• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama vows to cut huge deficit in half

If nothing is done, Social Security will be fully solvent through 2042. That means worst case scenario, the program will have been fully solvent for around 110 years since its start.

Please provide an example of any large trust in the private sector, in the history of civilization, anywhere on earth, that has been solvent and successful for that long.

"If..."
Nevermind is government is not supposed to be involved in this type of social engineering in the first place.

It's how libs work. It shouldn't be there, they forecast these crazy scenarios that go way over budget due to the typical government inefficiencies, they hit unforseen troubles and costs explode. But now that it's in we need to pour more money into it instead of phasing it out.

Let's make the above moot.

"If..." is hoping for government to do the right thing in a timely manner? LOL.

Bush tried.
No dice.

What did the impeached perjurer, Bill Clinton have to say when president?

"f you don’t do anything [with Social Security], one of two thingswill happen. Either it will go broke and you won’t ever get it, or ifwe wait too long to fix it, the burden on society … of taking care ofour generation’s Social Security obligations will lower your income andlower your ability to take care of your children to a degree that mostof us who are parents think would be horribly wrong and unfair to youand unfair to the future prospects of the United States."

- President Bill Clinton, February 9, 1998



FSO Editorials: "Will Social Security Bankrupt America?" by Ronald R. Cooke 02.15.2005
Social Security payments started in 1940 with 1 beneficiary per 600 workers. By 2033 it looks as though there will be 1 beneficiary for every 2 workers. Our Social Security "surplus" is projected to begin its inevitable downward trend in 2009. By 2018 Social Security will be running an operating deficit that will increase with each passing year. There won't be enough worker income to pay for the beneficiary outgo.


How did we get into this financial mess?

There are three basic reasons.

Problem One: Demographics.
 
CIA fact book? Give me a break. Try looking at the IMF or OECD. According to the OECD, the US government liabilities in % of nominel GDP of 62.9% in 2007 projected to rise to near 80% this year. While some countries had more in Europe and especially Japan, quite a few had far less..including the UK, Spain, all Scandinavia countries and a considerable number of the rest of Europe.

If you look at the IMF version you get nearly the same picture for the limited number of countries they do look at.

The only source that remotely backs your claim up is the CIA fact book...

As for you broadband BS. Again the statistics work against you. Again look at the OECD Broadband portal. American's might use the internet more than Europeans, but that does not mean that your connections are better.. in fact they are worse than quite a few European countries and far more expensive.

Some basic statistics. Countries ahead of the US on broadband subscribers per 100 inhabitants. Denmark, Netherlands, Norway, Switzerland, Iceland, Sweden, Korea, Finland, Luxenbourg, Canada, UK, Belgium, France, Germany... yes 14 nations are ahead of the US. Even with broadband access, the US lags behind countries like Denmark, Finland, UK, Canada, Norway, Sweden and some asian countries. And Germany, France and Spain are not far behind the US.

In every broadband statistic the US is no where near the top.

Its amazing to think how far we are behind Japan and South Korea for example. Those fiber people. Even China is rushing past the US and Europe, with wireless!!!!
 
As if tax cuts weren't a main contributor to the mess that the Republicans created the last 8 years.

For a party that preaches individual responsibility why do the Republicans in this community refuse to accept that their party, their tax cuts, their policies were the main contributor to our problems. Yes, Democrats are partially responsible too but let's be truthful shall we?
There is not one scintilla of evidence to support your nonsensical assertion that Republican tax cuts and policies caused the mortgage crisis and corresponding financial bubble.

It is ironic to see you ask for truth with such flase comments.

President Bush and the GOP controlled the Congress and the White House from 2001 until January 2007 and when the Democrats took control of Congress they blocked almost all legislative action passed bythe Democrats or Bush vetoed their major initiatives.

Bush set an all-time record by going 5 years without vetoing any bills and then when the Democrats got control of Congress he vetoed 12 bills. From zero to 12...interesting!

There's a point here?


Bush's total amount of vetoes (12) were the least since Warren Harding in the early 20th century. Harding died in office after only two years. The President who had the least after Bush was JFK who vetoed 21 bills...but he too died in office after 3 years!

What is your point? Want to venture a guess how many bills Obama will veto from a Democrat Congress? Want to venture a guess how many he would veto if the Republicans win it back?

What a pointless argument.

I'd much rather see our President do something than do nothing like Bush did except cut taxes.

Fascinating commentary and ironic in the extreme when one considers the cacophony from Democrats about the bills that Bush passed like "No Child Left Behind" and the "Medicare Drug Reform Act" along with many other pieces of legislation that truly could be said to have been "bi-partisan."

You can't even be honest about your own criticisms. Let's be honest here, this President meets your approval for the simple reason he is Liberal and passing Socialist legislation that fills the emotional void in your brain.

Isn't it amusing to see Democrats only cared about deficit spending when Bush was in charge desperately argue that it makes perfect sense now. Democrat claims of fiscal responsibility were merely a campaign slogan to get them elected; then true to their character, most of the promises made went out the window once they achieved the goal that meant more to them than the wellbeing of the nation or winning wars, political power.

I look forward to you counting up the pile of debt and deficit spending Obama will/has passed and how many bills he vetoes from a Democrat congress that has proved that the ONLY policy it comprehends is spending mountains of taxpayer money on pet projects to promote ever greater Government control over our lives.
 
I would rather see steady growth of half a percent to one percent per year with no cycles of boom and bust, which are caused by government intervention in the markets.

I don't think it is realistic to believe that there will never be any cycles. It's the nature of the beast. However, those cycles can be moderated if the Government stopped interfering in a desperate attempt to "moderate" it which actually only "exacerbates" it.

GDP growth does not affect cycles, Government intervention does. Slower growth will not mean smaller or zero cycles and is not realistic or necessary.

Cycles are nothing new unless you are Barrack Obama or a Liberal whose history goes back as far as yesterday.
 
However, we are talking about nearly the last 80 years, over that large of a time frame, the economy has fairer significantly better under Democratic Administrations than under Republican Administrations.

There are no facts to support such an assertion. This is almost as fantastical as me claiming that wars are started by Democrat administrations.

One only need think about how bad things were under the Carter Administration, the Johnson Administration etc. etc. to be reminded how silly your comment is.

There is a long term correlation here, its a strong one, and it cant easily be dismissed because of that.

Let's see it.

Its not that I think that many Republican ideas about the economy are wrong, its just that for whatever reason, they are much more apt to take them to the extreme and thus cast aside all pragmatism when in power than Democrats seem to.

This comment made in a thread talking about how Democrats have passed trillions in deficit spending without any funding alternatives reeks of irony; particularly when they just passed an $825 billion dollar package with NO funding.

In fact, I think we would be worse off economically over the long term if people like Kucinich on the extreme left got there way in terms of economic policy than guys like Kudlow on the far right. However, guys like Kucinich never get their way in terms of economic policy when Democrats are in power, while guys like Kudlow almost always get their way more or less when Republicans are in power.

Two things, Obama is just like Kucinich and the Democrats when in power screw things up usually and it takes a Republican Administration to get us out of the mess they created.

Johnson's legacy isn't even talked about because it is such an embarrassment to Democrats and it took Nixon to finally get us out of Vietnam. Carter's administration was a complete failure and it took Reagan to clean that mess up.

I can't fathom how ANYONE with a modicum of historic facts can come up with the scenarios you are attempting to portray, but they are more fantasy than they are real.

Its that lack of pragmatism on the right more than anything else that leads to poor economic performance over the long term.

....on the part of Democrat lawmakers who pass laws like the CRA and SS and Medicare and Welfare and housing Projects that have shown to be failures in public policy and gross wastes of the public money and trust time and time again.

One thing you can almost bet your child’s future on, after the current stooges running the Congress and White House are done, the American people will be begging for pragmatism and Republicans to put our house back in order.

Democrats held the purse strings for 50 years and never ever balanced a budget. Republicans held the purse strings for 12 short years and have been the only congress in recent history that had balanced a budget. That balance would still be in place today if we had not been attacked on 9-11 for no reason by terrorists ignored by the previous administration and had a devastating disaster called Hurricane Katrina.

Thos are the FACTS for you.

Carry on. :2wave:
 
Last edited:
"If..."
Nevermind is government is not supposed to be involved in this type of social engineering in the first place.

Now your trying to change the argument. You stated that Social Security was a big failure. Your based this on its future shortfalls.

I then responded by pointing out that even with the absolute worst case estimates, Social Security will have been a successful and solvent program for at least 110 years, and that would make it by far more successful than any other large trust in the history of civilization - Public Sector or Private Sector.

Not willing to concede that, your now responding with your opinion that the program should have never existed in the first place. Thats a valid opinion for you to hold. Its simply your opinion as to what the role of government should be. Its all well and good, but it has nothing to do with whether the program was successful or not.
 
There are no facts to support such an assertion. This is almost as fantastical as me claiming that wars are started by Democrat administrations.

One only need think about how bad things were under the Carter Administration, the Johnson Administration etc. etc. to be reminded how silly your comment is.

Absurd. Absolutely, positively absurd. You are obviously arguing from ignorance. Annualized GDP growth under LBJ was 5.43% Thats nearly 2 percentage points higher than it was under Reagan.

Do you trust Forbes?

Presidents And Prosperity: The Underlying Data - Forbes.com

The numbers simply don't lie. The worst years for Democrats were under Carter and even the Carter years outperformed both Bush Presidencies and the Nixon years economically.

In terms of economic performance, the best Republicans have been able to do is Reagan, and Reagan ranks behind Bill Clinton, Johnson, and Kennedy on economic performance during his administration.
 
[
Yet Republicans will never get over the fact that it was a Democratic administration which engineered the most successful retirement program in history.

:rofl I can see that math is definitely not your forte'. To suggest that this joke of a ponzi scheme is the most successful retirement program in history requires a level of willful ignorance most people with even a modicum of intelligence can't possibly achieve.

A program that confiscates 15% of your income for your entire income earning life pays back the equivalent of $15,508 per year IF you delay retirement to the age of 70. But wait, they will deduct Medicare part B benefits so now your annual take is only $14,352.

Yep, don't spend it all in one place!

If you had invested the same amount into a conservative growth fund for that period, the likely income produced from that fund even with today’s drop in the market would probably be about $100,000 per year. :rofl
 
Absurd. Absolutely, positively absurd. You are obviously arguing from ignorance. Annualized GDP growth under LBJ was 5.43% Thats nearly 2 percentage points higher than it was under Reagan.

Do you trust Forbes?

Presidents And Prosperity: The Underlying Data - Forbes.com

The numbers simply don't lie. The worst years for Democrats were under Carter and even the Carter years outperformed both Bush Presidencies and the Nixon years economically.

In terms of economic performance, the best Republicans have been able to do is Reagan, and Reagan ranks behind Bill Clinton, Johnson, and Kennedy on economic performance during his administration.

This is what happens when you give data to people who do not comprehend how to read the data in a historical context. The Carter Years, had you lived through them, were some of the worst years in memory. High unemployment numbers, high interest rates and the taking of our embassy in Iran were the highlights of the Carter Administration.

Johnson's was one of fighting the war in Vietnam from the White House costing the lives of tens of thousands of young men and women.

Johnson ranked #1 in GDP growth; but we must also understand that the reason for it was the War in Vietnam; a war that was started under JFK and accelerated by Johnson under false pretenses.

Raw data is ignorant of the actions of Administrations predecessors, the actions of Congress and who is in power in Congress at the time.

It's absurd for you to take this data and conclude for instance that Clinton's policies were the reason we had a balanced budget or low unemployment. He lost congress to the Republicans who finally balanced the budget after 30 years of deficits and he benefited from the Silicon Valley business boom which at the end of his term began to sink into recession.

Clinton benefited from the fact that at the end of Bush Sr’s term the economy was turning the corner.

I could go on and on with how specious your conclusions are based on the historic record; however, if your preference is a simplistic view suggesting that Democrat Administrations have shown better fiscal policies than Republicans in a vacuum of the historic events surrounding them past and present to rationalize the criminal like spending that we are now seeing, go for it.

I know that taking data and arriving at simplistic conclusions is part of the Democrat DNA, but you really need to carefully view ALL the facts before suggesting that things are better under Democrat control based on the data you have provided.
 
I am not only criticizing the US about the debt situation. I am criticizing all the loser countries that cannot run surpluses, which is a situation created by the moron capitalist system.. All nations SHOULD run surpluses and save money for time of crisis for example, and build up state funds rather than state debt. Thats just how it must and will be, inevitable, eventually.

All nations to run surpluses:confused: Do explain how that is achieved...
 
I then responded by pointing out that even with the absolute worst case estimates, Social Security will have been a successful and solvent program for at least 110 years, and that would make it by far more successful than any other large trust in the history of civilization - Public Sector or Private Sector.

Not willing to concede that, your now responding with your opinion that the program should have never existed in the first place. Thats a valid opinion for you to hold. Its simply your opinion as to what the role of government should be. Its all well and good, but it has nothing to do with whether the program was successful or not.

Fascinating, there is nothing wrong with this vast ponzi scheme, yet others more qualified than you would suggest otherwise:

1. Is there really a Social Security crisis?
Some people say Social Security's financing problems are just a function of pessimistic economic projections. If the economy grows faster, they say, Social Security won't go broke. And so they then ask, "Why make big changes now for a problem that may never occur?" Unfortunately, that view is wrong.

Two independent panels of experts examined the trustees' projections of how our workforce and economy will grow. The panels found the trustees' estimates to be reasonable or maybe even a little optimistic regarding the future of the Social Security system's financing. In other words, instead of a "phony crisis," we might actually have something even worse than expected.

Social Security is safe today but will run deficits in just 12 years. That's not a very long time to fix the world's biggest government program. Moreover, the longer we wait, the worse the problem will become. For every year that we wait, Social Security reform will cost an additional $600 billion.


FAQs About Social Security Choice

Social Security funds are invested in Government Obligations; in other words, they become PUBLIC debt as part of the ponzi scheme and the Government spends this money now to cover their budget shorfalls issuing an IOU to be paid at a later date.

Under the current runaway spending, this just means that the debt piles up in IOUs the government can't even pay today.

But the SS "trust fund" (this word makes me laugh when I see it), is heading for insolvency. I think it is already here and even their conservative estimates are 35 years out.

In the annual Trustees Report, projections are made under three alternative sets of economic and demographic assumptions. Under one of these sets (labeled "Low Cost") the trust funds remain solvent for the next 75 years. Under the other two sets (the "Intermediate" and "High Cost"), the trust funds become depleted within the next 35 years. The intermediate assumptions reflect the Trustees' best estimate of future experience.
The Trustees believe that extensive public discussion and analysis of the long-range financing problems of the Social Security program are essential in developing broad support for changes to restore the long-range balance of the program.


Unfortunately, the current adminstration does not want to have this debate. It means MORE deficits and MORE taxes.

But there is MORE:

Social Security Fund Faces $13.6 Trillion Shortfall
Posted Sep 25, 07 4:27 AM CDT in Business, US

(Newser) – Slashing benefits or hiking taxes—or both—is the only way to make the Social Security system solvent, reports a Treasury Department briefing paper. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson warned that faster economic growth alone won't solve the money problems of Social Security, which faces a $13.6 trillion shortfall in the "indefinite future," Bloomberg reports.


Social Security Fund Faces $13.6 Trillion Shortfall - US news | Newser

To address this shortcoming, it is calculated how much money must be placed in the Social Security Trust Fund right now in order to finance projected deficits for the infinite horizon. This amounts to $13.6 trillion,[92] [93] or an additional $83,345 for every person currently paying Social Security taxes.[94] [95]

* This figure of $3.7 trillion, which needed to be added to the trust fund and begin earning interest in 2004, is roughly equivalent to the combined market capitalization of all thirty companies comprising the Dow Jones Industrial Average (in September 2008), or an additional $23,680 from every person who paid Social Security taxes in 2004

Social Security - Just Facts

Yes folks, this program that sucks out such a HUGE portion of your income and your employers income and pays you on average $12,675 before Medicare taxes BUT ONLY if you don’t earn more than individuals with incomes of more than $34,000 a year and couples with incomes of more than $44,000 a year, then you must pay taxes on up to 85% of their old age benefits. What a freaking DEAL!
 
Fascinating, there is nothing wrong with this vast ponzi scheme, yet others more qualified than you would suggest otherwise:

Well, one could quote organizations whose stated purpose is the privatize social security, which is a bit like quoting communists when critiquing capitalism, or one could just look at the governments own numbers which carry a bit more weight behind them.

n the annual Trustees Report, projections are made under three alternative sets of economic and demographic assumptions. Under one of these sets (labeled "Low Cost") the trust funds remain solvent for the next 75 years. Under the other two sets (the "Intermediate" and "High Cost"), the trust funds become depleted within the next 35 years. The intermediate assumptions reflect the Trustees' best estimate of future experience.

Trust Fund FAQs

So, once again, worst case scenario, the fund is solvent for another 35 years, which means even in that case the fund would have been fully solvent for over 110 years, making it the most successful large trust in the history of civilization. This "ponzi scheme" as you call it will have by then helped fund the retirements of hundreds of millions of seniors over the course of its existence.
 
This is what happens when you give data to people who do not comprehend how to read the data in a historical context. The Carter Years, had you lived through them, were some of the worst years in memory. High unemployment numbers, high interest rates and the taking of our embassy in Iran were the highlights of the Carter Administration.

Johnson's was one of fighting the war in Vietnam from the White House costing the lives of tens of thousands of young men and women.

Johnson ranked #1 in GDP growth; but we must also understand that the reason for it was the War in Vietnam; a war that was started under JFK and accelerated by Johnson under false pretenses. blah blah blah

Do you what failures do? They consistently blame their poor performance on their predecessors or circumstances they see as beyond their control. It is the hallmark excuse for failures and their apologists.

I presented the numbers over decades. Thats a huge sampling, yet Republicans consistently underperformed on the economic front. Now, you can choose not to accept that historical correlation just like some hard core conservatives choose not accept modern science when they still don't accept evolution or the age the earth. Its a choice you have made, rationalize it all you want. We can go round and round and round on this. I am satisfied with the leading economic indicators over the course of over a 50 year timeframe myself. If your not, then your not. I can't change that.

However, there is no doubt in my mind that if all the economic indicators had shown that Republicans took the top 3 spots in terms of economic performance over the last 60 years that you would be hold them up as evidence that they were better for the economy.
 
Last edited:
How pathetic. You post a blog comment to prove me that I am wrong on something I am right about also. Just like you always try to prove me wrong. Its a FACT that average European broadband speeds are better than American ones, and its a FACT that Japanese broadband speeds are better than European ones. You can deny that until you are blue and green and red like you always deny what I am saying. But you are just lying to yourself like usual.

And if you were capable of reading and comprehending, you would understand that there's more important things than simply "average broadband speed." Things like penetration, accessibility, and productivity are fare more relevant if you're trying to evaluate the usefulness of the internet.

No matter IF that is true or IF he is withdrawing all troops, again you fail to see the point of even mentioning the withdrawal of troops, which as I said would be saving the US a lot of money. But again, you do have some trouble of seeing context when I am posting, perhaps its too complicated for you? :confused:

Are you being deliberately obtuse? The point is that you were earlier talking about how this was going to save us hundreds of billions of dollars per year, when in reality, even in an absolute best case scenario it will be nothing like that.


Ok, I think you would have a great point if we were just talking about over the last 25 years or so. However, we are talking about nearly the last 80 years, over that large of a time frame, the economy has fairer significantly better under Democratic Administrations than under Republican Administrations. That is quite a long time frame for a solid correlation to develop.

The problem isn't the length of time, it's that that method of evaluation is intrinsically flawed. The effects of government actions on the economy are not felt immediately, but rather over years and decades. The only way in which this would be a logical method of evaluation would be if the actions of a previous administration had no effect on the actions of following administrations. I think it's pretty evident that that's not the case.

Say I'm elected president and I enact tax cuts and increased spending that are projected to result in immediate economic growth but ballooning long term debt. 4 years later, you're elected to replace me and decide to raise taxes and cut spending because you're concerned about paying down the debt and are willing to take the short term economic hit.

If you go back and look at the economy during my term, it will look fantastic. During yours, it will look terrible. Does that mean I was "better for the economy" than you? Of course not.

If nothing is done, Social Security will be fully solvent through 2042. That means worst case scenario, the program will have been fully solvent for around 110 years since its start

This is untrue.

The annual cost of Social Security benefits represented 4.3 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in 2007 and is projected to increase to 6.1 percent of GDP in 2035, and then decline to 5.8 percent of GDP by 2048 and remain at that level. The projected 75-year actuarial deficit in the combined Old-Age and Survivors and Disability Insurance (OASDI) Trust Fund is 1.70 percent of taxable payroll ($4.3 trillion in present value terms), down from 1.95 percent projected in last year's report. This decrease is due primarily to changes in projection methods. Although the combined OASDI program passes our short-range test of financial adequacy, the Disability Insurance Trust Fund does not; in addition, OASDI continues to fail our long-range test of close actuarial balance by a wide margin. Projected OASDI tax income will begin to fall short of outlays in 2017, and will be sufficient to finance only 78 percent of scheduled annual benefits in 2041, after the combined OASDI Trust Fund is projected to be exhausted.

That means that as of 2017, SS will be running a deficit. Instead of serving as a huge positive to our balance sheet, it will start becoming a massive drag. 2041 is when the "trust fund" would be exhausted, if there actually were one.

Please provide an example of any large trust in the private sector, in the history of civilization, anywhere on earth, that has been solvent and successful for that long.

1. Nothing about SS is a "success" unless you ignore future obligations.

2. Are you asking for an example of any investment vehicle that has lasted as long as SS? There are plenty.
 
Last edited:
Its a FACT that average European broadband speeds are better than American ones, and its a FACT that Japanese broadband speeds are better than European ones.

Oh good god. Can your personal identity be this fragile? Must there always be a contest for which you annoyingly wave cheaply made pom poms? Do you know anything about communications at all? And before you run your mouth, I have planned, built, and managed comm systems in America, Asia, and Europe. And by comm systems I mean switchboards, radios, and satellites.


The average user in continental Europe and just about all of Germany gains access to the world through the ISDN. The connection speed can connect at speeds up to 128 Kbps. ISDN is expensive and it is hard to establish connections, but once established it is reliable. But this connection speed is slow when we consider that any connection to the customer of 256 kbit/s or greater is more concisely considered broadband Internet. This is why ISDN is not saturated throughout the US as it is in Europe. In fact, the running joke around the world about ISDN is that it stands for "It Still Does Nothing" or "I Still Don't Know." ISDN peaked in the United States in the 1990s prior to the availability of DSL and cable modem technologies. Japan also made the leap from the German invented ISDN into a faster greater world.

Now, if you wish to boast about basic E1 as compared to the North American and Japanese basic standard T1, then you have a tiny stage. Of course, now we are talking about data rates....not connection speeds. The basic T1 enjoys speeds of 1.544Mbps with 24 channels (with robbed bit techonlogy; meaning full payload.) The basic E1 enjoys speeds of 2.048Mbps with 32 channels (two are stripped for over head and signaling leaving 30 for payload). Oh, but this is the basic. Of course, practical application has us dealing with T3s (44.736Mbps) in America now while Europe deals in E3s (34.368Mbps).

And we can talk about the next technology, which is VOIP (Voice Over Internet Protocol) telephone systems. Something American and Japan have been heading into very fast. In fact, the U.S. Marine Corps and the U.S. Army has replaced just about all of the old TRI-TAC equipment with REDCOM/VX systems. The reason we have to maintain a small inventory of TRI-TAC gear is because European forces within NATO are still catching up to this technology. And while European forces are catching up to using Commercial Circuit Switches and the use of POTS phones, American forces are already forcing our fleet into VOIP.

But the American military taps into Europe's ISDN sometimes in Iraq and Afghanistan for the purposes of VTC. Other than that, we utilize the DISN.
 
Last edited:
Cut in half in four years? Didn't Iriemon preach about how generations to come will suffer under the deficit that "Hitler Bush" built?
 
First they say "no no we didn't mean Nationalization"..then Bernake comes out and says "we will likely exit the recession in 1 year"..end of day Obama pops out and gives a speech.

Tomorrow the "hope" is they will be able to play up a continuation of the positive market reaction to the first two by claiming its because Obama's speech made people "hopeful" again.


Its a game.
 
What I'm really looking forward to is the roll-out of the universal health care plan... along with estimates of the costs involved.

This is going to be one wild ride folks!

:2party:
 
Now your trying to change the argument. You stated that Social Security was a big failure. Your based this on its future shortfalls.

I then responded by pointing out that even with the absolute worst case estimates, Social Security will have been a successful and solvent program for at least 110 years, and that would make it by far more successful than any other large trust in the history of civilization - Public Sector or Private Sector.

Not willing to concede that, your now responding with your opinion that the program should have never existed in the first place. Thats a valid opinion for you to hold. Its simply your opinion as to what the role of government should be. Its all well and good, but it has nothing to do with whether the program was successful or not.
No, I am trying to make a point.

Illustrating how the Liberal works his and her Voodoo. Forget the foundation of the country, the firewall that should prevent this type of aggressive intervention into our lives and the market, and once the firewall is breached... who cares?! Let's take more money, more liberty, more freedom... make more government programs... wasting more tax payers money in the process.

It's a play for power... making people dependent on Mommy Dearest... government.

We shouldn't even be concerned about this because rightfully it should not exist. Where in the Constitution does it allow for this?

Are we Americans?
Or are we Marxists?

Medicare and Social Security Bankrupt
WSJ

March 23, 2005

The trust fund for Social Security will go broke in 2041, a year earlier than previously estimated, the trustees reported Wednesday. Trustees also said that Medicare, the giant health-care program for the elderly and disabled, faces insolvency in 2020.

The new projections made in the trustees annual report were certain to be cited by both sides in the massive battle to overhaul Social Security, which President Bush has made the top domestic priority of his second term.
Bush tried, Democrats lied.

But things were different a decade ago.
Not really, the Dems were just blowing smoke.
Byron York on Social Security on National Review Online
In 1998, the major policy question in Washington was what to do with enormous anticipated federal budget surpluses. Republicans, arguing that a surplus meant the government was taking in too much money, wanted to cut taxes. Clinton wanted to kill any tax-cut proposal before it had a chance to gather support. So in his 1998 State of the Union speech, he came up with a famous slogan.

"What should we do with this projected surplus?" Clinton said. "I have a simple four-word answer: Save Social Security first."

Soon Clinton was going around the country, touting a coming Social Security "crisis." All of his administration's economic achievements, he said in February 1998, "are threatened by the looming fiscal crisis in Social Security." There should be no new spending — or, more importantly, no tax cuts — "before we take care of the crisis in Social Security that is looming when the baby boomers retire."

A number of Clinton's arguments back then sound uncannily like Bush's today, if one makes a few adjustments for newly revised figures on Social Security's finances. "We have a great opportunity now to take action now to avert a crisis in the Social Security system," Clinton said, again in February 1998. "By 2030, there will be twice as many elderly as there are today, with only two people working for every person drawing Social Security. After 2032, contributions from payroll taxes will only cover 75 cents on the dollar of current benefits. So we must act, and act now, to save Social Security."

Clinton's Social Security-crisis campaign, while a response to Republican plans for the surplus, was also a way for him to go on the political offensive during the Monica Lewinsky scandal. As the scandal grew, he became more interested in fighting off impeachment than forestalling tax cuts. But Social Security remained a potent rhetorical weapon. In September, Vice President Al Gore went to the Capitol for a Social Security pep rally with congressional Democrats, including House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt, Sen. Edward Kennedy, Sen. Barbara Boxer, and others. Gore said that in coming years — by 2032 — "Social Security faces a serious fiscal crisis." Everyone in the group stayed remarkably on-message as they warned that the future was dire.

"Save Social Security first," said Gore.

"Save Social Security first," said Gephardt.

"Save Social Security first," said Kennedy.

"Save Social Security first," said Boxer.


Today, some of those same lawmakers are leading the opposition to President Bush's initiative and no longer fear a crisis in Social Security. And indeed, by 1999, after GOP tax-cut proposals had been defeated and he escaped conviction in his Senate impeachment trial, Social Security's future became a less urgent issue to Clinton. In his 957-page autobiography, My Life, Clinton included no extended discussion of Social Security at all.

Back in 1998, Democrats realized it was politically safe to rally around Clinton's statements about a Social Security crisis because they knew he did not really intend to take any action that matched his rhetoric. They also knew that Clinton's words were correct; Social Security was then, as it is now, facing a "looming fiscal crisis." He just didn't plan to do much about it.
 
Last edited:
Oh good god. Can your personal identity be this fragile? Must there always be a contest for which you annoyingly wave cheaply made pom poms? Do you know anything about communications at all? And before you run your mouth, I have planned, built, and managed comm systems in America, Asia, and Europe. And by comm systems I mean switchboards, radios, and satellites.


The average user in continental Europe and just about all of Germany gains access to the world through the ISDN. The connection speed can connect at speeds up to 128 Kbps. ISDN is expensive and it is hard to establish connections, but once established it is reliable. But this connection speed is slow when we consider that any connection to the customer of 256 kbit/s or greater is more concisely considered broadband Internet. This is why ISDN is not saturated throughout the US as it is in Europe. In fact, the running joke around the world about ISDN is that it stands for "It Still Does Nothing" or "I Still Don't Know." ISDN peaked in the United States in the 1990s prior to the availability of DSL and cable modem technologies. Japan also made the leap from the German invented ISDN into a faster greater world.

Now, if you wish to boast about basic E1 as compared to the North American and Japanese basic standard T1, then you have a tiny stage. Of course, now we are talking about data rates....not connection speeds. The basic T1 enjoys speeds of 1.544Mbps with 24 channels (with robbed bit techonlogy; meaning full payload.) The basic E1 enjoys speeds of 2.048Mbps with 32 channels (two are stripped for over head and signaling leaving 30 for payload). Oh, but this is the basic. Of course, practical application has us dealing with T3s (44.736Mbps) in America now while Europe deals in E3s (34.368Mbps).

And we can talk about the next technology, which is VOIP (Voice Over Internet Protocol) telephone systems. Something American and Japan have been heading into very fast. In fact, the U.S. Marine Corps and the U.S. Army has replaced just about all of the old TRI-TAC equipment with REDCOM/VX systems. The reason we have to maintain a small inventory of TRI-TAC gear is because European forces within NATO are still catching up to this technology. And while European forces are catching up to using Commercial Circuit Switches and the use of POTS phones, American forces are already forcing our fleet into VOIP.

But the American military taps into Europe's ISDN sometimes in Iraq and Afghanistan for the purposes of VTC. Other than that, we utilize the DISN.

Ridiculous, so many factual faults and errors that its not worth commenting.

The average consumer in Europe gains access through wired broadband AND mobile broadband, just to your knowledge.
 
Cut in half in four years? Didn't Iriemon preach about how generations to come will suffer under the deficit that "Hitler Bush" built?

Deficits and debts is two different things. Even though he halves deficits, it will keep putting debt on the debt mountain that Bush built.
 
Joe Bidens net worth is between $100,000 and $150,000!!! Now tell me how he is going to oversee any spending by anybody when it is proven beyond and rational debatethat he is a financial idiot incapable of saving, investing and smart spending with his $248,000/yr. salary? How can a public figure (Vice President) be in his predictament without being a fool? He is the single poorest politician in Washington.
 
Joe Bidens net worth is between $100,000 and $150,000!!! Now tell me how he is going to oversee any spending by anybody when it is proven beyond and rational debatethat he is a financial idiot incapable of saving, investing and smart spending with his $248,000/yr. salary? How can a public figure (Vice President) be in his predictament without being a fool? He is the single poorest politician in Washington.

Where did you get that information from?
 
Back
Top Bottom