Why are liberals so emotional and irrational?

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#201 Posted by Guybrush_3 (8308 posts) -

Because they were too irresponsible to save money for retirement. Laihendi

Quite possibl the single dumbest thing ever I've ever seen onthis board.

#202 Posted by MrPraline (21308 posts) -
JFK spoke out against the banks (The Fed) and the secret societies. Not a surprise to anybody, that gets you killed dead fast. But Oswald took the fall so it's all solved and clear and explained, of course.
#203 Posted by Laihendi (5810 posts) -
[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] For starters, prior to Social Security a majority of our nation's senior citizens lived in poverty.

Because they were too irresponsible to save money for retirement. And now the government steals our money to fund military campaigns in 3rd world countries and claims they'll pay us back later when in reality that program was only sustainable for as long as the baby boomers were in the work force. Even if I do get paid back for it, they will just be paying me back with more money they stole from someone else.

Ideology, ideology, ideology. You asked for one thing that the New Deal did that made society better. I answered. It reduced the poverty rates among senior citizens to virtually nothing. And it's been sustainable enough that it's lasted for about 70 years now. And what on earth does the New Deal have to do with military campaigns in 3rd World Countries? Talk about irrational.

Please tell me how social security will be sustainable when the baby boomers are retiring and birth rates in the US have been dropping for 12 years and are at record lows?
#204 Posted by Laihendi (5810 posts) -

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]Because they were too irresponsible to save money for retirement. Guybrush_3

Quite possibl the single dumbest thing ever I've ever seen onthis board.

Have you ever contributed to a discussion? All I've ever seen you do is call people you disagree with stupid without making any effort to substantiate your claims.

#205 Posted by HoolaHoopMan (7740 posts) -

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="Aljosa23"]The bolded, please

nocoolnamejim

Again, I have already answered that. FDR and JFK never had anything substantial or intelligent to say and even their defenders like you can't even explain what good they did and just resort to hazy appeals to authority. Despite this, liberals revere them. You have to be emotional and irrational to revere someone like that without any particular reason for why.

FDR: 1. Ended the Great Depression 2. Passed the New Deal policies (which, whether you agree with them or not are historic achievements that changed the course of our nation and became permanent fixtures in our societies) 3. Won the most important war ever fought in human history Lai: "FDR never had anything substantive or intelligent to say."

Things like this make me lose a little faith in my fellow man. Christ time for a beer already it seems.

#206 Posted by brucewayne69 (2859 posts) -
lai pls
#207 Posted by mingmao3046 (2479 posts) -
 .
#208 Posted by nocoolnamejim (15136 posts) -
[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="Laihendi"] Because they were too irresponsible to save money for retirement. And now the government steals our money to fund military campaigns in 3rd world countries and claims they'll pay us back later when in reality that program was only sustainable for as long as the baby boomers were in the work force. Even if I do get paid back for it, they will just be paying me back with more money they stole from someone else.

Ideology, ideology, ideology. You asked for one thing that the New Deal did that made society better. I answered. It reduced the poverty rates among senior citizens to virtually nothing. And it's been sustainable enough that it's lasted for about 70 years now. And what on earth does the New Deal have to do with military campaigns in 3rd World Countries? Talk about irrational.

Please tell me how social security will be sustainable when the baby boomers are retiring and birth rates in the US have been dropping for 12 years and are at record lows?

Sure thing. Link Not that you'll acknowledge the point, but here's the specific section to save you from reading anymore that is absolutely necessary. [quote="Center on Budget and Policy Priorities"] Fact #10: Social Security can pay full benefits through 2033 without any changes. Relatively modest changes would place the program on a sound financial footing for 75 years and beyond. Social Securitys costs will grow in coming years as members of the large Baby Boom generation (those born between 1946 and 1964) move into their retirement years. Since the mid-1980s, however, Social Security has collected more in taxes and other income each year than it pays out in benefits and has amassed combined trust funds of $2.7 trillion, invested in interest-bearing Treasury securities.[30] The trust funds will enable Social Security to keep paying full benefits through 2033 without any changes in the program, even though One of the two funds, the Disability Insurance (DI) trust fund, faces exhaustion in 2016. (The much bigger Old-Age and Survivors Insurance trust fund would last until 2035. Combined, the two funds would be exhausted in 2033.) Policymakers should address DI's pending depletion in the context of action on overall Social Security solvency. If they are unable to agree on a sensible solvency package in time, however, they should reallocate revenues between the two trust funds, as they have often done in the past.[32] After 2033, when the combined trust funds will be exhausted if no changes are made, Social Security would still be able pay three-fourths of its scheduled benefits using its annual tax revenue. Alarmists who claim that Social Security wont be around when todays young workers retire either misunderstand or misrepresent the projections. The long-term gap between Social Securitys projected income and promised benefits is estimated at 1 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) over the next 75 years (and 1.5 percent of GDP in 2086). By coincidence, that only slightly exceeds the revenue loss over the next 75 years from extending the Bush tax cuts for people making over $250,000. Letting the tax cuts expire would not pay for fixing Social Security, which has different sources of revenues; conversely, letting them continue would not directly harm Social Security. Nevertheless, members of Congress cannot simultaneously claim that the tax cuts for the richest 2 percent of Americans are affordable while the Social Security shortfall constitutes a dire fiscal threat. A mix of tax increases and modest benefit reductions carefully crafted to shield the neediest recipients and give ample notice to all participants could put the program on a sound financial footing indefinitely.[33] As Social Security approaches its 80th birthday, policymakers have an opportunity to reassure future generations that they, too, can count on this successful program.

#209 Posted by -Sun_Tzu- (17384 posts) -
[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="Laihendi"] I am just repeating what the private sector says. State parks don't do anything to increase the standard of living in this country but thousands of people were paid to build them and are still paid to operate them anyways. And if there was a demand for those schools, hospitals, etc. then they would have been built without prompting from the government.

The private sector is an inanimate abstraction - it never "says" anything.You're just talking out of your ass as usual.

Yes, obviously it wasn't literally speaking words, just as a book doesn't literally talk to people and tell them things. There is still a clear message to be gained from it. You are floundering right now.

So how do I access this "clear message" from the omniscient private sector? If it's not going to talk to me what am I suppose to do?
#210 Posted by HoolaHoopMan (7740 posts) -
 .mingmao3046
You're not a very funny guy.
#211 Posted by Laihendi (5810 posts) -

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]

Please explain how the new deal and civil rights act improved this country. I am waiting.

Aljosa23

I did mention a bit earlier and Sun provided that graph but if you want to read more here you go:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_deal#Evaluation_of_New_Deal_policies

If I need to explain how civil rights act improved the country you're more sociopathic than I thought

The argument from intimidation. Ayn Rand wrote an essay on that (and entitled that). You would benefit from reading it.

I ask you to explain how the new deal improved this country, you cite lowered unemployment rates while ignoring the fact that the jobs had no demand in the private sector and did not generate any wealthy, and then you provide a wikipedia link of the new policies without making any effort to actually explain how the policies improve the country. It is clear that you have no idea what you're talking about.

#212 Posted by brucewayne69 (2859 posts) -
[QUOTE="dave123321"][QUOTE="brucewayne69"][QUOTE="dave123321"]"bivi whit is gaing an? My pasts iri gitting scriwib up... I'm siriaus" lol btw Bruce, I had set filters for the name lai and a few letters filter to other letters. Though you're the only one who's member group doesn't bypass them automatically.

Please fix it you traitor also Why did you want me to be banned?

Will fix it in time. Lets move this to lai's thread. Don't want to have this locked

Why did you want me to be banned. Dave.
#213 Posted by HoolaHoopMan (7740 posts) -
[QUOTE="Aljosa23"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]

Please explain how the new deal and civil rights act improved this country. I am waiting.

Laihendi

I did mention a bit earlier and Sun provided that graph but if you want to read more here you go:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_deal#Evaluation_of_New_Deal_policies

If I need to explain how civil rights act improved the country you're more sociopathic than I thought

:lol: The argument from intimidation. Ayn Rand wrote an essay on that (and entitled that). You would benefit from reading it. I ask you to explain how the new deal improved this countries, you cite lowered unemployment rates while ignoring the fact that the jobs had no demand in the private sector and did not generate any wealthy, and then you provide a wikipedia link of the new policies without making any effort to actually explain how the policies improve the country. It is clear that you have no idea what you're talking about.

How has the private sector not benefited from public infrastructure and utilities, two things that we revamped and built during the new deal?
#214 Posted by nocoolnamejim (15136 posts) -
Ayn Rand is the greedy sociopath's idea of a smart person.
#215 Posted by dave123321 (33765 posts) -
[QUOTE="brucewayne69"][QUOTE="dave123321"][QUOTE="brucewayne69"] Please fix it you traitor also Why did you want me to be banned?

Will fix it in time. Lets move this to lai's thread. Don't want to have this locked

Why did you want me to be banned. Dave.

Had a banned thread ready to go. Wanted to make air happy for once.
#216 Posted by Aljosa23 (24727 posts) -

The argument from intimidation. Ayn Rand wrote an essay on that (and entitled that). You would benefit from reading it.

I ask you to explain how the new deal improved this country, you cite lowered unemployment rates while ignoring the fact that the jobs had no demand in the private sector and did not generate any wealthy, and then you provide a wikipedia link of the new policies without making any effort to actually explain how the policies improve the country. It is clear that you have no idea what you're talking about.

Laihendi

haha Ayn Rand. no thx

The only thing clear here is that I don't care about this as much as you do. Again, it's not my business to educate you since you're the one making all the claims in this thread.

#217 Posted by brucewayne69 (2859 posts) -
[QUOTE="dave123321"][QUOTE="brucewayne69"][QUOTE="dave123321"] Will fix it in time. Lets move this to lai's thread. Don't want to have this locked

Why did you want me to be banned. Dave.

Had a banned thread ready to go. Wanted to make air happy for once.

Hmm Well how could I have told you I was banned because YOU CHANGED MY FILTER on your forum Airshockers happiness> Mine Scum
#218 Posted by toast_burner (21427 posts) -

Liberals are over emotional and irrational and Republicans aren't? Lot's of Republicans tend to get really pissed off when people they've never met try to get married. How is that not irrational?

#219 Posted by Guybrush_3 (8308 posts) -

[QUOTE="Guybrush_3"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]Because they were too irresponsible to save money for retirement. Laihendi

Quite possibl the single dumbest thing ever I've ever seen onthis board.

Have you ever contributed to a discussion? All I've ever seen you do is call people you disagree with stupid without making any effort to substantiate your claims.

I used to contribute thought out posts, but then I realized that you're literally too stupid to have a rational discussion. You don't understand basic logic, economics, history, or ethics, and you consistantly maintain willful ignorance of the subjects, sothere is no point intrying.

#220 Posted by Aljosa23 (24727 posts) -

I used to contribute thought out posts, but then I realized that you're literally too stupid to have a rational discussion. You don't understand basic logic, economics, history, or ethics, and you consistantly maintain willful ignorance of the subjects, sothere is no point intrying.

Guybrush_3

Basically this. ^

#221 Posted by Laihendi (5810 posts) -
[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] Ideology, ideology, ideology. You asked for one thing that the New Deal did that made society better. I answered. It reduced the poverty rates among senior citizens to virtually nothing. And it's been sustainable enough that it's lasted for about 70 years now. And what on earth does the New Deal have to do with military campaigns in 3rd World Countries? Talk about irrational.

Please tell me how social security will be sustainable when the baby boomers are retiring and birth rates in the US have been dropping for 12 years and are at record lows?

Sure thing. Link Not that you'll acknowledge the point, but here's the specific section to save you from reading anymore that is absolutely necessary. [quote="Center on Budget and Policy Priorities"] Fact #10: Social Security can pay full benefits through 2033 without any changes. Relatively modest changes would place the program on a sound financial footing for 75 years and beyond. Social Securitys costs will grow in coming years as members of the large Baby Boom generation (those born between 1946 and 1964) move into their retirement years. Since the mid-1980s, however, Social Security has collected more in taxes and other income each year than it pays out in benefits and has amassed combined trust funds of $2.7 trillion, invested in interest-bearing Treasury securities.[30] The trust funds will enable Social Security to keep paying full benefits through 2033 without any changes in the program, even though One of the two funds, the Disability Insurance (DI) trust fund, faces exhaustion in 2016. (The much bigger Old-Age and Survivors Insurance trust fund would last until 2035. Combined, the two funds would be exhausted in 2033.) Policymakers should address DI's pending depletion in the context of action on overall Social Security solvency. If they are unable to agree on a sensible solvency package in time, however, they should reallocate revenues between the two trust funds, as they have often done in the past.[32] After 2033, when the combined trust funds will be exhausted if no changes are made, Social Security would still be able pay three-fourths of its scheduled benefits using its annual tax revenue. Alarmists who claim that Social Security wont be around when todays young workers retire either misunderstand or misrepresent the projections. The long-term gap between Social Securitys projected income and promised benefits is estimated at 1 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) over the next 75 years (and 1.5 percent of GDP in 2086). By coincidence, that only slightly exceeds the revenue loss over the next 75 years from extending the Bush tax cuts for people making over $250,000. Letting the tax cuts expire would not pay for fixing Social Security, which has different sources of revenues; conversely, letting them continue would not directly harm Social Security. Nevertheless, members of Congress cannot simultaneously claim that the tax cuts for the richest 2 percent of Americans are affordable while the Social Security shortfall constitutes a dire fiscal threat. A mix of tax increases and modest benefit reductions carefully crafted to shield the neediest recipients and give ample notice to all participants could put the program on a sound financial footing indefinitely.[33] As Social Security approaches its 80th birthday, policymakers have an opportunity to reassure future generations that they, too, can count on this successful program.

None of that contradicts the basic fact that birth rates are steadily dropping, the life expectancy is rising, the ratio of people receiving social security:people paying into it is rising, and that people are consequently going to be receiving less in return for what they paid into it.
#222 Posted by mahlasor (1278 posts) -

[QUOTE="mingmao3046"] .HoolaHoopMan
You're not a very funny guy.

Actually, THAT WAS HILARIOUSLY TRUE! XDXDXDXDXDXDXDXDXD That is basically a perfect depiction of a liberal, no matter how well thought out your words are and arguements, they will just crap on it. Because they have bigotted attitudes towards at the very least to conservative minded people. That is why liberals get so emotional, they have the mind of a bigot.

For example Bill Maher when he talks about Sarah Palin, think how liberals paint individuals, they have such an intolerance towards them. They find every flaw they can think of, even if it does not exist. I am not going to write an essay on how liberals tend to become bigots, because its like that picture.

#224 Posted by Laihendi (5810 posts) -

[QUOTE="Guybrush_3"]

I used to contribute thought out posts, but then I realized that you're literally too stupid to have a rational discussion. You don't understand basic logic, economics, history, or ethics, and you consistantly maintain willful ignorance of the subjects, sothere is no point intrying.

Aljosa23

Basically this. ^

Yes it must be convenient to be so wise, enlightened, and above dissenting opinion that there is no need for you to make any attempt to substantiate any of your beliefs to yourself or anyone else.
#225 Posted by HoolaHoopMan (7740 posts) -

Actually, THAT WAS HILARIOUSLY TRUE! XDXDXDXDXDXDXDXDXD That is basically a perfect depiction of a liberal, no matter how well thought out your words are and arguements, they will just crap on it. Because they have bigotted attitudes towards at the very least to conservative minded people. That is why liberals get so emotional, they have the mind of a bigot.

For example Bill Maher when he talks about Sarah Palin, think how liberals paint individuals, they have such an intolerance towards them. They find every flaw they can think of, even if it does not exist. I am not going to write an essay on how liberals tend to become bigots, because its like that picture.

mahlasor

I guess its true if you have an extra chromosome floating around in each cell. Bill Maher is an unfunny dlck and Palin is a nimrod. Lets move on now shall we?

lol at calling liberals bigots. You're actually kind of funny.

#227 Posted by Aljosa23 (24727 posts) -

Yes it must be convenient to be so wise, enlightened, and above dissenting opinion that there is no need for you to make any attempt to substantiate any of your beliefs to me.Laihendi
Edited for accuracy. Maybe when you're not an abrasive little fvck then I'll try have a rational discussion with you.

#228 Posted by nocoolnamejim (15136 posts) -
[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="Laihendi"] Please tell me how social security will be sustainable when the baby boomers are retiring and birth rates in the US have been dropping for 12 years and are at record lows?

Sure thing. Link Not that you'll acknowledge the point, but here's the specific section to save you from reading anymore that is absolutely necessary. [quote="Center on Budget and Policy Priorities"] Fact #10: Social Security can pay full benefits through 2033 without any changes. Relatively modest changes would place the program on a sound financial footing for 75 years and beyond. Social Securitys costs will grow in coming years as members of the large Baby Boom generation (those born between 1946 and 1964) move into their retirement years. Since the mid-1980s, however, Social Security has collected more in taxes and other income each year than it pays out in benefits and has amassed combined trust funds of $2.7 trillion, invested in interest-bearing Treasury securities.[30] The trust funds will enable Social Security to keep paying full benefits through 2033 without any changes in the program, even though One of the two funds, the Disability Insurance (DI) trust fund, faces exhaustion in 2016. (The much bigger Old-Age and Survivors Insurance trust fund would last until 2035. Combined, the two funds would be exhausted in 2033.) Policymakers should address DI's pending depletion in the context of action on overall Social Security solvency. If they are unable to agree on a sensible solvency package in time, however, they should reallocate revenues between the two trust funds, as they have often done in the past.[32] After 2033, when the combined trust funds will be exhausted if no changes are made, Social Security would still be able pay three-fourths of its scheduled benefits using its annual tax revenue. Alarmists who claim that Social Security wont be around when todays young workers retire either misunderstand or misrepresent the projections. The long-term gap between Social Securitys projected income and promised benefits is estimated at 1 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) over the next 75 years (and 1.5 percent of GDP in 2086). By coincidence, that only slightly exceeds the revenue loss over the next 75 years from extending the Bush tax cuts for people making over $250,000. Letting the tax cuts expire would not pay for fixing Social Security, which has different sources of revenues; conversely, letting them continue would not directly harm Social Security. Nevertheless, members of Congress cannot simultaneously claim that the tax cuts for the richest 2 percent of Americans are affordable while the Social Security shortfall constitutes a dire fiscal threat. A mix of tax increases and modest benefit reductions carefully crafted to shield the neediest recipients and give ample notice to all participants could put the program on a sound financial footing indefinitely.[33] As Social Security approaches its 80th birthday, policymakers have an opportunity to reassure future generations that they, too, can count on this successful program.

None of that contradicts the basic fact that birth rates are steadily dropping, the life expectancy is rising, the ratio of people receiving social security:people paying into it is rising, and that people are consequently going to be receiving less in return for what they paid into it.

That isn't what you asked for. You asked how Social Security could be sustainable with baby boomers retiring and birth rates dropping. I answered. But since I used a lot of words, I'll try a second time and speak slower. 1. Social Security has been running a surplus for decades. Therefore it can afford to pay full benefits WITH NO CHANGES AT ALL until 2033. (20 years from now.) 2. After that, it could still pay out 75% of the benefits it presently pays with it's regular annual income revenues WITH NO CHANGES AT ALL indefinitely. 3. Simply letting the tax rates on individuals earning more than 250K per year return back to the Clinton levels would fully fund Social Security with all the benefits that it was paying before for SEVENTY FIVE YEARS. In other words, if we do literally nothing at all, Social Security will be just fine for the next twenty years, and be able to give 3/4ths of the benefits from then onwards forever. If we simply let the tax rates on the top-1% of earners in our society go back to the Clinton rates, which coincided with the longest uninterrupted period of economic expansion in U.S. history, then it is solvent for the foreseeable future. You asked. I answered.
#229 Posted by Guybrush_3 (8308 posts) -

[QUOTE="Aljosa23"]

[QUOTE="Guybrush_3"]

I used to contribute thought out posts, but then I realized that you're literally too stupid to have a rational discussion. You don't understand basic logic, economics, history, or ethics, and you consistantly maintain willful ignorance of the subjects, sothere is no point intrying.

Laihendi

Basically this. ^

Yes it must be convenient to be so wise, enlightened, and above dissenting opinion that there is no need for you to make any attempt to substantiate any of your beliefs to yourself or anyone else.

I've substantiated my beliefs more times than necessary to uou, but you're too stupid to realize it, because you don't understand basic critical thinking.

#230 Posted by mingmao3046 (2479 posts) -

[QUOTE="Guybrush_3"]

I used to contribute thought out posts, but then I realized that you're literally too stupid to have a rational discussion. You don't understand basic logic, economics, history, or ethics, and you consistantly maintain willful ignorance of the subjects, sothere is no point intrying.

Aljosa23

Basically this. ^

liberals gonna lib. they are open to different ideas except conservative ones.
#231 Posted by HoolaHoopMan (7740 posts) -
[QUOTE="Aljosa23"]

[QUOTE="Guybrush_3"]

I used to contribute thought out posts, but then I realized that you're literally too stupid to have a rational discussion. You don't understand basic logic, economics, history, or ethics, and you consistantly maintain willful ignorance of the subjects, sothere is no point intrying.

mingmao3046

Basically this. ^

liberals gonna lib. they are open to different ideas except conservative ones.

When 90 percent of conservative ideas are based on 'jebus', then yea we should ignore them.
#232 Posted by mingmao3046 (2479 posts) -
[QUOTE="mingmao3046"][QUOTE="Aljosa23"]Basically this. ^HoolaHoopMan
liberals gonna lib. they are open to different ideas except conservative ones.

When 90 percent of conservative ideas are based on 'jebus', then yea we should ignore them.

pretty sure landeih isn't basing his arguments around religion, or "jebus" as you liberals like to call him
#233 Posted by 0rbs (1947 posts) -

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]Yes it must be convenient to be so wise, enlightened, and above dissenting opinion that there is no need for you to make any attempt to substantiate any of your beliefs to me.Aljosa23

Edited for accuracy. Maybe when you're not an abrasive little fvck then I'll try have a rational discussion with you.

I think Laihendi is one of the only true voices of reason on this forum.

#234 Posted by HoolaHoopMan (7740 posts) -
[QUOTE="mingmao3046"][QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"][QUOTE="mingmao3046"] liberals gonna lib. they are open to different ideas except conservative ones.

When 90 percent of conservative ideas are based on 'jebus', then yea we should ignore them.

pretty sure landeih isn't basing his arguments around religion, or "jebus" as you liberals like to call him

'90 percent of conservative ideas'.
#235 Posted by 0rbs (1947 posts) -

[QUOTE="mingmao3046"][QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"] When 90 percent of conservative ideas are based on 'jebus', then yea we should ignore them. HoolaHoopMan
pretty sure landeih isn't basing his arguments around religion, or "jebus" as you liberals like to call him

'90 percent of conservative ideas'.

Liberalism is misery spread around equally.

#236 Posted by HoolaHoopMan (7740 posts) -

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"][QUOTE="mingmao3046"] pretty sure landeih isn't basing his arguments around religion, or "jebus" as you liberals like to call him0rbs

'90 percent of conservative ideas'.

Liberalism is misery spread around equally.

Did you think of that all by yourself?
#237 Posted by Laihendi (5810 posts) -

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] Sure thing. Link Not that you'll acknowledge the point, but here's the specific section to save you from reading anymore that is absolutely necessary. [quote="Center on Budget and Policy Priorities"] Fact #10: Social Security can pay full benefits through 2033 without any changes. Relatively modest changes would place the program on a sound financial footing for 75 years and beyond. Social Securitys costs will grow in coming years as members of the large Baby Boom generation (those born between 1946 and 1964) move into their retirement years. Since the mid-1980s, however, Social Security has collected more in taxes and other income each year than it pays out in benefits and has amassed combined trust funds of $2.7 trillion, invested in interest-bearing Treasury securities.[30] The trust funds will enable Social Security to keep paying full benefits through 2033 without any changes in the program, even though One of the two funds, the Disability Insurance (DI) trust fund, faces exhaustion in 2016. (The much bigger Old-Age and Survivors Insurance trust fund would last until 2035. Combined, the two funds would be exhausted in 2033.) Policymakers should address DI's pending depletion in the context of action on overall Social Security solvency. If they are unable to agree on a sensible solvency package in time, however, they should reallocate revenues between the two trust funds, as they have often done in the past.[32] After 2033, when the combined trust funds will be exhausted if no changes are made, Social Security would still be able pay three-fourths of its scheduled benefits using its annual tax revenue. Alarmists who claim that Social Security wont be around when todays young workers retire either misunderstand or misrepresent the projections. The long-term gap between Social Securitys projected income and promised benefits is estimated at 1 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) over the next 75 years (and 1.5 percent of GDP in 2086). By coincidence, that only slightly exceeds the revenue loss over the next 75 years from extending the Bush tax cuts for people making over $250,000. Letting the tax cuts expire would not pay for fixing Social Security, which has different sources of revenues; conversely, letting them continue would not directly harm Social Security. Nevertheless, members of Congress cannot simultaneously claim that the tax cuts for the richest 2 percent of Americans are affordable while the Social Security shortfall constitutes a dire fiscal threat. A mix of tax increases and modest benefit reductions carefully crafted to shield the neediest recipients and give ample notice to all participants could put the program on a sound financial footing indefinitely.[33] As Social Security approaches its 80th birthday, policymakers have an opportunity to reassure future generations that they, too, can count on this successful program. nocoolnamejim

None of that contradicts the basic fact that birth rates are steadily dropping, the life expectancy is rising, the ratio of people receiving social security:people paying into it is rising, and that people are consequently going to be receiving less in return for what they paid into it.

That isn't what you asked for. You asked how Social Security could be sustainable with baby boomers retiring and birth rates dropping. I answered. But since I used a lot of words, I'll try a second time and speak slower. 1. Social Security has been running a surplus for decades. Therefore it can afford to pay full benefits WITH NO CHANGES AT ALL until 2033. (20 years from now.) 2. After that, it could still pay out 75% of the benefits it presently pays with it's regular annual income revenues WITH NO CHANGES AT ALL indefinitely. 3. Simply letting the tax rates on individuals earning more than 250K per year return back to the Clinton levels would fully fund Social Security with all the benefits that it was paying before for SEVENTY FIVE YEARS. In other words, if we do literally nothing at all, Social Security will be just fine for the next twenty years, and be able to give 3/4ths of the benefits from then onwards forever. If we simply let the tax rates on the top-1% of earners in our society go back to the Clinton rates, which coincided with the longest uninterrupted period of economic expansion in U.S. history, then it is solvent for the foreseeable future. You asked. I answered.

Social security is running a surplus while the country is 16 trillion dollars in debt and counting. The government has no money to give back. The fact that people are only going to get 75% of the benefits despite paying 100% into it is just proof of what I'm saying. And funding social security by taxing the rich even more than they already are taxed turns social security from a ponzi scheme into just another welfare program.

#238 Posted by 0rbs (1947 posts) -

[QUOTE="0rbs"]

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"] '90 percent of conservative ideas'. HoolaHoopMan

Liberalism is misery spread around equally.

Did you think of that all by yourself?

Attack the idea, not the person.

#239 Posted by PannicAtack (21013 posts) -
[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="Aljosa23"]The bolded, pleasenocoolnamejim
Again, I have already answered that. FDR and JFK never had anything substantial or intelligent to say and even their defenders like you can't even explain what good they did and just resort to hazy appeals to authority. Despite this, liberals revere them. You have to be emotional and irrational to revere someone like that without any particular reason for why.

FDR: 1. Ended the Great Depression 2. Passed the New Deal policies (which, whether you agree with them or not are historic achievements that changed the course of our nation and became permanent fixtures in our societies) 3. Won the most important war ever fought in human history Lai: "FDR never had anything substantive or intelligent to say."

Well, technically it was Truman who ended the war.
#240 Posted by HoolaHoopMan (7740 posts) -

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"][QUOTE="0rbs"]

Liberalism is misery spread around equally.

0rbs

Did you think of that all by yourself?

Attack the idea, not the person.

That wasn't an idea, it was a slogan. A poorly thought out one at that.
#241 Posted by 0rbs (1947 posts) -

[QUOTE="0rbs"]

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"] Did you think of that all by yourself? HoolaHoopMan

Attack the idea, not the person.

That wasn't an idea, it was a slogan. A poorly thought out one at that.

Pretty sure you can call anything a slogan to suit your needs.

You can't really offer anything substantial except banter over semantics.

#242 Posted by DroidPhysX (17089 posts) -
>arguing with mingmao hll
#243 Posted by HoolaHoopMan (7740 posts) -

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"][QUOTE="0rbs"]

Attack the idea, not the person.

0rbs

That wasn't an idea, it was a slogan. A poorly thought out one at that.

Pretty sure you can call anything a slogan to suit your needs.

You can't really offer anything substantial except banter over semantics.

Ok well lets look at Scandinavia, a place that is considered to be more 'liberal' than the US. Has higher standards of living and life expectancy. Seems like misery to me. Does that suffice, or are you going to keep clinging to your hollow meaningless slogans?

#244 Posted by PannicAtack (21013 posts) -

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="Aljosa23"]A lot of what I'd say you would consider bad anyway lol it's just awful to have a decent conversation with you.

FDR = New Deal, regulated banks, labour unions, social security etc.
JFK = Civil Rights Act of 1964

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States#Scholar_survey_results

Yusuke420

JFK died in 1963 so you are just proving your ignorance of American history. Anyways liberals always cite the new deal as proof of FDR's greatness, but they never seem capable of explaining how the new deal actually made this country better. Perhaps you can?

Address the Civil Right's act you piece of human refuse! JFK advocated for it, FDR just did the heavy lifting (bacause someone like you killed JFK).

Actually, Oswald was most likely a Communist sympathizer. Pretty opposite of the TC.
#245 Posted by nocoolnamejim (15136 posts) -
[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="Laihendi"] None of that contradicts the basic fact that birth rates are steadily dropping, the life expectancy is rising, the ratio of people receiving social security:people paying into it is rising, and that people are consequently going to be receiving less in return for what they paid into it.

That isn't what you asked for. You asked how Social Security could be sustainable with baby boomers retiring and birth rates dropping. I answered. But since I used a lot of words, I'll try a second time and speak slower. 1. Social Security has been running a surplus for decades. Therefore it can afford to pay full benefits WITH NO CHANGES AT ALL until 2033. (20 years from now.) 2. After that, it could still pay out 75% of the benefits it presently pays with it's regular annual income revenues WITH NO CHANGES AT ALL indefinitely. 3. Simply letting the tax rates on individuals earning more than 250K per year return back to the Clinton levels would fully fund Social Security with all the benefits that it was paying before for SEVENTY FIVE YEARS. In other words, if we do literally nothing at all, Social Security will be just fine for the next twenty years, and be able to give 3/4ths of the benefits from then onwards forever. If we simply let the tax rates on the top-1% of earners in our society go back to the Clinton rates, which coincided with the longest uninterrupted period of economic expansion in U.S. history, then it is solvent for the foreseeable future. You asked. I answered.

Social security is running a surplus while the country is 16 trillion dollars in debt and counting. The government has no money to give back. The fact that people are only going to get 75% of the benefits despite paying 100% into it is just proof of what I'm saying. And funding social security by taxing the rich even more than they already are taxed turns social security from a bad ponzi scheme into just another welfare program.

Again, not what you asked. For the third time, you asked how Social Security could be made sustainable with baby boomers retiring and birth rates dropping. I answered your question. It's solvent for a minimum of 20 years at full benefits with no changes whatsoever since it ran a surplus for decades, and with minor tweaks to the very richest among us going back up VERY SLIGHTLY to the Clinton era levels (where the economy was quite good) would be solvent indefinitely. You can now acknowledge I answered, and THEN maybe we can move onto talking about whether or not Social Security is a good thing or not. Concede the point that Social Security is already solvent for the next two decades and with very minor changes can be solvent indefinitely. In other words, it IS sustainable pretty much indefinitely.
#246 Posted by 0rbs (1947 posts) -

[QUOTE="0rbs"]

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"] That wasn't an idea, it was a slogan. A poorly thought out one at that. HoolaHoopMan

Pretty sure you can call anything a slogan to suit your needs.

You can't really offer anything substantial except banter over semantics.

Ok well lets look at Scandinavia, a place that is considering to be more 'liberal' than the US. Has higher standards of living and life expectancy. Seems like misery to me. Does that suffice, or are you going to keep clinging to your hollow meaningless slogans?

Awesome oranges to apples comparison.

#247 Posted by nocoolnamejim (15136 posts) -
[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="Laihendi"]Again, I have already answered that. FDR and JFK never had anything substantial or intelligent to say and even their defenders like you can't even explain what good they did and just resort to hazy appeals to authority. Despite this, liberals revere them. You have to be emotional and irrational to revere someone like that without any particular reason for why.PannicAtack
FDR: 1. Ended the Great Depression 2. Passed the New Deal policies (which, whether you agree with them or not are historic achievements that changed the course of our nation and became permanent fixtures in our societies) 3. Won the most important war ever fought in human history Lai: "FDR never had anything substantive or intelligent to say."

Well, technically it was Truman who ended the war.

True, which is why I used the word "won". The war was pretty much won already by the time Truman took over if I remember my history right. There was some mopping up to do, but at that point, the war was basically won.
#248 Posted by HoolaHoopMan (7740 posts) -

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"][QUOTE="0rbs"]

Pretty sure you can call anything a slogan to suit your needs.

You can't really offer anything substantial except banter over semantics.

0rbs

Ok well lets look at Scandinavia, a place that is considering to be more 'liberal' than the US. Has higher standards of living and life expectancy. Seems like misery to me. Does that suffice, or are you going to keep clinging to your hollow meaningless slogans?

Awesome oranges to apples comparison.

Yes, because my example doesn't fit in with your outdated rhetoric. Anything else to add tw@t waffle?
#249 Posted by DroidPhysX (17089 posts) -

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"][QUOTE="0rbs"]

Pretty sure you can call anything a slogan to suit your needs.

You can't really offer anything substantial except banter over semantics.

0rbs

Ok well lets look at Scandinavia, a place that is considering to be more 'liberal' than the US. Has higher standards of living and life expectancy. Seems like misery to me. Does that suffice, or are you going to keep clinging to your hollow meaningless slogans?

Awesome oranges to apples comparison.

WOAH. NICE ELABORATION. 11/10
#250 Posted by PannicAtack (21013 posts) -
[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="PannicAtack"][QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] FDR: 1. Ended the Great Depression 2. Passed the New Deal policies (which, whether you agree with them or not are historic achievements that changed the course of our nation and became permanent fixtures in our societies) 3. Won the most important war ever fought in human history Lai: "FDR never had anything substantive or intelligent to say."

Well, technically it was Truman who ended the war.

True, which is why I used the word "won". The war was pretty much won already by the time Truman took over if I remember my history right. There was some mopping up to do, but at that point, the war was basically won.

Fair enough.