Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, August 14, 2019

A top Trump administration official says the famous inscription on the Statue of Liberty, welcoming "huddled masses" of immigrants to American shores, was referring to "people coming from Europe" and that the nation is looking to receive migrants "who can stand on their own two feet."

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

If you go to this page, and scroll down a little, there's a link to a most excellent video history of the Statue of Liberty...

Blueprint NYC - Statue of Liberty (runtime about 26 minutes)
www1.nyc.gov

Part of that history tells where and why the poem was written.


#1 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-08-14 03:42 PM | Reply

I say we deport every cracker who is on disability, food stamps, government assistance and those on the DR 24/7, and give their benefits to a migrant who goes to work everyday

its about time they stood on their own two feet, even if they haven't been able to see them in years, (H/T to nulliratman)

#2 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2019-08-14 03:43 PM | Reply | Funny: 4

Another interesting show...

When America Despised the Irish: The 19th Century's Refugee Crisis
www.history.com

...The refugees seeking haven in America were poor and disease-ridden. They threatened to take jobs away from Americans and strain welfare budgets. They practiced an alien religion and pledged allegiance to a foreign leader. They were bringing with them crime. They were accused of being rapists. And, worst of all, these undesirables were Irish....


#3 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-08-14 03:44 PM | Reply

I say we deport every cracker who is on disability, food stamps, government assistance and those on the DR 24/7, and give their benefits to a migrant who goes to work everyday
its about time they stood on their own two feet, even if they haven't been able to see them in years, (H/T to nulliratman)

#2 | POSTED BY CHIEFTUTMOSES

Damn, Chief, you aint holding back on the caffeine these days, are you?

Give em hell, Hombre!

#4 | Posted by oldwhiskeysour at 2019-08-14 03:48 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Now why would the "not racist" Trump admin claim the inscription is only about Europeans when it makes no mention of Europeans?

"From her beacon-hand Glows world-wide welcome"

#5 | Posted by Derek_Wildstar at 2019-08-14 03:53 PM | Reply

Stephen Colbert @StephenAtHome

So long as we're accepting updates to the Statue of Liberty poem, I have one:

Give me your tired, your poor.

And in exchange, we will give you Ken Cuccinelli

#6 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-08-14 07:41 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 2

Not surprising that this is fake news where his words are taken out of context.

#7 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-08-14 08:16 PM | Reply

pjmedia.com

#8 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-08-14 08:17 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

It's a nice poem not a legal document.

New Yorkers can so full of themselves.....especially when they're orange.

#9 | Posted by Tor at 2019-08-14 08:28 PM | Reply

#3 | Posted by LampLighter

Indeed. And then it was Italians and then eastern Europeans, etc. Any idiot who thinks all Europeans were always welcomed here is just that and has not learned from history.

#10 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2019-08-14 09:03 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Advertisement

Advertisement

And don't even get me started on the Japanese and Chinese...

#11 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2019-08-14 09:23 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"I say we deport every cracker who is on disability, food stamps, government assistance and those on the DR 24/7, and give their benefits to a migrant who goes to work everyday
#2 | POSTED BY CHIEFTUTMOSES"

I 100% agree with the sentiment - although not your usage of racist language. Prior to deporting, I suggest we strip the right to vote for those that don't pay federal income taxes (and no, payroll taxes don't count). You do realize that your proposal would decimate the Democrat party, right? Their entire appeal is free stuff for poor people.

#12 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-08-15 12:19 AM | Reply

"for those that don't pay federal income taxes (and no, payroll taxes don't count)"

History and facts say you're wrong: Payroll tax collections were cited by George W. Bush to give out INCOME tax cuts.

"You do realize that your proposal would decimate the Democrat party"

You do realize that's nonsense: red states are the biggest draw on the government.
finance.yahoo.com

There's a county in Mississippi that has the highest audit rate of any county in America. It's also one of the poorest. Why the audits? All the EITC recipients.

#13 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-08-15 12:38 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"History and facts say you're wrong: Payroll tax collections were cited by George W. Bush to give out INCOME tax cuts.
#13 | POSTED BY DANFORTH"

And as the SS Trust Fund said, no money from Payroll Taxes has ever been moved outside of the trust fund. Why continue to lie? Is the SS Trust Fund wrong?

#14 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-08-15 01:18 AM | Reply

"And as the SS Trust Fund said, no money from Payroll Taxes has ever been moved outside of the trust fund. "

The IOUs put in by the trust fund have to be paid by future tax collections

"Why continue to lie?"

I never said money was moved outside the trust fund. I said when the trust fund needed shoring up, Dubya--Cheney, really--insisted on tax cuts instead.

"Is the SS Trust Fund wrong?"

Dubya and Cheney were wrong not to shore up the funds when they knew the tsunami of the baby boomer's retirement would strain the system. They chose income tax cuts, citing payroll tax overcollections. I was listening to the tax rhetoric very carefully, as I always do. The only reason America was showing a surplus at the time, was we were collecting a lot more than SS was paying out, and GWB pointed to that fact to give YOU income tax cuts. "You deserve a tax cut, 'cuz ...it's your money" was his line about the surplus, over and over.

#15 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-08-15 01:28 AM | Reply

"for those that don't pay federal income taxes"

Well, let's see what kind of math you use:

If someone pays $1000 in federal income taxes, but because of her children, gets a check for $3,000 in EITC, how much federal income tax has she paid?

#16 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-08-15 01:31 AM | Reply

"The IOUs put in by the trust fund have to be paid by future tax collections"

It is called investing the money. If the government did not do that, it would have been insolvent 10 years ago.

"I never said money was moved outside the trust fund. I said when the trust fund needed shoring up, Dubya--Cheney, really--insisted on tax cuts instead."

SS and tax cuts have ZERO to do with each other. Why continue this lie?

"Dubya and Cheney were wrong not to shore up the funds when they knew the tsunami of the baby boomer's retirement would strain the system."

The baby boomer have nothing to do with the fund being insolvent. After the baby boomers are all dead, the fund will still be insolvent on a year to year basis because of life expectancy increases and too many benefits promised for the money coming in. Again - why continue to lie about this?

#17 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-08-15 02:10 AM | Reply

"If someone pays $1000 in federal income taxes, but because of her children, gets a check for $3,000 in EITC, how much federal income tax has she paid?
#16 | POSTED BY DANFORTH"

-$2000. She didn't pay income taxes. EITC should be abolished as it is just a way to reduce wages and subsidize employers. We had this discussion already.

#18 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-08-15 02:11 AM | Reply

"-$2000. She didn't pay income taxes."

That's incorrect. She paid $1000 in federal income taxes. EITC is not part of income taxes, just because it's now filtered through the 1040.

"We had this discussion already."

You were using Republican Math then as well.

#19 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-08-15 02:15 AM | Reply

"The baby boomer have nothing to do with the fund being insolvent."

That's silly; it'll become insolvent due to increases in longevity, exacerbated by their mass retirement: 10,000 a day, for the next dozen or so years.

"the fund will still be insolvent on a year to year basis because of life expectancy increases"

That's why it's recently been suggested what I've said for years: a 1 point increase on both the workers' and employers' sides. My suggestion was immediate, theirs is a 1.2% increase on each side, phased in over 10-15 years.

#20 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-08-15 02:21 AM | Reply

"That's why it's recently been suggested what I've said for years: a 1 point increase on both the workers' and employers' sides. My suggestion was immediate, theirs is a 1.2% increase on each side, phased in over 10-15 years.
#20 | POSTED BY DANFORTH"

And as I told you, I don't see the point in increasing spending 20%/year on this mismanaged program just to keep the wheels on the ponzi scheme for another few years. By 2035, the fund will be insolvent regardless due to automation and shrinking job rolls. Like all ponzi schemes, SS relies on increasing population and jobs to provide new suckers. That is not going to happen.

#21 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-08-15 02:30 AM | Reply

"It is called investing the money. "

Into IOUs. Which require new tax collections to pay off. And when the IOUs pay out, they pay out in more IOUs.

"SS and tax cuts have ZERO to do with each other. "

Not according to history we've both lived through. Dubya cited the surplus---only there due to payroll tax overcollections--as the reason for income tax cuts. Not payroll tax cuts, income tax cuts. And income taxes will eventually have to be used to fulfill the payroll promises made, especially if no changes are made to the equation, soon.

#22 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-08-15 02:31 AM | Reply

And as I told you, I don't see the point in increasing spending 20%/year on this mismanaged program just to keep the wheels on the ponzi scheme for another few years. By 2035, the fund will be insolvent regardless due to automation and shrinking job rolls. Like all ponzi schemes, SS relies on increasing population and jobs to provide new suckers. That is not going to happen.

Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-08-15 02:30 AM | Reply

A WARNING to You.

imgflip.com

#23 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2019-08-15 02:39 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

When America Despised the Irish:...

#3 | Posted by LampLighter

I can remember stories about how my paternal grandfather hated the Irish, and it wasn't because of religion as our family were Catholics from Germany (immigrated to America around 1850). No, he considered them lazy and drunkards. He ran his own company and said every time he hired an Irishman, he'd have to fire him a few weeks later for either not coming to work because they was hungover all the time, or they showed-up drunk on the job. Not sure if that was true, but it allowed him to rationalize his bigotry.

The irony was that of his four children, two daughters married Irish and one son married a Scottish gal (which he considered almost as bad). Only my father avoided the curse as he married a first generation Belgian (whom it was reported that they drank as much as the Irish only they seemed to avoid it interfering with their lives as they tended to keep it private and they also seemed to avoid public brawls, at least that's the store I got from my maternal grandfather ;-) However, my father's choice of an 'acceptable' bride failed to prevent him from being disinherited, so perhaps my grandfather's issues ran deeper than just bigotry.

OCU

#24 | Posted by OCUser at 2019-08-15 02:44 AM | Reply

"#23 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR"

Just because Danforth pretends to be smarter than Laura about money doesn't mean he knows what he is talking about as has been shown over and over again. Just look at his IOU nonsense. Look at his SS money went to pay for tax cuts nonsense. The SS Trust Fund says he is full of ---- but her still persists with his lies. If you want to continue to play along, fine. Just know you are playing with 'alternate facts'.

#25 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-08-15 02:49 AM | Reply

"just to keep the wheels on the ponzi scheme for another few years..."

Stop with the manure about Ponzi schemes. All it does is prove you don't know what a Ponzi scheme is.

"SS relies on increasing population and jobs to provide new suckers."

Nonsense. SS returns about 2% annually. That's doable, just not at the 3-workers-per-retiree ratio the apex of the baby boomers' retirement will bring. But any claim the equation requires ever-increasing population simply means you don't understand the equation.

#26 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-08-15 02:51 AM | Reply

Just because Danforth pretends to be smarter than Laura about money doesn't mean he knows what he is talking about as has been shown over and over again. Just look at his IOU nonsense. Look at his SS money went to pay for tax cuts nonsense. The SS Trust Fund says he is full of ---- but her still persists with his lies. If you want to continue to play along, fine. Just know you are playing with 'alternate facts'.

Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-08-15 02:49 AM | Reply

I have known Danforth for a decade and a half and he's always been an honest broker. You not so much.

#27 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2019-08-15 02:56 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"doesn't mean he knows what he is talking about"

Posts the guy who doesn't even know what a Ponzi scheme is, nor does he know government IOUs are based on future taxes to be assessed and collected.

#28 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-08-15 02:57 AM | Reply

"Stop with the manure about Ponzi schemes. All it does is prove you don't know what a Ponzi scheme is."

Gee, if I make an investment product where I take money from new investors to pay back old investors and if I fail to get new investors at an increasing rate, the investment becomes insolvent - what would you call it?

"Nonsense. SS returns about 2% annually. That's doable, just not at the 3-workers-per-retiree ratio the apex of the baby boomers' retirement will bring."

Again, you have no clue what you are talking about. For instance, if we increased employment in the US tomorrow by 6M people, the insolvency date for SS would push out to 2040+...no need to change pay-in rates. And again for the 40th time - the baby boomer decreasing rates were already calculated as over collections and currently forms the trust fund. This was 100% known and accounted for. Stop lying.

"But any claim the equation requires ever-increasing population simply means you don't understand the equation.
#26 | POSTED BY DANFORTH"

In a stable or decreasing population scenario, SS insolvency rate pulls into the 2020's. In a sustained economic book of increased workforce participation, the rate could push into the 2040's.

Again, you have no clue what you are talking about.

#29 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-08-15 02:59 AM | Reply

"#27 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR"

Well, the Social Security Trust Fund Administrator says he is full of ----. His continued posting on the SS fund shows he knows nothing about it. A week ago, he was claiming that the SS Fund's assets were not real. He is a moron.

#30 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-08-15 03:01 AM | Reply

"Posts the guy who doesn't even know what a Ponzi scheme is, nor does he know government IOUs are based on future taxes to be assessed and collected.
#28 | POSTED BY DANFORTH"

Yeah...it is called US government debt. Same applies to the SS assets or those held by private parties. Regardless, all the "IOUs" will be repaid in full by 2032 after which the SS trust fund defaults on its obligations.

#31 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-08-15 03:02 AM | Reply

"if we increased employment in the US tomorrow by 6M people, the insolvency date for SS would push out to 2040+."

That would depend 100% on the particular ages of the 6MM. Make them the same age as boomers, and you've exacerbated the problem. You just make stuff up and barf it, don't you?

" repaid in full by 2032 after which the SS trust fund defaults on its obligations."

Is that the same kind of default favored by the current chief of staff?

#32 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-08-15 03:13 AM | Reply

"That would depend 100% on the particular ages of the 6MM. Make them the same age as boomers, and you've exacerbated the problem. You just make stuff up and barf it, don't you?"

No, it would not. It would overfund the system and make the trust fund grow in amount again as opposed to being spent down. It does not solve the ultimate bankruptcy, but it would push it off by a few years. I don't think you understand the difference between SS not being able to provide the IRR promised for payers as opposed it it being cash flow negative.

"repaid in full by 2032 after which the SS trust fund defaults on its obligations."
Is that the same kind of default favored by the current chief of staff?
#32 | POSTED BY DANFORTH "

It is called reality.

#33 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-08-15 03:18 AM | Reply

"Yeah...it is called US government debt."

And it can only be redeemed by the government assessing and collecting new taxes. Plus, if you die early, it's value is zilch.

#34 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-08-15 03:19 AM | Reply

"And it can only be redeemed by the government assessing and collecting new taxes.
#34 | POSTED BY DANFORTH"

Yes. You just defined US government debt. Good job!

#35 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-08-15 03:21 AM | Reply

"it is called US government debt.""

Which is COMPLETELY different from, say, assets held in a 401(k), in several ways, including accessibility and legacy.

"Yes. You just defined US government debt"

Debt the current Chief of Staff, Mick Mulvaney, believes shouldn't have to be honored.

How much would that IOU be worth if the Mulvaneys of the world got their wish? Or if you died, what residual value of those IOUs do you get to leave your heirs?

#36 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-08-15 03:29 AM | Reply

"No, it would not. It would overfund the system"

Oh, FFS. Importing 6MM baby boomers would make the problems worse, not better. Just admit you don't understand how the equation works, and be done with it.

#37 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-08-15 03:33 AM | Reply

"It does not solve the ultimate bankruptcy"

No, but fixing the equation does. The question is: are we going to be realistic and sensible, or are we going to wait until it's a crises and much more expensive? We could have fixed it with the surpluses handed to Dubya, but the Republicans chose income tax cuts instead.

#38 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-08-15 03:37 AM | Reply

"Which is COMPLETELY different from, say, assets held in a 401(k), in several ways, including accessibility and legacy."

Depends. If your 401(k) has US bonds, then it is the same. Both backed by full faith and credit. However, 401(k)'s have other risky assets while SS Trust Fund is forbidden from investing in those asset classes.

As for as 'accessibility' - that has nothing to do with the safety or definition of the assets. I don't know how you can't get this through your head. SS is not run like and 401(k) because besides for the SS Trust Fund that was created to fund the boomer bubble, it has ZERO assets. It is a ponzi scheme which requires new investors to pay back old investors using the new investor's contributions as opposed to the old investors contributions + capital gains. YOU DON'T HAVE AN SS ACCOUNT - which is why SS cannot be privatized - because it doesn't have assets to distribute now.

" Or if you died, what residual value of those IOUs do you get to leave your heirs?
#36 | POSTED BY DANFORTH "

Again, you can't seem to understand the assets of the fund are not what differentiate it from a 401(k). It is NOT a pension fund like CalPERS or CalSTRS or TIAA CREF, or the Airline Pensions. By law, those need real assets and a projected return to calculate a % funded ratio. If CalPERS shuttered today, they could distribute $300B in assets to pension holders. In 2032, if SS shutters, that will be able to distribute $0 in assets to SS 'investors'. Again, this is why it is a ponzi scheme. Outside of the trust fund - it has no assets (by design) - which again, is why it is a ponzi scheme. And you want to throw an extra 20% annually into that pit....

#39 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-08-15 03:49 AM | Reply

"Oh, FFS. Importing 6MM baby boomers would make the problems worse, not better. Just admit you don't understand how the equation works, and be done with it.
#37 | POSTED BY DANFORTH"

Statements like this show me you truly do not understand the difference between an IRR shortfall and insolvency date. If you added 6M workers today - even baby boomer aged, it would push out the SS solvency date by a few years. However, when the shortfall occurs, the ability to covered debts will be lower than the 70% currently calculated. Again, brush up on math and how SS functions because you are embarrassing yourself.

#40 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-08-15 03:52 AM | Reply

" If you added 6M workers today - even baby boomer aged, it would push out the SS solvency date by a few years."

We're roughly 8 years into the 18 year baby boomer retirement, meaning 44% of the folks you import would already be retired. Since the worker ratio at the apex of the BB retirement is 3-to-1, you're importing a WORSE ratio than you're currently dealing with.

"brush up on math and how SS functions because you are embarrassing yourself."

My irony meter just exploded. You're willing to import a workforce 44% retired---A WORSE THAN THE WORST ratio---but you believe I'm the one who doesn't understand the equation.

Too ------- rich.

#41 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-08-15 04:02 AM | Reply

"We're roughly 8 years into the 18 year baby boomer retirement, meaning 44% of the folks you import would already be retired."

Retired, but now working again and contributing to the SS fund.

"Since the worker ratio at the apex of the BB retirement is 3-to-1, you're importing a WORSE ratio than you're currently dealing with."

Ratio is irrelevant to the insolvency date - it is the time it takes to burn through the current trust fund that matters. Again, buy a clue. Like I said, the problem will be worse once the insolvency happens, but this would push it out a few years.

"My irony meter just exploded. You're willing to import a workforce 44% retired---A WORSE THAN THE WORST ratio---but you believe I'm the one who doesn't understand the equation.
#41 | POSTED BY DANFORTH"

No, actually this was the argument that you came up with. I just told you that even with baby boomers, it would push out the insolvency date. If the average age of the workers was in their 30's or 40's, it may push out the insolvency date by 10+ years.

Again, it was your contention that the number or workers was not relevant to the insolvency date - not mine. By your own posting now you see how stupid that claim of yours was.

#42 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-08-15 04:08 AM | Reply

"this is why it is a ponzi scheme."

What you just described is NOT a Ponzi scheme. Nor are SS "collections" going to "shutter".

Ponzi schemes are always opaque, and never transparent. They have no equilibrium equation, since the equation is to take and never really give back. Ponzi schemes never have a chance to recover because that's not in the equation. This however is an equilibrium equation, which could be balanced with 1 point more on each side.

Anyone who believes an equation close that close to balance is a Ponzi scheme is either hopelessly ignorant , or pushing an agenda.

Or both.

#43 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-08-15 04:14 AM | Reply

"even with baby boomers, it would push out the insolvency date. If the average age of the workers was in their 30's or 40's..."

Riiiiiiiiiiight. Because there are soooooo many baby boomers in their 30s and 40s.

#44 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-08-15 04:16 AM | Reply

"Again, it was your contention that the number or workers was not relevant to the insolvency date "

You're lying. I said the ages will matter 100%.

But it's telling; you're now reduced to misrepresenting my position.

I'm done here.

#45 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-08-15 04:20 AM | Reply

"What you just described is NOT a Ponzi scheme. "

Yes, it is.

"Nor are SS "collections" going to "shutter"."

If they stopped collecting SS taxes in 2032, how many assets will Social Security have in it? ZERO. In that sense, it is worse than a ponzi scheme. When Madoff was shut down, he still had billions.

"This however is an equilibrium equation, which could be balanced with 1 point more on each side."

Not true. Ponzi schemes can go on indefinitely as long as they attract new investors. You aren't good at math.

"Anyone who believes an equation close that close to balance is a Ponzi scheme is either hopelessly ignorant , or pushing an agenda.
Or both.
#43 | POSTED BY DANFORTH "

Madoff's ponzi scheme had higher asset total and would have extended well beyond SS' horizon had it not be shut down by the feds. You still don't understand what a ponzi scheme is.

#46 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-08-15 04:20 AM | Reply

"#45 | POSTED BY DANFORTH "

You should have stopped ages ago - kicking you in the head repeatedly over your lack of financial knowledge is entertaining though. Thanks for playing the role of the clown.

#47 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-08-15 04:23 AM | Reply

Raise the cap on income for FICA purposes. Problem solved.

#48 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-08-15 04:32 AM | Reply

"Raise the cap on income for FICA purposes. Problem solved.
#48 | POSTED BY AMERICANUNITY "

Any financial problem can be solved by simply burning more money. The question is if it is worth it to do so versus other options. Heck Solyndra would be solvent if we just gave them a few billion more....doesn't mean we should have done that.

#49 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-08-15 04:35 AM | Reply

#49 | Posted by iragoldberg

All of you right wingers say schitt like that.

That's why we're running trillion dollar deficits again.

Like Danforth said, if W had put the money into shoring up SS we wouldn't be having this discussion. Instead, we went from a $5.6 national debt to $1.4 trillion annual deficits and $12 trillion in debt by the time W left office.

All 8 years Obama was president Republicans screamed about debt and deficits. What did they do when they got Congress and the WH back? They passed ANOTHER trillion dollar tax cut we borrow money to pay for and annual deficits back up over $1 trillion a year after Obama got them cut by 2/3rds of what he was left by Bush.

Dudes like you live in a lala land of fantasies. Reality is just too much for you to deal with, so you parse and obfuscate. I'm plonking you. You offer nothing of substance or truth in your nightly ramblings.

#50 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-08-15 04:46 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

"Like Danforth said, if W had put the money into shoring up SS we wouldn't be having this discussion."

Throwing good money after bad.

"Instead, we went from a $5.6 national debt to $1.4 trillion annual deficits and $12 trillion in debt by the time W left office."

Bush was a disaster. Link to one of my posts defending him. Oh, and you left out Obama putting on $8T+ in additional debt...sort of makes Bush look like a piker with only $6.4T

"All 8 years Obama was president Republicans screamed about debt and deficits. "

And why didn't the Dems fix the problem when the controlled everything? Why did they choose to destroy healthcare instead? They just brought in the insolvency dates for Medicare and Medicaid by a few years with their abortion of a bill.

"Dudes like you live in a lala land of fantasies."

Actually, you need to assign false positions to me so you can justify your delusions. WE NEVER SHOULD HAVE PASSED A TAX CUT UNDER TRUMP. Go wrap your head around that.

#51 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-08-15 04:57 AM | Reply

Danforth vs Iragoldberg

Exciting thread fellas. Don't plonk yet, we've to conclude how Social Security holdings will become 0% by 2032 and if 30 year olds are time-travelers? If only we could have prevented shenanigans and made every citizen it's investor, rather than benefiting only the mirefolk of Ira's nightmare.. with savage legion overspilling every city.. You mentioned "de-population"? Is that something you invest in?

#52 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2019-08-15 07:35 AM | Reply

"we've to conclude how Social Security holdings will become 0% by 2032 and if 30 year olds are time-travelers?"

The only existing asset that the SS Fund has is US government debt resulting from the overpayment of SS taxes during the baby-boomers' working years relative to expenditures. Prior to that accumulation of overpayments, the assets were effectively $0 - and this was by design. SS is not taking your own money and saving it in an investment account like a pension or a 401(k). It works on taking the money from current workers and paying it to retirees within the same year. If all worked out perfectly (life expectancy does not change and population is flat), these numbers would perfectly balance each year and SS fund would hold no assets. However, that does not work in practice because life expectancy continues to increase - and more importantly - increase faster than the actuarial estimates used to determine payroll tax amounts and benefit payouts.

Currently the SS Fund has $2.9T+ in assets (held as interest bearing US government securities). 2019 will mark the last year where payroll tax collects + trust fund interest will surpass expenditures. www.ssa.gov After this, it will sell off securities from the trust fund to cover shortfalls until 2035 - at which time the fund will be gone. Once the fund is gone, the yearly obligations surpass the expected payouts to the tune of a 20%+ annual shortfall. And this assumes some rosey projects as far as employment is concerned.

This is not opinion - this is how SS works.

"If only we could have prevented shenanigans and made every citizen it's investor"

That is not possible - and that was by design. Other countries have a sovereign wealth fund which does this. SS started making benefit payments immediately to people that didn't really contribute because it was meant to be a welfare program for deadbeats. As such, it was always using new investor money to pay old investors back rather than work on investment returns.

"You mentioned "de-population"? Is that something you invest in?
#52 | POSTED BY REDLIGHTROBOT"

Without immigration, the US population is already decreasing. We have immigration due to employment opportunities - you would agree with this - yes? So, then the burden is on you to state how automation does not decimate our labor force as 50% of jobs are automated away in the next 30 years. Andrew Yang is the only guy asking this question and it is one that needs to be addressed as we continue to attract illegal aliens that are low skilled - basically, the people most likely to have their professions automated.

#53 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-08-15 09:05 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

You do realize that your proposal would decimate the Democrat party, right? Their entire appeal is free stuff for poor people.

#12 | POSTED BY IRAGOLDBERG

Is that why the Deep South is a sea of blue?

#54 | Posted by jpw at 2019-08-15 09:46 AM | Reply

Without immigration, the US population is already decreasing. We have immigration due to employment opportunities - you would agree with this - yes? So, then the burden is on you to state how automation does not decimate our labor force as 50% of jobs are automated away in the next 30 years. Andrew Yang is the only guy asking this question and it is one that needs to be addressed as we continue to attract illegal aliens that are low skilled - basically, the people most likely to have their professions automated.
#53 | POSTED BY IRAGOLDBERG AT 2019-08-15 09:05 AM |

Automation is just one piece of the puzzle. Rapidly increasing worker efficiency and rising worker productivity is another. Low wages eroding the consumer base is another. All of these things add up to less jobs.

When self driving vehicles are perfected sometime in the not to distant future, there will be no reason for a long haul trucking company to buy 3 trucks and hire 3 drivers to get 24 hr coverage when they can pay a little more for 1 truck that never gets distracted while driving and doesn't have to rest every day to do the same work.

IT automation is reducing the number of middle tier IT jobs available. Just a few years ago building 1 new server took several hours and input from several people. Now you can spin up 300 active servers in less than 10 minutes. We used to have a team of 8 guys on 2 shifts who would line up 20 PCs on a workbench and go down the row each one doing a task then when they get to the end of the row going back to the beginning of the row several times before they were ready. They did that 2 shifts 5 days a week just to keep up with staging new PCs for employees. Now we have 2 guys there on 1 shift who just plug the PC's into the network and enter the MAC address in a spreadsheet. 15 minutes later they are done.

We have to have a reasoned discussion around job trends and what we will do in the not too distant future when we may only need 60 million workers. Too bad so sad I've got mine and I'm not responsible for anyone else is not a valid plan

#55 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2019-08-15 09:56 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"#55 | POSTED BY HATTER5183"

I gave you a newsworthy flag. Like I said, a huge chunk of our workforce will be displaced. If the workforce shrunk to 60M, you will need to jack SS payroll taxes to 30%+ to stop bankruptcy. Thus, trying to patch SS with unrealistic expectations does nothing to solve the problem - it just kicks the can down the road a bit. Which takes us back to immigration - low skill workers are the last people we need more of as this change occurs. They will be the first ones displaced in bulk.

#56 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-08-15 12:21 PM | Reply

Which takes us back to immigration - low skill workers are the last people we need more of as this change occurs. They will be the first ones displaced in bulk.

#56 | POSTED BY IRAGOLDBERG AT 2019-08-15 12:21 PM | REPLY

immigrants start companies at a higher rate than native born Americans and as a result employ more people than native born Americans. They are not part of the problem. Most of the jobs they do if they don't start their own company cannot be automated anytime soon and will not be replaced.

#57 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2019-08-15 01:17 PM | Reply

"immigrants start companies at a higher rate than native born Americans and as a result employ more people than native born Americans.
#57 | POSTED BY HATTER5183"

Those are not low skill immigrants. The ones sneaking across the border are what I referred to.

#58 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-08-15 01:37 PM | Reply

"Those are not low skill immigrants. The ones sneaking across the border are what I referred to."

Those are included in the total, when the claim is made that "immigrants start companies at a higher rate than native born Americans".

#59 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-08-15 01:50 PM | Reply

"and if I fail to get new investors at an increasing rate, the investment becomes insolvent - what would you call it?"

I'd call it a situation where you don't understand the equation. SS does NOT require "ever-increasing" job numbers to bring it into balance.

If investors can't make 2%, it's THEIR fault, not the equation's fault.

#60 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-08-15 02:07 PM | Reply

"I'd call it a situation where you don't understand the equation. SS does NOT require "ever-increasing" job numbers to bring it into balance.
If investors can't make 2%, it's THEIR fault, not the equation's fault.
#60 | POSTED BY DANFORTH"

Again, your posting shows you have zero knowledge of how SS works. The only reason why there is an investment return at all is because of the Trust Fund investing in those "IOU's" that you hate. Once that is exhausted, the rate of return will be ZERO because there are no invested assets because there are no assets. The only way the fund increases how much it has for payouts is by having increased number of workers paying in OR wage inflation BECAUSE NOTHING IS INVESTED. It is simply a transfer payment from current workers to retirees. And even on wage inflation, they need to have wages grow faster than inflation or the 'gain' is just lost in the SS COLA.

Again, you are one financially illiterate person. You should pick a different topic to debate.

#61 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-08-15 09:11 PM | Reply

I did not sign up for this.

#62 | Posted by fresno500 at 2019-08-15 09:41 PM | Reply

"#62 | POSTED BY FRESNO500"

Liberal Logic: If you are to the right of AOC, than you are a religious zealot that must abide by the literal translation of the bible's New Testament, hence the constant attempts at Christian shaming. If you reject that argument, it is proof that your inherent racism against black and brown people (somehow we are exempt from being racist against East Asians) is stronger than our religious zealotry.

#63 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-08-15 09:55 PM | Reply

Perhaps we should deport all the net "taker" states, i.e. all those that take the most from the federal government. The U.S. would be a whole lot bluer than it is now " a whole lot.

#64 | Posted by nimbleswitch at 2019-08-16 08:25 AM | Reply

Verily verily I say unto thee,
Not one of these broke --- --------- shall receive one fish or half loaf of bread until they are drug tested and prove their citizenship!

~ Jesus Christ

And they better not be gay either!

~Bill Johnson

#65 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2019-08-16 01:30 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort