 posted [p:925145706] in AOC on CNN... [t:77884890]...</cite> <quote>tennisdude818 posted...</cite> <quote>The historical changes to the elderly poverty rate is a poor proxy for what SS will do to elderly people in the future. Its a much worse deal for todays young workers. It forces everyone to make a shitty investment with every paycheck in their career, under the assumption that this money would otherwise be blown in the private sector if you really think its still a net gain. The fiscal irresponsibility of Uncle Sam is made more obvious when you consider the fact that the trust fund is largely made up of treasuries. Calling that an asset is garbage accounting.</quote> Is it a shitty investment? Under the worst case scenario where we fail to address SS at all, governmental dysfunction almost certainly assures a bad return on most conventional investment instruments, too... Whether or not we should buy bonds from ourselves is one thing, but that's not garbage accounting at all, and is treasury bonds are getting risky, the private sector is feeling it, too. tennisdude818 posted...</cite> <quote> 1. SS is welfare. Thats not how it was originally advertised, but you wouldnt be the only leftist who wants to turn it into welfare.</quote> I don't know what welfare is supposed to mean in this context. I assume you mean 'anything that keeps people from being poor' but that's a much broader concept than straight up redistribution. Either way, I don't. think it follows I need to think this. tennisdude818 posted...</cite> <quote>2. US citizens are so fucking stupid that they have to be forced into making an awful investment with every paycheck to not be destitute in their golden years. Obviously it worked out for the earlier participants in the mandatory Ponzi Scheme, but thats apparently ending in 15 years at most.</quote> Well, yes, lots of people are stupid. Even more people are bad at future planning and coo conceptualizing risk. You still don't need to think either of those things to understand how SS helps people, though. Its a pretax retirement investment for people who don't have the luxury of things like a 401k and for whom things like IRAs are infeasible.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
tennisdude818 07/24/19 11:51:57 PM #135:	Balrog0 posted... Is it a shitty investment? Under the worst case scenario where we fail to address SS at all, governmental dysfunction almost certainly assures a bad return on most conventional investment instruments, too... Whether or not we should buy bonds from ourselves is one thing, but that's not garbage accounting at all, and is treasury bonds are getting risky, the private sector is feeling it, too. Yeah, Ponzi Schemes are shitty investments for latecomers. A fiscal blowup that wrecks the private sector would be largely caused by our trillions in unfunded liabilities, so that's no defense of SS or its trust fund that's full of IOUs. The government was supposed to hold our contributions in a "trust fund". Instead, they blew the cash because they needed the extra income to cover out of control spending and replaced it with IOUs. Of course that's garbage accounting. They didn't invest in Apple bonds, they issued their own. That's not a real asset, that's a liability. Balrog0 posted... I don't know what welfare is supposed to mean in this context. I assume you mean 'anything that keeps people from being poor' but that's a much broader concept than straight up redistribution. Either way, I don't. think it follows I need to think this. By welfare I mean redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor, rather than simply being a multi generational Ponzi Scheme. You already said in post #90 that this isn't what SS is, so that comment wasn't directed at you. It certainly isn't how SS was originally advertised, so if it gets "reformed" into a welfare program that just means that the government failed to deliver on the original promise. Balrog0 posted... Well, yes, lots of people are stupid. Even more people are bad at future planning and coo conceptualizing risk. You still don't need to think either of those things to understand how SS helps people, though. Its a pretax retirement investment for people who don't have the luxury of things like a 401k and for whom things like IRAs are infeasible. The proposal I brought up was for SS to be optional, not abolished. So if you don't have a 401k, you could still take your chances with the SS Ponzi. If the US population is really so dumb that it needs to be forced to contribute to a retirement trust fund by the nanny state, who then blows the deposits, replaces it with IOUs, and hands out only 75% of what was promised, then government schooling in America has been a total failure. --- "Those who need leaders are not qualified to choose them." -Michael Malice <cite>tennisdude818 posted [p:925149052] in AOC on CNN... [t:77884890]...</cite> <quote>Balrog0 posted...</cite> <quote> Is it a shitty investment? Under the worst case scenario where we fail to address SS at all, governmental dysfunction almost certainly assures a bad return on most conventional investment instruments, too... Whether or not we should buy bonds from ourselves is one thing, but that's not garbage accounting at all, and is treasury bonds are getting risky, the private sector is feeling it, too.</quote> Yeah, Ponzi Schemes are shitty investments for latecomers. A fiscal blowup that wrecks the private sector would be largely caused by our trillions in unfunded liabilities, so that's no defense of SS or its trust fund that's full of IOUs. The government was supposed to hold our contributions in a "trust fund". Instead, they blew the cash because they needed the extra income to cover out of control spending and replaced it with IOUs. Of course that's garbage accounting. They didn't invest in Apple bonds, they issued their own. That's not a real asset, that's a liability. Balrog0 posted...</cite> <quote>I don't know what welfare is supposed to mean in this context. I assume you mean 'anything that keeps people from being poor' but that's a much broader concept than straight up redistribution. Either way, I don't. think it follows I need to think this.</quote> By welfare I mean redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor, rather than simply being a multi generational Ponzi Scheme. You already said in post #90 that this isn't what SS is, so that comment wasn't directed at you. It certainly isn't how SS was originally advertised, so if it gets "reformed" into a welfare program that just means that the government failed to deliver on the original promise. Balrog0 posted...</cite> <quote>Well, yes, lots of people are stupid. Even more people are bad at future planning and coo conceptualizing risk. You still don't need to think either of those things to understand how SS helps people, though. Its a pretax retirement investment for people who don't have the luxury of things like a 401k and for whom things like IRAs are infeasible.</quote> The proposal I brought up was for SS to be optional, not abolished. So if you don't have a 401k, you could still take your chances with the SS Ponzi. If the US population is really so dumb that it needs to be forced to contribute to a retirement trust fund by the nanny state, who then blows the deposits, replaces it with IOUs, and hands out only 75% of what was promised, then government schooling in America has been a total failure.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ButteryMales 07/25/19 12:39:03 AM #136:	tennisdude818 posted... Instead, they blew the cash because they needed the extra income to cover out of control spending and replaced it with IOUs. Of course that's garbage accounting. Are you pro or anti military waste? tennisdude818 posted... By welfare I mean redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor, rather than simply being a multi generational Ponzi Scheme. You already said in post #90 that this isn't what SS is, so that comment wasn't directed at you. It certainly isn't how SS was originally advertised, so if it gets "reformed" into a welfare program that just means that the government failed to deliver on the original promise. SS is based on a person's earnings, how the hell is that redistribution? How the hell is that welfare when it's earned? tennisdude818 posted... The proposal I brought up was for SS to be optional, not abolished. So if you don't have a 401k, you could still take your chances with the SS Ponzi. If the US population is really so dumb that it needs to be forced to contribute to a retirement trust fund by the nanny state, who then blows the deposits, replaces it with IOUs, and hands out only 75% of what was promised, then government schooling in America has been a total failure. That's just an unlikely worse case scenario. If we stop military waste and make taxes more progressive it can be avoided. <cite>ButteryMales posted [p:925150458] in AOC on CNN... [t:77884890]...</cite> <quote>tennisdude818 posted...</cite> <quote>Instead, they blew the cash because they needed the extra income to cover out of control spending and replaced it with IOUs. Of course that's garbage accounting.</quote> Are you pro or anti military waste? tennisdude818 posted...</cite> <quote>By welfare I mean redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor, rather than simply being a multi generational Ponzi Scheme. You already said in post #90 that this isn't what SS is, so that comment wasn't directed at you. It certainly isn't how SS was originally advertised, so if it gets "reformed" into a welfare program that just means that the government failed to deliver on the original promise.</quote> SS is based on a person's earnings, how the hell is that redistribution? How the hell is that welfare when it's earned? tennisdude818 posted...</cite> <quote>The proposal I brought up was for SS to be optional, not abolished. So if you don't have a 401k, you could still take your chances with the SS Ponzi. If the US population is really so dumb that it needs to be forced to contribute to a retirement trust fund by the nanny state, who then blows the deposits, replaces it with IOUs, and hands out only 75% of what was promised, then government schooling in America has been a total failure.</quote> That's just an unlikely worse case scenario. If we stop military waste and make taxes more progressive it can be avoided.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
tennisdude818 07/25/19 6:52:27 AM #137:	ButteryMales posted... tennisdude818 posted... Instead, they blew the cash because they needed the extra income to cover out of control spending and replaced it with IOUs. Of course that's garbage accounting. Are you pro or anti military waste? tennisdude818 posted... By welfare I mean redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor, rather than simply being a multi generational Ponzi Scheme. You already said in post #90 that this isn't what SS is, so that comment wasn't directed at you. It certainly isn't how SS was originally advertised, so if it gets "reformed" into a welfare program that just means that the government failed to deliver on the original promise. SS is based on a person's earnings, how the hell is that redistribution? How the hell is that welfare when it's earned? tennisdude818 posted... The proposal I brought up was for SS to be optional, not abolished. So if you don't have a 401k, you could still take your chances with the SS Ponzi. If the US population is really so dumb that it needs to be forced to contribute to a retirement trust fund by the nanny state, who then blows the deposits, replaces it with IOUs, and hands out only 75% of what was promised, then government schooling in America has been a total failure. That's just an unlikely worse case scenario. If we stop military waste and make taxes more progressive it can be avoided. I probably want a smaller military than you do. Its not going to happen though. SS as advertised wasnt welfare. If you reform it to become more progressive, it becomes redistributive based on class. Its in the hole so you dont have many mathematical options to keep this Ponzi Scheme afloat. Thats why Ponzi Schemes are illegal in the private sector. And the 75% payout is definitely not the worst case scenario. The government generally underestimates future outflows and overestimates future receipts, especially when looking that far in the future. Its probably optimistic. --- "Those who need leaders are not qualified to choose them." -Michael Malice <cite>tennisdude818 posted [p:925156775] in AOC on CNN... [t:77884890]...</cite> <quote>ButteryMales posted...</cite> <quote>tennisdude818 posted...</cite> <quote>Instead, they blew the cash because they needed the extra income to cover out of control spending and replaced it with IOUs. Of course that's garbage accounting.</quote> Are you pro or anti military waste? tennisdude818 posted...</cite> <quote>By welfare I mean redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor, rather than simply being a multi generational Ponzi Scheme. You already said in post #90 that this isn't what SS is, so that comment wasn't directed at you. It certainly isn't how SS was originally advertised, so if it gets "reformed" into a welfare program that just means that the government failed to deliver on the original promise.</quote> SS is based on a person's earnings, how the hell is that redistribution? How the hell is that welfare when it's earned? tennisdude818 posted...</cite> <quote>The proposal I brought up was for SS to be optional, not abolished. So if you don't have a 401k, you could still take your chances with the SS Ponzi. If the US population is really so dumb that it needs to be forced to contribute to a retirement trust fund by the nanny state, who then blows the deposits, replaces it with IOUs, and hands out only 75% of what was promised, then government schooling in America has been a total failure.</quote> That's just an unlikely worse case scenario. If we stop military waste and make taxes more progressive it can be avoided.</quote> I probably want a smaller military than you do. Its not going to happen though. SS as advertised wasnt welfare. If you reform it to become more progressive, it becomes redistributive based on class. Its in the hole so you dont have many mathematical options to keep this Ponzi Scheme afloat. Thats why Ponzi Schemes are illegal in the private sector. And the 75% payout is definitely not the worst case scenario. The government generally underestimates future outflows and overestimates future receipts, especially when looking that far in the future. Its probably optimistic.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ButteryMales 07/25/19 8:42:44 AM #138:	tennisdude818 posted... SS as advertised wasnt welfare. And it's not welfare, it just has benefits for Elder poverty. tennisdude818 posted... If you reform it to become more progressive, it becomes redistributive based on class. I'm going to assume "it" is taxes and not SS. SS as far as I'm aware doesn't have a progressive scale. Yes, progressive taxes are redistributing it is based on class. I don't give two shit if anyone thinks that's unfair. Flat taxes and god forbid voluntary taxes would bankrupt the United States. tennisdude818 posted... Its in the hole so you dont have many mathematical options to keep this Ponzi Scheme afloat. Thats why Ponzi Schemes are illegal in the private sector. It's still has a surplus. tennisdude818 posted... And the 75% payout is definitely not the worst case scenario. The government generally underestimates future outflows and overestimates future receipts, especially when looking that far in the future. Its probably optimistic. There's many independent and bipartisan sources making these estimates not just the government. <cite>ButteryMales posted [p:925158764] in AOC on CNN... [t:77884890]...</cite> <quote>tennisdude818 posted...</cite> <quote>SS as advertised wasnt welfare.</quote> And it's not welfare, it just has benefits for Elder poverty. tennisdude818 posted...</cite> <quote>If you reform it to become more progressive, it becomes redistributive based on class. </quote> I'm going to assume "it" is taxes and not SS. SS as far as I'm aware doesn't have a progressive scale. Yes, progressive taxes are redistributing it is based on class. I don't give two shit if anyone thinks that's unfair. Flat taxes and god forbid voluntary taxes would bankrupt the United States. tennisdude818 posted...</cite> <quote>Its in the hole so you dont have many mathematical options to keep this Ponzi Scheme afloat. Thats why Ponzi Schemes are illegal in the private sector.</quote> It's still has a surplus. tennisdude818 posted...</cite> <quote>And the 75% payout is definitely not the worst case scenario. The government generally underestimates future outflows and overestimates future receipts, especially when looking that far in the future. Its probably optimistic.</quote> There's many independent and bipartisan sources making these estimates not just the government.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Balrog0 07/25/19 9:15:22 AM #139:	tennisdude818 posted... Yeah, Ponzi Schemes are shitty investments for latecomers. A fiscal blowup that wrecks the private sector would be largely caused by our trillions in unfunded liabilities, so that's no defense of SS or its trust fund that's full of IOUs. The last fiscal blow up wasn't caused by tons of unfunded liabilities. Our last downgrade in credit rating was based on on our inability to raise a debt limit, not the fact that we deficit finance things. tennisdude818 posted... The government was supposed to hold our contributions in a "trust fund". Instead, they blew the cash because they needed the extra income to cover out of control spending and replaced it with IOUs. Of course that's garbage accounting. They didn't invest in Apple bonds, they issued their own. That's not a real asset, that's a liability. You need to step outside your ideology for a second, bro. T-notes are way closer to money than private sector bonds. It's just accounting. If you think it's garbage, you think accounting in general is garbage. tennisdude818 posted... By welfare I mean redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor, rather than simply being a multi generational Ponzi Scheme. You already said in post #90 that this isn't what SS is, so that comment wasn't directed at you. It certainly isn't how SS was originally advertised, so if it gets "reformed" into a welfare program that just means that the government failed to deliver on the original promise. Yeah, I think it should be more like a welfare program in that sense. tennisdude818 posted... The proposal I brought up was for SS to be optional, not abolished. So if you don't have a 401k, you could still take your chances with the SS Ponzi. Most people value money now rather than later. People are bad at saving for retirement on their own. That's one reason 401ks are useful outside tax benefits -- because businesses (typically) offer people money to incentivize saving. tennisdude818 posted... If the US population is really so dumb that it needs to be forced to contribute to a retirement trust fund by the nanny state, who then blows the deposits, replaces it with IOUs, and hands out only 75% of what was promised, then government schooling in America has been a total failure. I think you're an example of the failure of government schooling lol --- But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. <cite>Balrog0 posted [p:925159645] in AOC on CNN... [t:77884890]...</cite> <quote>tennisdude818 posted...</cite> <quote>Yeah, Ponzi Schemes are shitty investments for latecomers. A fiscal blowup that wrecks the private sector would be largely caused by our trillions in unfunded liabilities, so that's no defense of SS or its trust fund that's full of IOUs. </quote> The last fiscal blow up wasn't caused by tons of unfunded liabilities. Our last downgrade in credit rating was based on on our inability to raise a debt limit, not the fact that we deficit finance things. tennisdude818 posted...</cite> <quote>The government was supposed to hold our contributions in a "trust fund". Instead, they blew the cash because they needed the extra income to cover out of control spending and replaced it with IOUs. Of course that's garbage accounting. They didn't invest in Apple bonds, they issued their own. That's not a real asset, that's a liability.</quote> You need to step outside your ideology for a second, bro. T-notes are way closer to money than private sector bonds. It's just accounting. If you think it's garbage, you think accounting in general is garbage. tennisdude818 posted...</cite> <quote>By welfare I mean redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor, rather than simply being a multi generational Ponzi Scheme. You already said in post #90 that this isn't what SS is, so that comment wasn't directed at you. It certainly isn't how SS was originally advertised, so if it gets "reformed" into a welfare program that just means that the government failed to deliver on the original promise.</quote> Yeah, I think it should be more like a welfare program in that sense. tennisdude818 posted...</cite> <quote>The proposal I brought up was for SS to be optional, not abolished. So if you don't have a 401k, you could still take your chances with the SS Ponzi. </quote> Most people value money now rather than later. People are bad at saving for retirement on their own. That's one reason 401ks are useful outside tax benefits -- because businesses (typically) offer people money to incentivize saving. tennisdude818 posted...</cite> <quote> If the US population is really so dumb that it needs to be forced to contribute to a retirement trust fund by the nanny state, who then blows the deposits, replaces it with IOUs, and hands out only 75% of what was promised, then government schooling in America has been a total failure.</quote> I think you're an example of the failure of government schooling lol</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
tennisdude818 07/25/19 11:54:01 AM #140:	Balrog0 posted... The last fiscal blow up wasn't caused by tons of unfunded liabilities. Our last downgrade in credit rating was based on on our inability to raise a debt limit, not the fact that we deficit finance things. ^^This misguided belief that the government can access infinite resources as long as we raise the debt ceiling is why there is going to be a real fiscal crisis. The political path of least resistance is to grow spending and the deficit indefinitely. Rates have been low compared to historical norms for decades, and the government has grown massively as a result. Rates will return to a historically normal level someday, and our deficits and debt will almost certainly be worse than they are now when that day comes. Balrog0 posted... You need to step outside your ideology for a second, bro. T-notes are way closer to money than private sector bonds. It's just accounting. If you think it's garbage, you think accounting in general is garbage. You missed my point, and my post was clear enough for me to know its your fault that you missed my point. Owing an IOU to yourself =\= holding an IOU where a 3rd party is obligated to pay you. Balrog0 posted... Most people value money now rather than later. People are bad at saving for retirement on their own. That's one reason 401ks are useful outside tax benefits -- because businesses (typically) offer people money to incentivize saving. If there is anybody who is good a planning for the future responsibly, its the Federal Government. Americans suck at managing their own money, but actual libertarians such as yourself understand that Americans are great at managing other peoples money, particularly when there is no accountability. The IOUs in the trust fund make that obvious. Balrog0 posted... I think you're an example of the failure of government schooling lol k --- "Those who need leaders are not qualified to choose them." -Michael Malice <cite>tennisdude818 posted [p:925165095] in AOC on CNN... [t:77884890]...</cite> <quote>Balrog0 posted...</cite> <quote> The last fiscal blow up wasn't caused by tons of unfunded liabilities. Our last downgrade in credit rating was based on on our inability to raise a debt limit, not the fact that we deficit finance things. </quote> ^^This misguided belief that the government can access infinite resources as long as we raise the debt ceiling is why there is going to be a real fiscal crisis. The political path of least resistance is to grow spending and the deficit indefinitely. Rates have been low compared to historical norms for decades, and the government has grown massively as a result. Rates will return to a historically normal level someday, and our deficits and debt will almost certainly be worse than they are now when that day comes. Balrog0 posted...</cite> <quote> You need to step outside your ideology for a second, bro. T-notes are way closer to money than private sector bonds. It's just accounting. If you think it's garbage, you think accounting in general is garbage.</quote> You missed my point, and my post was clear enough for me to know its your fault that you missed my point. Owing an IOU to yourself =\= holding an IOU where a 3rd party is obligated to pay you. Balrog0 posted...</cite> <quote>Most people value money now rather than later. People are bad at saving for retirement on their own. That's one reason 401ks are useful outside tax benefits -- because businesses (typically) offer people money to incentivize saving. </quote> If there is anybody who is good a planning for the future responsibly, its the Federal Government. Americans suck at managing their own money, but actual libertarians such as yourself understand that Americans are great at managing other peoples money, particularly when there is no accountability. The IOUs in the trust fund make that obvious. Balrog0 posted...</cite> <quote>I think you're an example of the failure of government schooling lol</quote> k</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Deadpool_18 07/25/19 11:56:54 AM #141:	ButteryMales posted... Deadpool_18 posted... The fact that theyre spending $66,000,000,000 on Medicare while I cant apply for coverage is a joke. You're a retiree? Thats what makes our healthcare system a joke. Only the almost dead can get any treatment. --- "I'm so embarrassed. I wish everyone else was dead." <cite>Deadpool_18 posted [p:925165218] in AOC on CNN... [t:77884890]...</cite> <quote>ButteryMales posted...</cite> <quote>Deadpool_18 posted...</cite> <quote>The fact that theyre spending $66,000,000,000 on Medicare while I cant apply for coverage is a joke.</quote> You're a retiree?</quote> Thats what makes our healthcare system a joke. Only the almost dead can get any treatment.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Deadpool_18 07/25/19 11:59:10 AM #142:	$50 says the people in here defending republican spending dont suffer any of the effects that come with it. --- "I'm so embarrassed. I wish everyone else was dead." <cite>Deadpool_18 posted [p:925165331] in AOC on CNN... [t:77884890]...</cite> <quote>$50 says the people in here defending republican spending dont suffer any of the effects that come with it.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ButteryMales 07/25/19 12:46:39 PM #143:	Deadpool_18 posted... $50 says the people in here defending republican spending dont suffer any of the effects that come with it. I'll take that bet. They're mostly temporarily embarrassed billionaires. <cite>ButteryMales posted [p:925167460] in AOC on CNN... [t:77884890]...</cite> <quote>Deadpool_18 posted...</cite> <quote>$50 says the people in here defending republican spending dont suffer any of the effects that come with it.</quote> I'll take that bet. They're mostly temporarily embarrassed billionaires.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3

Current Events > AOC on CNN asks why we have endless money for wars and corporate tax cuts but w (+) Yeah! (+)

Current Events > AOC on CNN asks why we have endless money for wars and corporate tax cuts but w