Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Asterios wrote:
[you really have no clue about how Social Security is ran, as it goes I'm calling your bluff, show me where it says Social Security is ran like that, also show me where Social Security is taking in more money then its paying out, I'll be here waiting, and not too worried, since its obvious you haven't kept up with the news. and i'm talking federal SS not state run SS. which is a running joke right now in California.

I'll defer to Gordon Shumway's point, the tipping point came in 2010. I remember at the time that getting coverage, but many arguing that it was only temporary because of the poopy economy, and I admit to never checking to see if it actually returned to being a net inflow. That it didn't means we've probably gone past that tipping point and are there to stay. So that was my bad, something I said was about to happen had in fact, just happened.

But you, of course, are still completely wrong in understanding how the system works. It isn't a single bucket that can be exhausted. It's a federal government mandatory program. If the amount collected isn't sufficient, then government has to pay the rest. As I said earlier this has implications for federal deficits, but your idea that people would one day just stop getting SS checks is very silly.

also 16 mil. debt is not much to speak of which is what our debt was in the 30's, nowhere near our almost 20 trillion debt now. (thats like a thousand times a thousand more and then some.)

Actually it was 16 billion, not 16 million. So you're wrong by a factor of 1,000 there. And if you then factor in the GDP was about 60 billion at the time, then you're looking at debt of around 27% of GDP. GDP figures for the time vary, you'll see the source I gave above put debt to GDP greater than 30%. As 27 to 30% is not 'nothing', your statement that the debt was nothing 1930 was completely and utterly wrong.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Asterios wrote:
you know that line that says SECA on your paycheck? thats for SS.

You continue to not understand. Just because government collects a tax specifically for a purpose doesn't mean that is the only government money that can ever be used for purpose. The obligation to pay SS exists no matter what government takes in, no matter what government has stored up in the past. THere is no mechanism by which government can say "SS is out of money so you'll just have to find something else to live on in retirement".

You are wrong about SS works, and what's more now you're getting rude and defensive about it. Don't do that. It will mean you will walk away from this conversation with as poor an understanding of SS as when you started. And that would be a waste of everyone's time.

Asterios wrote:


learn to read:

Social Security is largely a pay-as-you-go program. Most of the payroll taxes collected from today's workers are used to pay benefits to today's recipients. In 2014, the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance and Disability Insurance Trust Funds collected $884.3 billion in revenues. Of that amount, 85.5% was from payroll tax contributions and reimbursements from the General Fund of the Treasury and 3.4% was from income taxes on Social Security benefits. Interest earned on the government bonds held by the trust funds provided the remaining 11.1% of income. Assets increased in 2014 because total income exceeded expenditures for benefit payments and administrative expenses.

you know that line that says SECA on your paycheck? thats for SS.

I see you've engaged the time honored "l2p" defense. A bold strategy sir.

Except most of us can read, and being able to read we are able to see that it still doesn't say what you seem to think it says, and posting it over and over while insultingly telling people to "learn" isn't going to fix that problem.

 sebster wrote:

Asterios wrote:
[you really have no clue about how Social Security is ran, as it goes I'm calling your bluff, show me where it says Social Security is ran like that, also show me where Social Security is taking in more money then its paying out, I'll be here waiting, and not too worried, since its obvious you haven't kept up with the news. and i'm talking federal SS not state run SS. which is a running joke right now in California.

I'll defer to Gordon Shumway's point, the tipping point came in 2010. I remember at the time that getting coverage, but many arguing that it was only temporary because of the poopy economy, and I admit to never checking to see if it actually returned to being a net inflow. That it didn't means we've probably gone past that tipping point and are there to stay. So that was my bad, something I said was about to happen had in fact, just happened.

But you, of course, are still completely wrong in understanding how the system works. It isn't a single bucket that can be exhausted. It's a federal government mandatory program. If the amount collected isn't sufficient, then government has to pay the rest. As I said earlier this has implications for federal deficits, but your idea that people would one day just stop getting SS checks is very silly.

one why am I debating American SS law with someone who is not in the US nor is familiar with how it is ran, back in 2015 even the SSA said that by 2034 they will only be able to cover 79% of expected program costs:

The Trustees estimate that the combined OASI and DI trust fund reserves will be depleted by 2034. At that point, payroll taxes and other income will flow into the fund but will be sufficient to pay only about 79% of program costs.

like I said go read the SSA site, it will tell you you are wrong.

 sebster wrote:

also 16 mil. debt is not much to speak of which is what our debt was in the 30's, nowhere near our almost 20 trillion debt now. (thats like a thousand times a thousand more and then some.)

Actually it was 16 billion, not 16 million. So you're wrong by a factor of 1,000 there. And if you then factor in the GDP was about 60 billion at the time, then you're looking at debt of around 27% of GDP. GDP figures for the time vary, you'll see the source I gave above put debt to GDP greater than 30%. As 27 to 30% is not 'nothing', your statement that the debt was nothing 1930 was completely and utterly wrong.

my bad i'm wrong there, but thats still 1000 times plus more now.

 sebster wrote:

Asterios wrote:
you know that line that says SECA on your paycheck? thats for SS.

You continue to not understand. Just because government collects a tax specifically for a purpose doesn't mean that is the only government money that can ever be used for purpose. The obligation to pay SS exists no matter what government takes in, no matter what government has stored up in the past. THere is no mechanism by which government can say "SS is out of money so you'll just have to find something else to live on in retirement".

You are wrong about SS works, and what's more now you're getting rude and defensive about it. Don't do that. It will mean you will walk away from this conversation with as poor an understanding of SS as when you started. And that would be a waste of everyone's time.

and I repeat go read the SSA site, that is what they are saying. the SS is collected thru the SECA tax on paychecks (85%) with some from reimbursement from the general fund that is owed when the government borrowed from it. 3.4% is gained from taxing some of those benefits and 11.1% is from interest gathered from the trusts, which are depleting fast.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:

Asterios wrote:


learn to read:

Social Security is largely a pay-as-you-go program. Most of the payroll taxes collected from today's workers are used to pay benefits to today's recipients. In 2014, the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance and Disability Insurance Trust Funds collected $884.3 billion in revenues. Of that amount, 85.5% was from payroll tax contributions and reimbursements from the General Fund of the Treasury and 3.4% was from income taxes on Social Security benefits. Interest earned on the government bonds held by the trust funds provided the remaining 11.1% of income. Assets increased in 2014 because total income exceeded expenditures for benefit payments and administrative expenses.

you know that line that says SECA on your paycheck? thats for SS.

I see you've engaged the time honored "l2p" defense. A bold strategy sir.

Except most of us can read, and being able to read we are able to see that it still doesn't say what you seem to think it says, and posting it over and over while insultingly telling people to "learn" isn't going to fix that problem.

then prove it. its as simple as that, prove it. show me where the government itself funds SS not SECA but the Government.

 whembly wrote:
Seb... that's a cop-out.

It's one thing for a political party to point fingers at the opposition party to claim that it's "a manufactured outrage"...

No, see, you've now spend so long not answering my question that you've forgotten the framing I put in place. To repeat all of that, I am not for one second talking about whether this is a real issue. I know your opinion, you know mine, doing that again would be a waste of time.

What I am talking about is whether this will actually impact votes. And the metric I asked is if you know of people who were going to vote for Clinton, or at least leaning that way who think the email thing is a major scandal and who's vote might be affected.

It's splashed across the news sites... such that, it makes you wonder if these journalist are *hoping* that Sanders wins the nomination.

Trump's names *works* because it's 8th grade schoolyard level. That's what sticks....

Of course, but even within that metric there's good and there's bad. Calling some kid that smells 'stinky' isn't much good, because everyone already knows, and it isn't going to change the opinions of people who aren't that bothered by the smell. This is why Crooked Hillary and Lyin' Ted are weak - there are no Clinton supporters who are unaware of the allegations against her, and there were no Cruz supporters who cared that he was a liar, because he was their liar for Jesus. But a good attack draws people's attention to some previously ignored problem - calling Rubio Little Marco was perfect for this - it drew attention to his minor, John Edwards style lack of substance.

Yes, I know plenty of folks like that. One who has voted for Bill Clinton (life-long Democrat), but absolutely refuses to vote for HRC. (he won't vote for Trump either, as he told me he ain't interested anymore). He works for NGA, and if he did what she has done... he'd be in prison now.

So, yes... this "email thing" as you call it, does have legs.

Okay, now we're getting to an answer on the question. Did he like Clinton before the email thing, or at least like her enough to consider voting for her?

Turn the snark level WAY down in here, or lose the ability to participate in the converstation.

Asterios wrote:
who is this BLS? I have been "unemployed" for several years now and no one asked me if I was looking for work or not?

Bureau of Labor Statistics. How on earth can you happily giving off opinions on this stuff without even knowing what the BLS is?

And where did you get the idea that a national survey couldn't exist unless they personally asked you a question? They sample 60,000 households from across the whole country. The odds of you personally getting asked is very small.

in fact only time they ask if you are looking for work is when you are on Unemployment Insurance. not after it expires, they don't care then.

Holy gak man you're own link explains it to you.
"While the U-3 rate is the "official" unemployment rate, it measures only those looking for a job as a percentage of the total labor force"

Not people on unemployment, but anyone actively looking for work. The rest of the link goes on to explain underemployment and discouraged workers, which are other factors entirely.

I'm talking places like San Francisco which brought a minimum wage increase to $15 before California did, check the news out sometime.

Please do, you'll find it says exactly what I told you - that San Fran has put the law in place, but the $15 rate won't be reached for a few years yet. You said the $15 minimum was already in place... because you don't actually know what's going on.

actually that goes by the yearly budget every year the government spends more and more money then it took in.

I'm not sure if you're not reading or just not following. As I already said, government does pay more than it takes in almost all years. That is not in dispute, what I am doing is pointing out is the foolishness of your surrounding argument. You claim you're concerned about the deficit. You then say there's no point raising taxes, because government will just spend that money too. So only spending cuts can reduce the deficit. But this means you have to believe there is the government fiscal discipline to reduce spending, but not the discipline to hold spending level in a higher tax environment.

You are arguing government can't control spending, except when they can. It's ridiculous.

A franchise is not a mall kiosk, a franchise is a contract that is entered in by a "buyer" and the parent company and is non-transferable.

No. A food court operation can be a franchise, as were the food court operations I filed taxes for (there was a Bucking Bull and a Wendy's among them).

And while the franchise is usually established as 'non-transferable', this is merely a protection to ensure the franchiser retains some control over the operation, and that it gets a healthy share of the sale of any profitable franchise. In reality it is in everyone's best interest to ensure the franchise continues to operate - especially the franchisor who gets to continue selling produce and collecting franchise fees, and of course doesn't suffer the negative image of a closed down store.

With this is mind any franchisee

It's kind of ironic that someone who's voting for Trump doesn't understand how to negotiate on something like this.

 LordofHats wrote:
Since you'e big on telling people to "learn" here's some learning for you; Social Security will never not be paid (under current US law) because it is mandatory spending. Mandatory spending means that the US government is required by law to fund programs like the GI Bill, Medicare, and Social Security. Is SS starts bringing in less money than it spends, it will still get funded because the US government is required to fund it. The government doesn't have a choice in the matter, and while SS bringing in less money than it spends is a potential hurdle, it's not a doomsday scenario and it's something we've been anticipating for a very long time.

The chart you're linking to is a basic explanation of where SS is currently getting it's money, most of which comes from payroll. The chart doesn't even remotely say that that's the only source of revenue for the program (in fact it says the opposite since only 85% of the program's funds come from payroll tax). I.E. that chart doesn't say what you seem to think it says.

For someone who keeps telling other people to learn to read, you really seem to be going out of your way to not read anything that is being said.

heres a link for you:

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/social-security-benefits-retirement-32416.html

Economically speaking, this shortfall is not sustainable for the long term, and without an infusion of money from another source, the Social Security benefit retirement system will face problems within the next 20 or so years. Current predictions indicate that the Social Security trust fund will run out in 2035 if nothing is done. After this point, retirees can generally expect about 75 cents on every dollar of their scheduled benefits. Thats because once the trust fund is depleted, there will be no surplus left. From that point on, the amount thats paid out in the form of benefits can only match what's coming into the Social Security system through employment taxes.

and those are lawyers

here is another link from a more reputable source:

http://time.com/money/3967821/social-security-trust-fund-2034/

http://money.cnn.com/2015/02/10/retirement/social-security/

these sources agree with me.

your source on the other hand does not show where it gets its facts from, my facts can all be traced back to the SSA site, SS will always have money for retirement, but it won't be 100% unless Congress intervenes and that will most likely not happen since if they were, they would have by now.

and just for fun reading:

http://www.inquisitr.com/2333118/barack-obama-social-security-disability-running-out-of-money-2016-check-cuts/

 sebster wrote:

Asterios wrote:
who is this BLS? I have been "unemployed" for several years now and no one asked me if I was looking for work or not?

Bureau of Labor Statistics. How on earth can you happily giving off opinions on this stuff without even knowing what the BLS is?

was being facetious.

 sebster wrote:
And where did you get the idea that a national survey couldn't exist unless they personally asked you a question? They sample 60,000 households, or about 100,000 people.

so they asked people who still have phones and most likely jobs, most people without jobs cannot afford things like a house or phone.

 sebster wrote:

in fact only time they ask if you are looking for work is when you are on Unemployment Insurance. not after it expires, they don't care then.

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/03/04/charts-whats-the-real-unemployment-rate.html

Holy gak man you're own link explains it to you.
"While the U-3 rate is the "official" unemployment rate, it measures only those looking for a job as a percentage of the total labor force"

Not people on unemployment, but anyone actively looking for work. The rest of the link goes on to explain underemployment and discouraged workers, which are other factors entirely.

I'm talking places like San Francisco which brought a minimum wage increase to $15 before California did, check the news out sometime.

Please do, you'll find it says exactly what I told you - that San Fran has put the law in place, but the $15 rate won't be reached for a few years yet. You said the $15 minimum was already in place... because you don't actually know what's going on.

no meant that the increase was passed.

 sebster wrote:

actually that goes by the yearly budget every year the government spends more and more money then it took in.

I'm not sure if you're not reading or just not following. As I already said, government does pay more than it takes in almost all years. That is not in dispute, what I am doing is pointing out is the foolishness of your surrounding argument. You claim you're concerned about the deficit. You then say there's no point raising taxes, because government will just spend that money too. So only spending cuts can reduce the deficit. But this means you have to believe there is the government fiscal discipline to reduce spending, but not the discipline to hold spending level in a higher tax environment.

You are arguing government can't control spending, except when they can. It's ridiculous.

no i'm saying the Government needs to control spending since raising taxs is not the answer.

 sebster wrote:

also obviously you have never owned a franchise before which is evident by your statement.

A franchise is not a mall kiosk, a franchise is a contract that is entered in by a "buyer" and the parent company and is non-transferable.

No. A food court operation can be a franchise, as were the food court operations I filed taxes for (there was a Bucking Bull and a Wendy's among them).

And while the franchise is usually established as 'non-transferable', this is merely a protection to ensure the franchiser retains some control over the operation, and that it gets a healthy share of the sale of any profitable franchise. In reality it is in everyone's best interest to ensure the franchise continues to operate - especially the franchisor who gets to continue selling produce and collecting franchise fees, and of course doesn't suffer the negative image of a closed down store.

With this is mind any franchisee

It's kind of ironic that someone who's voting for Trump doesn't understand how to negotiate on something like this.

actually around here when a franchise goes under they tear the building down and extend the parking lot. (seen this happen with a couple franchises that closed this year. near me. also Franchisees around here only the majority franchisee owner can build any new franchises or add on to them, asked if they would ever get a new Burger king at thos one store and he told me they can't build any new ones since the company that owns 2 of them has priority over them.

also only voting for Trump because the other candidate is even worse.

Asterios wrote:
one why am I debating American SS law with someone

Why are you trying to debate anything on economics, when you don't know the difference between a million and a billion, you don't know what the BLS is, you thought US debt in 1930 was zero, you thought unemployment was high?

back in 2015 even the SSA said that by 2034 they will only be able to cover 79% of expected program costs:

You're really not following. No-one is saying that SS will always cover all payments under the current payment system. What we are telling you is that your understanding of how that will play out is totally wrong. If coffers of SS run completely dry, then future shortfalls will be covered by general Fed expenditure.

my bad i'm wrong there, but thats still 1000 times plus more now.

As a measure of debt to gdp its about 3 times higher now than it was then.

Again I'll ask you to please stop falling for the mistake of using the nominal figure. Inflation is a thing. Population growth is a thing. Productivity increases happen. Comparing nominal debt in 1930 to nominal debt in 2015 is beyond stupid. It's like saying that two guys with $500,000 mortgages are under just as much pressure, when the first guy is a VP at a F500 company, and the second guy is working part time at McDonalds.

and I repeat go read the SSA site, that is what they are saying. the SS is collected thru the SECA tax on paychecks (85%) with some from reimbursement from the general fund that is owed when the government borrowed from it.

Yes, we all know this. What you have to understand is that SS is basically an accounting fiction. It is a part of government that receives the money that government decides, and pays out the money that government tells it to pay out. Pretending it is a distinct thing is an accounting convenience, because the reality is that the Federal govt is wholly responsible for SS.

You're trying to lecture people on economics while pretending inflation doesn't exist, as evident by your continued comparison of nominal debt in the 30's with today's level.

EDIT: Ninjad! Curse you sebster!

 sebster wrote:

Asterios wrote:
one why am I debating American SS law with someone

Why are you trying to debate anything on economics, when you don't know the difference between a million and a billion, you don't know what the BLS is, you thought US debt in 1930 was zero, you thought unemployment was high?

Like I said was making a joke about the BLS and yeah was my bad about the million/billion goof

 sebster wrote:

back in 2015 even the SSA said that by 2034 they will only be able to cover 79% of expected program costs:

You're really not following. No-one is saying that SS will always cover all payments under the current payment system. What we are telling you is that your understanding of how that will play out is totally wrong. If coffers of SS run completely dry, then future shortfalls will be covered by general Fed expenditure.

actually think we may have had a cross in words, I did not mean SS would be totally out of money, just that their trust funds are running out of money which would reduce SS payments drastically. (and yes 21% or more is drastic)

 sebster wrote:

my bad i'm wrong there, but thats still 1000 times plus more now.

As a measure of debt to gdp its about 3 times higher now than it was then.

Again I'll ask you to please stop falling for the mistake of using the nominal figure. Inflation is a thing. Population growth is a thing. Productivity increases happen. Comparing nominal debt in 1930 to nominal debt in 2015 is beyond stupid. It's like saying that two guys with $500,000 mortgages are under just as much pressure, when the first guy is a VP at a F500 company, and the second guy is working part time at McDonalds.

not comparing, and never said there was no debt in 1930, only said it was minimal and yes I'm, aware 16 billion back then is about 22 trillion now a days.

 sebster wrote:

and I repeat go read the SSA site, that is what they are saying. the SS is collected thru the SECA tax on paychecks (85%) with some from reimbursement from the general fund that is owed when the government borrowed from it.

Yes, we all know this. What you have to understand is that SS is basically an accounting fiction. It is a part of government that receives the money that government decides, and pays out the money that government tells it to pay out. Pretending it is a distinct thing is an accounting convenience, because the reality is that the Federal govt is wholly responsible for SS.

and yet on paperwork it is still seperate, taxs are seperately collected for it and used for it.

Asterios wrote:
heres a link for you:

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/social-security-benefits-retirement-32416.html

Economically speaking, this shortfall is not sustainable for the long term, and without an infusion of money from another source, the Social Security benefit retirement system will face problems within the next 20 or so years. Current predictions indicate that the Social Security trust fund will run out in 2035 if nothing is done. After this point, retirees can generally expect about 75 cents on every dollar of their scheduled benefits. Thats because once the trust fund is depleted, there will be no surplus left. From that point on, the amount thats paid out in the form of benefits can only match what's coming into the Social Security system through employment taxes.

Read your link. "and without an infusion of money from another source"

Who do you think that other source would be? Do you think the SS has a team out chasing down leprechauns, hoping that catching one of them and taking their pot of gold will finally restore stability to SS?

Or do you think that maybe they're talking about the Fed taking up responsibility for the shortfall? Which is what we've telling you from the beginning.

was being facetious.

Really? You gave the incorrect method for claiming unemployment, I explained how the BLS did it, you then asked who the BLS was and went on to doubt that because you personally hadn't been asked if you were looking for work.

Why would you be facetious about that one bit of the answer?

so they asked people who still have phones and most likely jobs, most people without jobs cannot afford things like a house or phone.

Nope, the sample is selected, and if people don't have a phone then a live interview is arranged.

no meant that the increase was passed.

Fair enough.

no i'm saying the Government needs to control spending since raising taxs is not the answer.

Yes, and you're arguing that through hopelessly inconsistent reasoning. Because an increase to revenue of about $400b would cover the current deficit. The exact same maths that says a decrease in spending on $500b would resolve the deficit will also tell you that an increase in revenue of $500b will also solve the problem.

The reason you claim government the revenue solution won't work is because government can't control spending... and so you argue that government has to cut spending. One of those things makes the other impossible.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
You're trying to lecture people on economics while pretending inflation doesn't exist, as evident by your continued comparison of nominal debt in the 30's with today's level.

There is this one brief period when timezones cross and I'm not posting on stuff people said 12 hours ago

Asterios wrote:

heres a link for you:

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/social-security-benefits-retirement-32416.html

Economically speaking, this shortfall is not sustainable for the long term, and without an infusion of money from another source, the Social Security benefit retirement system will face problems within the next 20 or so years. Current predictions indicate that the Social Security trust fund will run out in 2035 if nothing is done. After this point, retirees can generally expect about 75 cents on every dollar of their scheduled benefits. Thats because once the trust fund is depleted, there will be no surplus left. From that point on, the amount thats paid out in the form of benefits can only match what's coming into the Social Security system through employment taxes.

You should have read all the way to the bottom; "In the United States, prefunding is being considered, and so are other solutions like infusions from general revenue and increases to payroll tax." SS is mandatory spending. The article from Time is actually the most insane, concluding that the fund only having enough money to pay 79% of benefits means that 21% of benefits will go unpaid, ignoring that the government has to fund the benefits regardless of whether the fund has enough money in it or not. The government already uses discretionary spending to cover some of the costs of Social Security;



Like it did in 2012 (and every year since). The very chart you linked to actually says the exact same thing. Note that 3.4% of the funds are marked "taxation and benefits." You, and the articles you link too, all confuse talk about the Social Security Fund (proper noun) running out of money with Social Security running out money. Social Security can't run out of money, because the government has to fund it. There is no question that SS will be funded. The question is how it will be funded, and how much discretionary spending has to be spent to fill in shortfalls (and whether or not eligibility and benefits will be altered to reduce spending).

Asterios wrote:

you know that line that says SECA on your paycheck? thats for SS.

If you're a responsible small business owner* that line shouldn't exist...unless you want to influence the voting behavior of your employees.


*A rare breed.

 sebster wrote:

Asterios wrote:
heres a link for you:

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/social-security-benefits-retirement-32416.html

Economically speaking, this shortfall is not sustainable for the long term, and without an infusion of money from another source, the Social Security benefit retirement system will face problems within the next 20 or so years. Current predictions indicate that the Social Security trust fund will run out in 2035 if nothing is done. After this point, retirees can generally expect about 75 cents on every dollar of their scheduled benefits. Thats because once the trust fund is depleted, there will be no surplus left. From that point on, the amount thats paid out in the form of benefits can only match what's coming into the Social Security system through employment taxes.

Read your link. "and without an infusion of money from another source"

Who do you think that other source would be? Do you think the SS has a team out chasing down leprechauns, hoping that catching one of them and taking their pot of gold will finally restore stability to SS?

Or do you think that maybe they're talking about the Fed taking up responsibility for the shortfall? Which is what we've telling you from the beginning.

not going to happen already Congress will not approve even DI dipping into SS which it has been doing so in a couple years(2018) DI will get reduced.

 sebster wrote:

was being facetious.

Really? You gave the incorrect method for claiming unemployment, I explained how the BLS did it, you then asked who the BLS was and went on to doubt that because you personally hadn't been asked if you were looking for work.

Why would you be facetious about that one bit of the answer?

was being facetious about asking who is this BLS you speak of, like I said in my entire life I have never heard from them.

 sebster wrote:

so they asked people who still have phones and most likely jobs, most people without jobs cannot afford things like a house or phone.

Nope, the sample is selected, and if people don't have a phone then a live interview is arranged.

and I repeat nobody I know has ever been asked and thats a lot of people.

 sebster wrote:

no meant that the increase was passed.

Fair enough.

no i'm saying the Government needs to control spending since raising taxs is not the answer.

Yes, and you're arguing that through hopelessly inconsistent reasoning. Because an increase to revenue of about $400b would cover the current deficit. The exact same maths that says a decrease in spending on $500b would resolve the deficit will also tell you that an increase in revenue of $500b will also solve the problem.

The reason you claim government the revenue solution won't work is because government can't control spending... and so you argue that government has to cut spending. One of those things makes the other impossible.

its simple math, you spend less then you bring in, that means a surplus to pay down the debt. but like I said it does not matter how much the government takes in they will always spend more then that.

Asterios wrote:
actually think we may have had a cross in words, I did not mean SS would be totally out of money, just that their trust funds are running out of money which would reduce SS payments drastically. (and yes 21% or more is drastic)

What SS pays out is mandatory, set by government. In order to cut back by 21% congress would have to pass a bill changing the current formula for calculation. It is fairly close to 0% likely they will do this, because old people vote in big numbers.

WHat is more likely is that congress will change the SS rate (possibly just remove the cap on payments). Or they will just accept it is what it is, and the shortfall will be made up by paying out of general revenue.

And that, again, is the real problem. What had been a net money earner to the Fed is now a money drain. It had offset the deficit in other areas, now it's adding to it, making the budget position worse.

not comparing, and never said there was no debt in 1930, only said it was minimal and yes I'm, aware 16 billion back then is about 22 trillion now a days.

You've even got this year's figure wrong! It's 19 trillion now.

and yet on paperwork it is still seperate, taxs are seperately collected for it and used for it.

Yep, that's what an accounting fiction is. When there's a bunch of paperwork making out that two things are seperate, but they are basically one and the same thing.

 sebster wrote:

Asterios wrote:
actually think we may have had a cross in words, I did not mean SS would be totally out of money, just that their trust funds are running out of money which would reduce SS payments drastically. (and yes 21% or more is drastic)

What SS pays out is mandatory, set by government. In order to cut back by 21% congress would have to pass a bill changing the current formula for calculation. It is fairly close to 0% likely they will do this, because old people vote in big numbers.

WHat is more likely is that congress will change the SS rate (possibly just remove the cap on payments). Or they will just accept it is what it is, and the shortfall will be made up by paying out of general revenue.

And that, again, is the real problem. What had been a net money earner to the Fed is now a money drain. It had offset the deficit in other areas, now it's adding to it, making the budget position worse.

not comparing, and never said there was no debt in 1930, only said it was minimal and yes I'm, aware 16 billion back then is about 22 trillion now a days.

You've even got this year's figure wrong! It's 19 trillion now.

earlier said they were nearing 20 trillion and meant that, give it a year or two and it will be there.

also like I said Congress has already said they will not allow DI to dip into SS so that means disability SS recipients will get a reduction.

A debate about where funding will come from is not the same thing as a debate about whether something will be funded at all.

Asterios wrote:
earlier said they were nearing 20 trillion and meant that, give it a year or two and it will be there.

Sure, it will get there. The five year estimate would certainly go past 20 trillion, and almost certainly put it well above 22 trillion. But it is still 19 trillion right now. That is the number that it is right now.

Thing is, one day it will hit 100 trillion. That's just how it works. The point is that by the time it gets there, hopefully GDP will have grown to be a lot more than 100 trillion. It isn't about the number, it's about how manageable that number is given the GDP at that point in time.

also like I said Congress has already said they will not allow DI to dip into SS so that means disability SS recipients will get a reduction.

Sure, but that's something else entirely. Congress telling one group that they can't use SS funds to offset their shortfall doesn't say that SS isn't part and parcel of government. That the question was even asked is evidence that SS is part of government.

And the disabled getting a bad deal is probably as reliable a rule as the retired never, ever getting a bad deal. All about voting power. Mind you the number of disabled in the US is growing...

Asterios wrote:

so they asked people who still have phones and most likely jobs, most people without jobs cannot afford things like a house or phone.

Really? Because when I was unemployed I still had a support network that could provide me with shelter and a phone.

Pretty sure that's a standard condition for US 22-year-olds.

Asterios wrote:

 sebster wrote:
Nope, the sample is selected, and if people don't have a phone then a live interview is arranged.

and I repeat nobody I know has ever been asked and thats a lot of people.

I don't believe I've ever seen anyone use this metric to gauge the veracity of a given statistic before. By this method, I can claim that there is no such thing as outer space, because I don't personally know anyone who is an astronaut.

 Ouze wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 sebster wrote:
Nope, the sample is selected, and if people don't have a phone then a live interview is arranged.

and I repeat nobody I know has ever been asked and thats a lot of people.

I don't believe I've ever seen anyone use this metric to gauge the veracity of a given statistic before. By this method, I can claim that there is no such thing as outer space, because I don't personally know anyone who is an astronaut.

Well that just blows that whole "Landing on the Moon" thing right up.

And they'd almost got away with it....

 sebster wrote:

Asterios wrote:
earlier said they were nearing 20 trillion and meant that, give it a year or two and it will be there.

Sure, it will get there. The five year estimate would certainly go past 20 trillion, and almost certainly put it well above 22 trillion. But it is still 19 trillion right now. That is the number that it is right now.

Thing is, one day it will hit 100 trillion. That's just how it works. The point is that by the time it gets there, hopefully GDP will have grown to be a lot more than 100 trillion. It isn't about the number, it's about how manageable that number is given the GDP at that point in time.

also like I said Congress has already said they will not allow DI to dip into SS so that means disability SS recipients will get a reduction.

Sure, but that's something else entirely. Congress telling one group that they can't use SS funds to offset their shortfall doesn't say that SS isn't part and parcel of government. That the question was even asked is evidence that SS is part of government.

And the disabled getting a bad deal is probably as reliable a rule as the retired never, ever getting a bad deal. All about voting power. Mind you the number of disabled in the US is growing...

actually DI is part of SS its handled separately, but still part of it and about to get screwed since they lost access to that money, just like the Retired people on Medicare got a screw over with the ACA it cut into their medical coverage big time, furthermore I know for a fact SS benefits do get reduced wholesale, especially in California a friend of my Wife has had her SSI (the state portion) reduced pretty much every year by a percentage.

 dogma wrote:

Asterios wrote:

so they asked people who still have phones and most likely jobs, most people without jobs cannot afford things like a house or phone.

Really? Because when I was unemployed I still had a support network that could provide me with shelter and a phone.

Pretty sure that's a standard condition for US 22-year-olds.

really where is this utopia where you live? I see a bunch of 20 somethings with no homes and no means around here(Stockton,Ca.)?

 Ouze wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 sebster wrote:
Nope, the sample is selected, and if people don't have a phone then a live interview is arranged.

and I repeat nobody I know has ever been asked and thats a lot of people.

I don't believe I've ever seen anyone use this metric to gauge the veracity of a given statistic before. By this method, I can claim that there is no such thing as outer space, because I don't personally know anyone who is an astronaut.

and where is the evidence these surveys take place?

Asterios wrote:

really where is this utopia where you live? I see a bunch of 20 somethings with no homes and no means around here(Stockton,Ca.)?

The United States? I'm sure there are a bunch of homeless 20 somethings, but I'm also willing to bet they are massively outnumbered by the 20 somethings with a support network.

 dogma wrote:

Asterios wrote:

really where is this utopia where you live? I see a bunch of 20 somethings with no homes and no means around here(Stockton,Ca.)?

The United States? I'm sure there are a bunch of homeless 20 somethings, but I'm also willing to bet they are massively outnumbered by the 20 somethings with a support network.

and yet there are still many without that so called support network which was my point, can't call or contact someone who has no home or phone.

Asterios wrote:

and yet there are still many without that so called support network which was my point, can't call or contact someone who has no home or phone.

"So called support network"? Really? I'm not talking about much, here. I'm talking about having parents, or other relatives, that aren't complete donkey-caves. Hell, even just a friend that will let you couch surf for a bit and spot you 30 bucks for a prepaid phone.

If you don't have those connections, then life is gonna suck, because being homeless sucks in general. But that is a problem which has to be tackled from multiple angles, with job creation being way down the line in terms of priority.

 dogma wrote:

Asterios wrote:

and yet there are still many without that so called support network which was my point, can't call or contact someone who has no home or phone.

"So called support network"? Really? I'm not talking about much, here. I'm talking about having parents, or other relatives, that aren't complete donkey-caves. Hell, even just a friend that will let you couch surf for a bit and spot you 30 bucks for a prepaid phone.

If you don't have those connections, then life is gonna suck, because being homeless sucks in general. But that is a problem which has to be tackled from multiple angles, with job creation being way down the line in terms of priority.

you would be surprised, homelessness is running rampant with people in Sacramento fighting for right to camp in open, Stockton talking about building a temporary shelter and so on, hell in my town we have a large plot of land where people are camped out in. and many of the younger homeless are not from the area but moved out here looking for work or whatnot not realizing it is just as bad here.

Asterios wrote:

you would be surprised, homelessness is running rampant with people in Sacramento fighting for right to camp in open, Stockton talking about building a temporary shelter and so on, hell in my town we have a large plot of land where people are camped out in.

Homelessness is not "running rampant" in Sacramento. You're talking about ~3000 people in a county of ~1.5 million.

Asterios wrote:

and many of the younger homeless are not from the area but moved out here looking for work or whatnot not realizing it is just as bad here.

So they abandoned their support networks. Out of curiosity, how many of them wanted to work in entertainment?

Things are fine in my ZIP code, so everybody that says that people have problems is lying.

 dogma wrote:

Asterios wrote:

you would be surprised, homelessness is running rampant with people in Sacramento fighting for right to camp in open, Stockton talking about building a temporary shelter and so on, hell in my town we have a large plot of land where people are camped out in.

Homelessness is not "running rampant" in Sacramento. You're talking about ~3000 people in a county of ~1.5 million.

Asterios wrote:

and many of the younger homeless are not from the area but moved out here looking for work or whatnot not realizing it is just as bad here.

So they abandoned their support networks. Out of curiosity, how many of them wanted to work in entertainment?

maybe not rampant but growing. right now homelessness across the country is below 1%, but still we should be doing something about our own problems instead of worrying about other countries, our government is willing to help people from other countries before helping ours.

http://sacramentostepsforward.org/understanding-homelessness/point-in-time-pit-scope-size-populations/

as to entertainment, not here maybe down south in the entertainment areas, but up north here, not much for entertainment.

 d-usa wrote:
Things are fine in my ZIP code, so everybody that says that people have problems is lying.

I'm not sure ZIP codes are a good metric, seeing as I cross through 5 on my way to the office.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Asterios wrote:

maybe not rampant but growing. right now homelessness across the country is below 1%

No, actually the homeless population has held steady across the entire country.

Asterios wrote:

but still we should be doing something about our own problems instead of worrying about other countries, our government is willing to help people from other countries before helping ours.

Yeah, that's not even remotely true. The amount of money put into social security and medicaid absolutely dwarfs the amount of money put into foreign aid.