March 25, 2025Mar 25 5 minutes ago, Paul852 said: So you have a bit of a heart I understand your rationale for punishing irresponsibility though. What I am vehemently against is what we are doing now -- sending more money to irresponsible parents based on how many kids they have. We need to make sure the assistance goes to the children only. So free medical care for kids -- yes, and just reimburse providers and don't let the parents take any of the money. Free education and meals at school. I support these things to create as close to equal opportunity as we can get.
March 25, 2025Mar 25 9 minutes ago, vikas83 said: What I am vehemently against is what we are doing now -- sending more money to irresponsible parents based on how many kids they have. We need to make sure the assistance goes to the children only. So free medical care for kids -- yes, and just reimburse providers and don't let the parents take any of the money. Free education and meals at school. I support these things to create as close to equal opportunity as we can get. With a rare chime-in - I think school hours should extend a bit so that parent(s) can more easily manage a work schedule. And you people are also long overdue to eliminate summer holiday. You get one fortnight holiday each season - the kids can F off if they don't like it.
March 25, 2025Mar 25 2 minutes ago, DEagle7 said: Vikas' view on what to do with the poor I think the sweaty ones would make great batteries (like in the Matrix). Or each one could power a Tesla
March 25, 2025Mar 25 2 hours ago, Phillyterp85 said: lol no I didn't google anything there, that was knowledge I already had. "1.) Mandatory spending is required by law. It can only be changed by congress" Thanks for repeating info I already told you. Not sure your point here. "and Democrats have stood in the way for decades." Once again, republicans have held control of both the executive and legislative branches at the same time numerous times over the years, and not once have they enacted cuts to these programs. It's almost as if they don't want to make cuts to those programs because republicans ALSO have senior citizen constituents...... "2.) Social Security Cola increases happen regularly in order to keep up with inflation." - LOLOL. In other words "When significant spending increases happen under republican administrations, it's justified!!!" "3.) Social Security is a terrible program that is rapidly going bankrupt" - I agree. If it were up to me, I'd end the program tomorrow. It's a ponzi scheme and it literally robs people of a better retirement. "Democrats, completely content with it's waste, fraud and inefficiency are more than happy to enact more taxes upon the American people to further kick the can down the road and keep it on life support. " - Once again you are proving to be ignorant of history and facts. Republicans have also raises social security taxes multiple times over the years. Hard to take you seriously on this topic when you are blind to reality and only want to hold 1 party accountable when the facts are that both republican and democrat administrations and legislators are responsible for this program. "Republicans at least want to fix it" - No they don't. You can tell yourself that fun little lie to make yourself feel better if you'd like. Republican legislators no just as well as their democrat counterparts that if they enact cuts to the program, they will lose votes. I'm not saying that Republicans haven't contributed to this problem, but Democrats created all of these programs and defend them to this day. Damn hard to stop a train when its already in motion. Examples of COLA increases that happened to be passed under Republicans is literal noise. COLAs happen under presidents of both sides, the most recent of which was under Biden. If the program is in play, then benefits need to keep pace with inflation. Saying that Republicans don't want to fix social security is utter nonsense. George Bush, Paul Ryan, Newt Gingrich, John Boehner and many others over the years have introduced plans to reform social security. There has been zero support form Democrats to make any of these changes and they have actively worked against both the proposals and the proposers in every case. In contrast, Democrats only solution has been to EXPAND the programs and raise taxes to support further the growth of entitlements. Legislative reform would be great, but you'd need a massive majority. Not a single Democrat would vote in favor of privatization or changes to the structure of the program. Their only solution is to raise taxes. Pretty hard to get Republicans on board in election years too...especially if they are from retirement states like Florida or Arizona. I agree that Republicans could do a lot more to fix the problem, but to pretend that how we got here is an equally bi-partisan problem is completely disingenuous.
March 25, 2025Mar 25 On their homepage DOGE is marketing the fact that they have cleaned up the deceased data field in millions of records of the database. A waste of time and money since those people were NOT getting SS checks anyway. A pure marketing tactic.
March 25, 2025Mar 25 27 minutes ago, The Norseman said: I'm not saying that Republicans haven't contributed to this problem, but Democrats created all of these programs and defend them to this day. Damn hard to stop a train when its already in motion. Examples of COLA increases that happened to be passed under Republicans is literal noise. COLAs happen under presidents of both sides, the most recent of which was under Biden. If the program is in play, then benefits need to keep pace with inflation. Saying that Republicans don't want to fix social security is utter nonsense. George Bush, Paul Ryan, Newt Gingrich, John Boehner and many others over the years have introduced plans to reform social security. There has been zero support form Democrats to make any of these changes and they have actively worked against both the proposals and the proposers in every case. In contrast, Democrats only solution has been to EXPAND the programs and raise taxes to support further the growth of entitlements. Legislative reform would be great, but you'd need a massive majority. Not a single Democrat would vote in favor of privatization or changes to the structure of the program. Their only solution is to raise taxes. Pretty hard to get Republicans on board in election years too...especially if they are from retirement states like Florida or Arizona. I agree that Republicans could do a lot more to fix the problem, but to pretend that how we got here is an equally bi-partisan problem is completely disingenuous. And republicans defend them to this day as well. You keep leaving out that part…. No, the COLA increase legislation in 72 isn’t "noise”. It’s what led to the significant rise in SS spending compared to how it worked prior to that legislation going into effect. "Legislative reform would be great, but you'd need a massive majority.” no you don’t. Since we are talking about a reduction in spending, you don’t even have to come up with phony "phase out” restrictions to meet the deficit neutral requirements of the budget reconciliation process. So all they need is a 50-50 tie in the senate and the VP cast the tie breaking vote. Just like they did for the tax reforms. So what you are telling me is that republicans are able to pass deficit INCREASING legislation with no problem with a 51-49 senate majority. But can’t possibly pass deficit REDUCING legislation with that same simple majority. Thank you for proving my point for me.
March 25, 2025Mar 25 26 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said: And republicans defend them to this day as well. You keep leaving out that part…. No, the COLA increase legislation in 72 isn’t "noise”. It’s what led to the significant rise in SS spending compared to how it worked prior to that legislation going into effect. "Legislative reform would be great, but you'd need a massive majority.” no you don’t. Since we are talking about a reduction in spending, you don’t even have to come up with phony "phase out” restrictions to meet the deficit neutral requirements of the budget reconciliation process. So all they need is a 50-50 tie in the senate and the VP cast the tie breaking vote. Just like they did for the tax reforms. So what you are telling me is that republicans are able to pass deficit INCREASING legislation with no problem with a 51-49 senate majority. But can’t possibly pass deficit REDUCING legislation with that same simple majority. Thank you for proving my point for me. You'd need a massive majority because some republicans wouldn't vote for reform because it has historically been political suicide. Where do you think that stigma comes from? I notice that you are selectively ignoring my points about Democrats actively working to thwart any attempt to reform social security. Do you support increasing taxes and expanding entitlements? I get that you're mad at Republicans for not forcing the issue to a vote, I am too. But Democrats are infinitely more to blame for the creation, defense and active opposition of any reform to entitlements. They openly promote their opposition to any "cuts" to entitlements as a hallmark of all their national (and many local) campaigns. So to be honest, I don't know what the hell you are even arguing about.
March 25, 2025Mar 25 48 minutes ago, DrPhilly said: On their homepage DOGE is marketing the fact that they have cleaned up the deceased data field in millions of records of the database. A waste of time and money since those people were NOT getting SS checks anyway. A pure marketing tactic. Cleaning up bad data gets you to accurate baselines, a critical first step of any transformation.
March 25, 2025Mar 25 2 minutes ago, The Norseman said: Cleaning up bad data gets you to accurate baselines, a critical first step of any transformation. Every database used for more than five minutes ends up having columns that get transformed out into new columns as new requirements come into play. As these people weren't getting SS checks they were clearly looking at an obsolete column no longer in use. Probably a deprecated column that should have been removed but wasn't. This is what happens when you fire people who actually know the systems because your 19 year old overpaid script kiddies have inflated senses of self worth.
March 25, 2025Mar 25 7 minutes ago, The Norseman said: Cleaning up bad data gets you to accurate baselines, a critical first step of any transformation. Spending money and time on cleaning up records that are obsolete and already managed by the logic in the source code is wasteful. There is nothing to be gained.
March 25, 2025Mar 25 I'm supposed to be getting my disability by either Friday or Monday, and I'm scared to death that it's not going to be in my account.
March 25, 2025Mar 25 28 minutes ago, The Norseman said: You'd need a massive majority because some republicans wouldn't vote for reform because it has historically been political suicide. Where do you think that stigma comes from? I notice that you are selectively ignoring my points about Democrats actively working to thwart any attempt to reform social security. Do you support increasing taxes and expanding entitlements? I get that you're mad at Republicans for not forcing the issue to a vote, I am too. But Democrats are infinitely more to blame for the creation, defense and active opposition of any reform to entitlements. They openly promote their opposition to any "cuts" to entitlements as a hallmark of all their national (and many local) campaigns. So to be honest, I don't know what the hell you are even arguing about. I haven’t ignored any of your points. Where have I denied that democrats have been against cutting social security? Oh that’s right, nowhere. What I have said, repeatedly, is that republicans have ALSO been against cutting social security. ALSO means "in addition to” in this instance. As in, in addition to the democrats. As in BOTH parties are to blame. You however want to excuse all accountability from republicans… ill give GWB credit, he at least had a plan to take a portion of social security and turn it into a personalized retirement account.
March 25, 2025Mar 25 8 hours ago, vikas83 said: I am for eliminating SS Agree. Even at the age of 45 I would opt-out of SS if I could invest my paycheck and employer SS taxes into a 401k account.
March 26, 2025Mar 26 5 hours ago, Arthur Jackson said: With a rare chime-in - I think school hours should extend a bit so that parent(s) can more easily manage a work schedule. And you people are also long overdue to eliminate summer holiday. You get one fortnight holiday each season - the kids can F off if they don't like it.
March 26, 2025Mar 26 6 hours ago, vikas83 said: What I am vehemently against is what we are doing now -- sending more money to irresponsible parents based on how many kids they have. We need to make sure the assistance goes to the children only. So free medical care for kids -- yes, and just reimburse providers and don't let the parents take any of the money. Free education and meals at school. I support these things to create as close to equal opportunity as we can get.
March 26, 2025Mar 26 Under this proposal: Individuals would be allowed to divert their half (6.2 percentage points) of the payroll tax to individually owned, privately invested accounts. Those who chose to do so would agree to forgo all future accrual of retirement benefits under the traditional Social Security system. The remaining 6.2 percentage points of payroll taxes would be used to pay transition costs and to fund disability and survivors’ benefits. Workers who chose the individual account option would receive a "recognition bond” based on the accrued value of their lifetime-to-date benefits. Those bonds, redeemable at the worker’s retirement, would be fully tradable in secondary markets. Those who wished to remain in the traditional Social Security system would be free to do so, accepting a level of benefits payable with the current level of revenue. https://www.cato.org/social-security-choice-paper/62-percent-solution-plan-reforming-social-security
March 26, 2025Mar 26 20 minutes ago, greenskeeper said: Newton, and to a lesser degree (pun intended) Gottfried Leibniz, would point out the negative inflection occurring near 2010. This illustrates both the deficiencies of Malthusian theory and the efficacy of industrial development in the reduction of birth rates. But that might just be the Fireball talking.
March 26, 2025Mar 26 20 minutes ago, greenskeeper said: Newton, and to a lesser degree (pun intended) Gottfried Leibniz, would point out the negative inflection occurring near 2010. This illustrates both the deficiencies of Malthusian theory and the efficacy of industrial development in the reduction of birth rates. But that might just be the Fireball talking.
March 26, 2025Mar 26 3 minutes ago, Tnt4philly said: Under this proposal: Individuals would be allowed to divert their half (6.2 percentage points) of the payroll tax to individually owned, privately invested accounts. Those who chose to do so would agree to forgo all future accrual of retirement benefits under the traditional Social Security system. The remaining 6.2 percentage points of payroll taxes would be used to pay transition costs and to fund disability and survivors’ benefits. Workers who chose the individual account option would receive a "recognition bond” based on the accrued value of their lifetime-to-date benefits. Those bonds, redeemable at the worker’s retirement, would be fully tradable in secondary markets. Those who wished to remain in the traditional Social Security system would be free to do so, accepting a level of benefits payable with the current level of revenue. https://www.cato.org/social-security-choice-paper/62-percent-solution-plan-reforming-social-security Cato the Elder, the Younger, or Kaelin?
March 26, 2025Mar 26 1 hour ago, Tnt4philly said: Under this proposal: Individuals would be allowed to divert their half (6.2 percentage points) of the payroll tax to individually owned, privately invested accounts. Those who chose to do so would agree to forgo all future accrual of retirement benefits under the traditional Social Security system. The remaining 6.2 percentage points of payroll taxes would be used to pay transition costs and to fund disability and survivors’ benefits. Workers who chose the individual account option would receive a "recognition bond” based on the accrued value of their lifetime-to-date benefits. Those bonds, redeemable at the worker’s retirement, would be fully tradable in secondary markets. Those who wished to remain in the traditional Social Security system would be free to do so, accepting a level of benefits payable with the current level of revenue. https://www.cato.org/social-security-choice-paper/62-percent-solution-plan-reforming-social-security Man what I'd give for this to have gone through.
March 26, 2025Mar 26 Tidbit - The Swedish govt aid organization SIDA has recently (just prior to DOGE shutting down USAID) sent about $20M to USAID earmarked for specific aid deliveries in various parts of the world. That money has not been delivered to the target receivers, i.e. the US govt has not fulfilled its contractual obligation. SIDA is now requesting that the funds be returned based on the lack of fulfillment. Of course, their emails bounce and no one answers the phone.
March 26, 2025Mar 26 16 hours ago, DrPhilly said: Spending money and time on cleaning up records that are obsolete and already managed by the logic in the source code is wasteful. There is nothing to be gained. I don't see how it could possibly be conceived that it is a bad idea to clean up data that has led to decades of speculation that Social Security checks have been going to the dead. Whether they have or they haven't this stops the argument for good. That's a good thing for Social Security and a good thing for our country.
Create an account or sign in to comment