17 minutes ago, The Norseman said:

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. 

Well first of all it doesn’t stop the speculation. The data can be correct and yet the source logic incorrect and still result in checks being sent improperly. 

The reason we shouldn’t be updating the data in this case is because the limited resources should be used to fix actual issues instead of "fixing” something that isn’t a problem. 

35 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

Well first of all it doesn’t stop the speculation. The data can be correct and yet the source logic incorrect and still result in checks being sent improperly. 

The reason we shouldn’t be updating the data in this case is because the limited resources should be used to fix actual issues instead of "fixing” something that isn’t a problem. 

Unhinged TDS causing outrage over a basic data cleanup initiative. 🤣🤣

Good god you have it bad. 

 

Another 15 billion saved!

2 minutes ago, The Norseman said:

Unhinged TDS causing outrage over a basic data cleanup initiative. 🤣🤣

Good god you have it bad. 

It has nothing to do with TDS. It is a waste of tax payer money.

I get you don’t understand the technical aspects but you have several IT/Software professionals in here explaining it to you. It is like arguing with Vikas about hedge funds. 

17 hours ago, Phillyterp85 said:

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.  

Both parties are to blame for entitlements, yet one created them, wants to raise taxes to expand them and actively blocks any attempt to reform them.

Ok buddy. 

Just now, DrPhilly said:

It has nothing to do with TDS. It is a waste of tax payer money.

I get you don’t understand the technical aspects but you have several IT/Software professionals in here explaining it to you. It is like arguing with Vikas about hedge funds. 

I run business transformations for enterprises all over the world, so no,  I don't need a "software professional" to explain to me how or why you would work around bad data. 

The fact is that data cleansing is a important part of any large organizational change. If data can't be easily cleansed then you find ways to work around it.  

Sure, maybe their resources could be used better elsewhere, but I hardly think this is worth being outraged about. 

11 minutes ago, The Norseman said:

I run business transformations for enterprises all over the world, so no,  I don't need a "software professional" to explain to me how or why you would work around bad data. 

The fact is that data cleansing is a important part of any large organizational change. If data can't be easily cleansed then you find ways to work around it.  

Sure, maybe their resources could be used better elsewhere, but I hardly think this is worth being outraged about. 

You're reading it as data cleansing.

It's not.

It's people who don't know what the data means making assumptions about which fields means what. 

Maybe the systems didn't have a proper data dictionary. Or maybe DOGE just ignored them because they thought they knew better.

I've worked with organizations like DOGE. They fail universally when they operate in this way.

Convicted felon hires criminal to do his dirty work. Typical. 

DOGE staffer 'Big Balls' provided tech support to cybercrime ring, records show

https://www.yahoo.com/news/exclusive-doge-staffer-big-balls-100814927.html

WILMINGTON, Delaware (Reuters) -The best-known member of Elon Musk's U.S. DOGE Service team of technologists once provided support to a cybercrime gang that bragged about trafficking in stolen data and cyberstalking an FBI agent, according to digital records reviewed by Reuters.

Edward Coristine is among the most visible members of the DOGE effort that has been given sweeping access to official networks as it attempts to radically downsize the U.S. government.

I'm sure 'Big Balls' has totally not been solicited by Russia and other infosec foes with promises of money, cocaine, and hookers in exchange for national security secrets.

39 minutes ago, The Norseman said:

I run business transformations for enterprises all over the world, so no,  I don't need a "software professional" to explain to me how or why you would work around bad data. 

The fact is that data cleansing is a important part of any large organizational change. If data can't be easily cleansed then you find ways to work around it.  

Sure, maybe their resources could be used better elsewhere, but I hardly think this is worth being outraged about. 

God you must be really bad at your work.  When the system is rewritten and the data is migrated it will get cleaned up. Cleaning it in place is completely worthless. The current exercise by DOGE is 100% performant.  Remember the ancient piece of wisdom "don't fix it if it ain't broke".

34 minutes ago, The Norseman said:

Both parties are to blame for entitlements, yet one created them, wants to raise taxes to expand them and actively blocks any attempt to reform them.

Ok buddy. 

Yes, a democrat president created these programs.  

Democrats AND Republicans have increased taxes to fund these programs and Democrats AND Republicans have expanded the payouts to these programs.

You are ignorant of history if you believe otherwise.  This is not a subjective thing.  These are basic objective facts.  Republican presidents have signed laws that raised taxes for these programs.  Republican presidents have signed laws that greatly expanded the payouts to these programs. 
When FDR created social security, it was a 1% tax paid by each the employer and employee, and only applied to your first $68,000 (in today’s dollars of earnings).  
Today, it’s a 6.2% tax paid by each the employer and employee and applies to your first $176,000 in earnings.

If you think only democrats are responsible for this, then you are either ignorant of history or a partisan fool.  

 

1 minute ago, Phillyterp85 said:

Yes, a democrat president created these programs.  

Democrats AND Republicans have increased taxes to fund these programs and Democrats AND Republicans have expanded the payouts to these programs.

You are ignorant of history if you believe otherwise.  This is not a subjective thing.  These are basic objective facts.  Republican presidents have signed laws that raised taxes for these programs.  Republican presidents have signed laws that greatly expanded the payouts to these programs. 
When FDR created social security, it was a 1% tax paid by each the employer and employee, and only applied to your first $68,000 (in today’s dollars of earnings).  
Today, it’s a 6.2% tax paid by each the employer and employee and applies to your first $176,000 in earnings.

If you think only democrats are responsible for this, then you are either ignorant of history or a partisan fool.  

 

Democrats are responsible  Republican's have contributed. 

2 minutes ago, The Norseman said:

Democrats are responsible  Republican's have contributed. 

I haven't followed this but one but based on this post it appears you agree the Republicans are partially responsible but you place most of the blame on Democrats.

17 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

God you must be really bad at your work.  When the system is rewritten and the data is migrated it will get cleaned up. Cleaning it in place is completely worthless. The current exercise by DOGE is 100% performant.  Remember the ancient piece of wisdom "don't fix it if it ain't broke".

"Business transformation" doesn't make him any sort of expert on data cleansing.

And this has nothing to do with data cleansing. 

Having legacy and unused columns in older databases is an inevitable side effect as systems mature and incorporate new requirements.

Sometimes teams are diligent and drop columns. Sometimes dropping columns on massive tables represents a bad risk-reward proposition. 

Data produced for BI can be totally clean coming from systems that have columns long abandoned. 

These idiots probably started looking at the database directly without knowing and understanding what columns and tables are active and which are legacy/historical and not in active use. 

13 minutes ago, The Norseman said:

Democrats are responsible  Republican's have contributed. 

lol whatever semantics you have to play to avoid placing accountability on your party....

19 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

I haven't followed this but one but based on this post it appears you agree the Republicans are partially responsible but you place most of the blame on Democrats.

Yes you see the Republicans have contributed to the problem but aren't responsible for their contributions....

14 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

"Business transformation" doesn't make him any sort of expert on data cleansing.

That much is VERY clear.

10 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

Yes you see the Republicans have contributed to the problem but aren't responsible for their contributions....

Yea except, that I've clearly said that Republicans are guilty of either kicking the can or allowing the can to be kicked down the road.  They also could have been far more aggressive in trying to legislate significant reform to Social Security.  But, of course, they couldn't garner the votes. 

But to suggest that those things are the same as creating the programs themselves, regularly working to expand them and reserving space for battling entitlement reform at or near the top of every Democrat candidate's platform for the last 50 years is complete nonsense.

1 minute ago, The Norseman said:

Yea except, that I've clearly said that Republicans are guilty of either kicking the can or allowing the can to be kicked down the road.  They also could have been far more aggressive in trying to legislate significant reform to Social Security.  But, of course, they couldn't garner the votes. 

But to suggest that those things are the same as creating the programs themselves, regularly working to expand them and reserving space for battling entitlement reform at or near the top of every Democrat candidate's platform for the last 50 years is complete nonsense.

Republicans have also been regularly working to expand those programs.  That's the part you keep missing (either intentionally or unintentionally). 

I get it, you are prey to partisan politics to protect "your" party. 

Nixon signs into law the greatest expansion of SS expenditures in history, and you justify it. 

Numerous Republican presidents sign into law SS tax rate increases, and you ignore it. 

Republicans haven't just been kicking the can down the road or allowing it to be kicked down the road.  They are just as much to blame as the democrats when it comes to the expansion of social security, but for some reason, you don't want to admit it.   It's ok, you can admit it.  They won't kick you out of the fan club. 

34 minutes ago, The Norseman said:

Yea except, that I've clearly said that Republicans are guilty of either kicking the can or allowing the can to be kicked down the road.  They also could have been far more aggressive in trying to legislate significant reform to Social Security.  But, of course, they couldn't garner the votes. 

But to suggest that those things are the same as creating the programs themselves, regularly working to expand them and reserving space for battling entitlement reform at or near the top of every Democrat candidate's platform for the last 50 years is complete nonsense.

So let's just look at the SS tax rate so we can dispel one of your myths shall we?  (we'll look at total tax rate)

When FDR created SS, it was a 2% tax on the first $3,000 in earnings

Under Truman, the tax rate was increased to 3% and the income threshold to $3,600

Under Eisenhower, the rate was increased to 6% and the income threshold to $4,800.

Under Kennedy/Johnson, the rate was increased to 7.6% and the income threshold to $7,800

Under Nixon, the rate was increased to 9.9% and the income threshold to $13,200

Under Ford, the rate stayed the same and the income threshold increased to $15,300

Under Carter, the rate increased to 10.16% and the threshold to $25,900. And importantly, Carter signed into law legislation that indexed the income threshold to average wage growth, resulting automatic increases to the income threshold. 

Under Reagan,  the rate increased to 12.12%.

Under GHWB, the rate increased to 12.4%, where it has stayed ever since.

Since it's inception, the SS tax rate has gone up 10.4 points, and republican presidents are responsible for 7.54 points (73%) of those rate increases.

So as I said, democrats and republicans are responsible for the expansion of social security taxes. 

3 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

So let's just look at the SS tax rate so we can dispel one of your myths shall we?  (we'll look at total tax rate)

When FDR created SS, it was a 2% tax on the first $3,000 in earnings

Under Truman, the tax rate was increased to 3% and the income threshold to $3,600

Under Eisenhower, the rate was increased to 6% and the income threshold to $4,800.

Under Kennedy/Johnson, the rate was increased to 7.6% and the income threshold to $7,800

Under Nixon, the rate was increased to 9.9% and the income threshold to $13,200

Under Ford, the rate stayed the same and the income threshold increased to $15,300

Under Carter, the rate increased to 10.16% and the threshold to $25,900. And importantly, Carter signed into law legislation that indexed the income threshold to average wage growth, resulting automatic increases to the income threshold. 

Under Reagan,  the rate increased to 12.12%.

Under GHWB, the rate increased to 12.4%, where it has stayed ever since. 

So as I said, democrats and republicans are responsible for the expansion of social security taxes. 

COLA rates increase automatically as part of the bill that Nixon put forward.  So all the COLA increases post Nixon had to happen by law. 

What you are missing is that Social Security didn't start to financially deteriorate until the early 80s. Prior to that it was more mutually accepted and increases and expansions were just handouts for votes used by both parties.  Obviously not good in hindsight, but it wasn't pouring gasoline on a brush fire. 

Once it was clear that the system was imploding the Republican's pivoted hard to take aim on reforming it.  Democrats opposed reform then and still do. 

So while Republicans grew the program while it was still "healthy", Democrats want to grow it now that its broken and oppose any reform despite the program's dire financial state. 

1 hour ago, The Norseman said:

COLA rates increase automatically as part of the bill that Nixon put forward.  So all the COLA increases post Nixon had to happen by law. 

What you are missing is that Social Security didn't start to financially deteriorate until the early 80s. Prior to that it was more mutually accepted and increases and expansions were just handouts for votes used by both parties.  Obviously not good in hindsight, but it wasn't pouring gasoline on a brush fire. 

Once it was clear that the system was imploding the Republican's pivoted hard to take aim on reforming it.  Democrats opposed reform then and still do. 

So while Republicans grew the program while it was still "healthy", Democrats want to grow it now that its broken and oppose any reform despite the program's dire financial state. 

What I posted had nothing to do with COLA increases.  COLA is in regards to the OUTLAYS from the government for social security.  What I posted was the TAX RATES, i.e the COLLECTIONS by the government.  You've made the false claim numerous times that it's only been the democrats that have worked to expand the social security taxes.  That is 10000% false. 

If you would like to discuss the COLA increases signed by Nixon as well, we certainly can.  The legislation passed by Nixon is responsible for the largest increases in SS outlays.  It's not even a question.  Prior to that law, congress had to pass legislation for any COLA adjustment.  The law Nixon signed provided a 1 time 20% COLA adjustment to the baseline and provided for AUTOMATIC increases to the outlays tied to inflation.    Just as the legislation Carter signed into law is responsible for the largest increases in the income threshold as it made those increases AUTOMATIC.  

"What you are missing is that Social Security didn't start to financially deteriorate until the early 80s."

lol yeah I wonder if the legislation signed by Nixon that drastically increased outlays had anything to do with that......

Taking away something most voters have paid into their entire lives should work out really well for republicans. 

21 minutes ago, Gannan said:

Taking away something most voters have paid into their entire lives should work out really well for republicans. 

There would certainly have to be a phase out if we were to get rid of social security.   You'd have to start out at some current age at which people still receive 100% of their planned benefits and then phase out on a yearly basis until you get to 0 benefits. 

e.g. People who are currently age 50 still get 100% of benefits, and people who are 49 get 90, 48 get 80, and so on and so forth down to age 40 get 0.   Of course the problem is that since SS is a ponzi scheme, the government would still need to collect taxes for a while to still be able to make those payouts.  

12 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

There would certainly have to be a phase out if we were to get rid of social security.   You'd have to start out at some current age at which people still receive 100% of their planned benefits and then phase out on a yearly basis until you get to 0 benefits. 

e.g. People who are currently age 50 still get 100% of benefits, and people who are 49 get 90, 48 get 80, and so on and so forth down to age 40 get 0.   Of course the problem is that since SS is a ponzi scheme, the government would still need to collect taxes for a while to still be able to make those payouts.  

Musk doesn't strike me as that strategic.