Proposed massive cuts to Social Security

[xxlt]

(12-13-2016, 06:22 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: I don't think that would help much.  The govt will print money to pay its obligations, whether that includes SS or not, and the resulting inflation would make that "lock box" worth pennies on the dollar.  Or they don't print money and default on other obligations, and the dollar gets crushed.

That is the Trump plan, right? 

[*michaelsean*]

(12-14-2016, 07:26 PM)xxlt Wrote: Not surprisingly, your analysis is incorrect. 

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/what-impact-would-eliminating/

Quote:Yeah, lift the wage cap so EVERYONE pays in at the same rate on EVERY dollar earned. Problem solved.

I'm sorry where's the part where you said you wouldn't increase their benefits? Is that even legal?

The column says the percentage of covered earnings dropped from 90% in 1982 to 85% in 2005. What has been the average of percentage of covered earnings since its inception? As best as I can tell it's 83%.

Btw I replied to your original post very politely. Why the condescending tone? Especially when it was your error that led to my post. You're the only person who has a consistent problem with me, and for the life of me I can't figure out why.

[xxlt]

(12-15-2016, 10:08 AM)michaelsean Wrote: I'm sorry where's the part where you said you wouldn't increase their benefits?  Is that even legal?

The column says the percentage of covered earnings dropped from 90% in 1982 to 85% in 2005.  What has been the average of percentage of covered earnings since its inception?  As best as I can tell it's 83%.

Btw I replied to your original post very politely.  Why the condescending tone?  Especially when it was your error that led to my post.  You're the only person who has a consistent problem with me, and for the life of me I can't figure out why.

Thanks for being sorry, I guess.

I'm not sorry you didn't have time to read and understand the material in the link provided. It took me about 5 seconds to find it along with tons of other information on the issue. Another generous poster had time to read and summarize a bit of it for you. I don't. Deepest apologies. The information is there. Take it in at your own risk. No need to apologize if you still don't understand it. It is a complex matter. 

I don't have a problem with you, I simply point out, as do others, your erroneous assumptions and analysis. There is a dialogue happening across our culture right now about the problem with fake news and perpetuating ignorance and/or misinformation. I guess I, along with some other folks, have been aware of this problem for some time, and that's why I (and they) counter misinformation. I'll try to be more charming when countering your miscues. Hugs & kisses, xxlt.  

[*michaelsean*]

(12-15-2016, 12:27 PM)xxlt Wrote: Thanks for being sorry, I guess.

I'm not sorry you didn't have time to read and understand the material in the link provided. It took me about 5 seconds to find it along with tons of other information on the issue. Another generous poster had time to read and summarize a bit of it for you. I don't. Deepest apologies. The information is there. Take it in at your own risk. No need to apologize if you still don't understand it. It is a complex matter. 

I don't have a problem with you, I simply point out, as do others, your erroneous assumptions and analysis. There is a dialogue happening across our culture right now about the problem with fake news and perpetuating ignorance and/or misinformation. I guess I, along with some other folks, have been aware of this problem for some time, and that's why I (and they) counter misinformation. I'll try to be more charming when countering your miscues. Hugs & kisses, xxlt.  

I have no idea what you are babbling about fake news and misinformation.  Read my above post again.  I made it pretty simple for you.  There was no link or suggestion of not increasing benefits in your original post.

Misinformation like when your expert cherry picks a year and shows how eligible earnings have dropped?

I really don't care how you behave toward me, it was more of a curiosity. Please continue being condescending when you are incorrect.

[xxlt]

(12-15-2016, 12:51 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I have no idea what you are babbling about fake news and misinformation.  Read my above post again.  I made it pretty simple for you.  There was no link or suggestion of not increasing benefits in your original post.

Misinformation like when your expert cherry picks a year and shows how eligible earnings have dropped?

I really don't care how you behave toward me, it was more of a curiosity.  Please continue being condescending when you are incorrect.

You said raising the wage cap would just mean people who earned more would get more out in benefits. This seems to assume Social Security is a dollar in dollar out piggy bank for each contributor. It isn't. I provided a link that showed the problem of Social Security becoming insolvent in X number of years would be solved by eliminating the wage cap. The article included numbers for two different times when the calculations were run, and in both calculations the solution worked, although the numbers were slightly different in the two runs. In short, the article stated my position that removing the wage cap solves the problem is correct. 

It doesn't say, "Dear michaelsean, This solution does not also or instead mean that those who paid more in would just get more out." It should not be expected to say this, and it didn't need too say this, and it really wouldn't matter if it did since you seem to fundamentally misunderstand the specific prolem and SS in general. So, you would still misunderstand it if it contained that extraneous verbiage. 

Truth is you likely didn't look at the link provided, because you think you are correct and wouldn't look at something that said otherwise. But, giving the benefit of  the doubt that you did read it you still misunderstood the expert opinion or ignored it. For the record, I am accustomed (particularly in your case) to such phenomena - talking (authoritatively) about something you don't understand promotes misinformation and misunderstanding, as does ignoring or failing to grasp the opinions of those with deeper knowledge of such things. Unsurprisingly, you seem to also not understand this. No surprise and no problem. Peace, Love, and Karma to you.  

[Rotobeast]

(12-15-2016, 10:00 PM)xxlt Wrote: You said raising the wage cap would just mean people who earned more would get more out in benefits. This seems to assume Social Security is a dollar in dollar out piggy bank for each contributor. It isn't. I provided a link that showed the problem of Social Security becoming insolvent in X number of years would be solved by eliminating the wage cap. The article included numbers for two different times when the calculations were run, and in both calculations the solution worked, although the numbers were slightly different in the two runs. In short, the article stated my position that removing the wage cap solves the problem is correct. 

It doesn't say, "Dear michaelsean, This solution does not also or instead mean that those who paid more in would just get more out." It should not be expected to say this, and it didn't need too say this, and it really wouldn't matter if it did since you seem to fundamentally misunderstand the specific prolem and SS in general. So, you would still misunderstand it if it contained that extraneous verbiage. 

Truth is you likely didn't look at the link provided, because you think you are correct and wouldn't look at something that said otherwise. But, giving the benefit of  the doubt that you did read it you still misunderstood the expert opinion or ignored it. For the record, I am accustomed (particularly in your case) to such phenomena - talking (authoritatively) about something you don't understand promotes misinformation and misunderstanding, as does ignoring or failing to grasp the opinions of those with deeper knowledge of such things. Unsurprisingly, you seem to also not understand this. No surprise and no problem. Peace, Love, and Karma to you.  

Please include a glamour shot, in the conclusion of your next post.

I'm expecting you to look all Jessica Rabbit-like.

[*michaelsean*]

(12-15-2016, 10:00 PM)xxlt Wrote: You said raising the wage cap would just mean people who earned more would get more out in benefits. This seems to assume Social Security is a dollar in dollar out piggy bank for each contributor. It isn't. I provided a link that showed the problem of Social Security becoming insolvent in X number of years would be solved by eliminating the wage cap. The article included numbers for two different times when the calculations were run, and in both calculations the solution worked, although the numbers were slightly different in the two runs. In short, the article stated my position that removing the wage cap solves the problem is correct. 

It doesn't say, "Dear michaelsean, This solution does not also or instead mean that those who paid more in would just get more out." It should not be expected to say this, and it didn't need too say this, and it really wouldn't matter if it did since you seem to fundamentally misunderstand the specific problem and SS in general. So, you would still misunderstand it if it contained that extraneous verbiage. 

Truth is you likely didn't look at the link provided, because you think you are correct and wouldn't look at something that said otherwise. But, giving the benefit of  the doubt that you did read it you still misunderstood the expert opinion or ignored it. For the record, I am accustomed (particularly in your case) to such phenomena - talking (authoritatively) about something you don't understand promotes misinformation and misunderstanding, as does ignoring or failing to grasp the opinions of those with deeper knowledge of such things. Unsurprisingly, you seem to also not understand this. No surprise and no problem. Peace, Love, and Karma to you.  

You obviously have a hard time with chronology so...yeah.

[xxlt]

(12-16-2016, 08:13 AM)Rotobeast Wrote: Please include a glamour shot, in the conclusion of your next post.

I'm expecting you to look all Jessica Rabbit-like.

Thunder stolen. Thanks, you beast!



XOXO,
Jessica


(PS, you can come over if you like, but Roger will be hiding in the closet. )

[xxlt]

(12-16-2016, 09:52 AM)michaelsean Wrote: You obviously have a hard time with chronology so...yeah.

Admittedly, sometimes I have trouble keeping all the times it has happened in chronological order.

[*michaelsean*]

(12-16-2016, 11:55 AM)xxlt Wrote:

Admittedly, sometimes I have trouble keeping all the times it has happened in chronological order.

No just a realization that you don't understand that the order that posts occur in is relevant.  Show me your link in post #8

[xxlt]

(12-16-2016, 11:58 AM)michaelsean Wrote: No just a realization that you don't understand that the order that posts occur in is relevant.  Show me your link in post #8

Dear Mr. Chronology, Sir,

In post 8 I offered a solution. In post 37 you assessed it (wrongly). So, in post 38 - immediately after your weighed in, I provided a link illustrating that your assessment was incorrect.

(Then, because you indicated still didn't get it, I rehashed the whole history and fleshed it out a bit - not before, but after things occurred in logical and chronological order as outlined in the preceding 3 sentences.)

Now, let me say as politely and lovingly as possible that if you think this shows I do not understand chronology or the relevance of the order posts occur in, you are just - and this is said with all love and respect - too damned dumb for me to interact with.

Have a great day, filled with rainbows and fantasies, Mr. michaelsean Chronology, sir.

With deepest sympathies for your struggle,

xxlt

[*michaelsean*]

(12-16-2016, 12:21 PM)xxlt Wrote: Dear Mr. Chronology, Sir,

In post 8 I offered a solution. In post 37 you assessed it (wrongly). So, in post 38 - immediately after your weighed in, I provided a link illustrating that your assessment was incorrect.

(Then, because you indicated still didn't get it, I rehashed the whole history and fleshed it out a bit - not before, but after things occurred in logical and chronological order as outlined in the preceding 3 sentences.)

Now, let me say as politely and lovingly as possible that if you think this shows I do not understand chronology or the relevance of the order posts occur in, you are just - and this is said with all love and respect - too damned dumb for me to interact with.

Have a great day, filled with rainbows and fantasies, Mr. michaelsean Chronology, sir.

With deepest sympathies for your struggle,

xxlt

You offered part of a solution, (you forgot where they freeze the benefit cap) and then called my analysis wrong for not assuming the rest of it. You can call all the names you want, but it doesn't change the facts. But yeah, that's cool if we don't interact. You're an unpleasant person, and I try to avoid those.

[Rotobeast]

(12-16-2016, 11:49 AM)xxlt Wrote: Thunder stolen. Thanks, you beast!



XOXO,
Jessica


(PS, you can come over if you like, but Roger will be hiding in the closet. )

As long as he's willing to tickle my backside with those fuzzy ears, when the lights go out.


Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

[xxlt]

(12-16-2016, 09:00 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: As long as he's willing to tickle my backside with those fuzzy ears, when the lights go out.


Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

Promise not to give him a drink, and you've got a deal.

We can't wait to see you,



xoxo

[JustWinBaby]

(12-14-2016, 07:34 PM)xxlt Wrote: That is the Trump plan, right? 

Probably, yes...and also the Obama plan and most likely the Bush plan.  And also GB, Japan, France, Italy, etc...

Joking aside, there's a real issue here you're trying to mock and dismiss with partisan politics.

This is a great example of what I often talk about - I made a non-partisan, objective state of affairs. And you came in and politicized it when, I'll bet money, you've never expressed that concern with Obama or his policies.

Sure, if we default on our $20T in debt, then it must be Trump's fault. I don't like the guy, either, but I'm also not a partisan xxxxxx.

[xxlt]

(12-18-2016, 06:21 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Probably, yes...and also the Obama plan and most likely the Bush plan.  And also GB, Japan, France, Italy, etc...

Joking aside, there's a real issue here you're trying to mock and dismiss with partisan politics.  

This is a great example of what I often talk about - I made a non-partisan, objective state of affairs.  And you came in and politicized it when, I'll bet money, you've never expressed that concern with Obama or his policies.

Sure, if we default on our $20T in debt, then it must be Trump's fault.  I don't like the guy, either, but I'm also not a partisan xxxxxx.

No, not probably, actually. Default is one of the few Trump plans actually tendered. Nearly all his other great plans remain "great" plans, but also undefined.

One presidential candidate in US history, and one President elect, and only one, has suggested defaulting on our debt is a good idea. One. I will give you 45 guesses who it is. That is a real issue, you are trying to mock and dismiss because I pointed it out. I know the truth hurts, but it doesn't make me a partisan hack. It makes me a truth teller.

But, for the record, given the choice of coming off as partisan, as I do to you, or delusional, as you do to me, I will take partisan.

Hugs.