Ann Coulter says welfare policies responsible for looting....

[Kasz216]

fordy said:

Kasz216 said:

1) All of it can't be implemented in the current system because of how Social Security is built.  Social Security has zero saved funds.  If you want to kill it, then replace it with a better system, that would make sense, but there is no point in reforming a car into a boat.

If you own a car, yet use it to transport heavy loads around, truc weights and such, does that mean the car is broken? No, it means it's being used for the wrong purposes. Social security has no problem with collecting, but the problem with the paying stems from the middle part which is broken, and that's spending what should be saved.

2)  Again, there is no saved funds to make this work and the US government democrats included does not want to be in the buisness of being involved in real investments.

They want to be involved in the here and now with little regard to the future, because the here and now is where votes are. That includes both sides of politics.

3)  That more or less is what they do with the money... and it hasn't work.  Infrastructure funds largely get wasted on roads that go to nowhere because every congressmen is making proposals and to get road money you have to have a plan.

No. Your previous two answers just stated that has zero savings. You cannot have it both ways. So which is it?

While Education is screwed due to an oversimplified focus on passing standardized tests to make sure you keep public funding leading to teaching of only what's on the test and nothing useful, and in other cases outright fraud.

Which is why you keep the criteria broad so they cannot focus on small parts. In fact, make the questions realte to knowledge on the field, not just a carbon copy of a question from a textbook. I'm not sure how corruption can take place with this, since our side requires independent adjudicators to be present on site when testing is performed, and only they are able to handle such documents for relay.

4) Exact Quote "No, I can not promise that social security checks will go out in August if we don't reach a deal". 

Taken out of context, considering it was said during questions about the effects of the Republicans holding the government hostage, and whether government services will be able to resume as normal. Let's not stoop to Fox News level of quoting here....

5)  If I were retired now and extremly selfish i would.  Of course, if I was Greek and retired I'd be for running their government into the gutters some more so I could live comfortably too.  Well actually I take that back.  If I were retired now, i'd want social security to end, while taking care of those who paid into it their entire lives.  Which is what I want now actually.

I've already stated before that no matter what the outcome is, if social security goes or not, the American people better not lose their money over it, the money they spent their lives putting into it. I'm still in disagreeance of what needs to happen, whether fixed or replaced, but I will agree that if government suddenly say that social security has ended and all money put in has dried up, there will be riots that make London's look like a Sunday picnic.

6)  Actually I'm not commiting a falacy... as the whole point of a Median income is that it isn't much effected by the rich getting more and more money.

Basic math. If you increase the maximum in a series, the median will rise. That just gives the false impression that the numbers in the series that didn't change (middle and lower values) are better off than before.

1) Actually it has a problem with collecting too, as it doesn't collect enough money.

2)  Which is exactly why the system is unsustainable

3)  I read it wrong... i'd point out the US unlike Australia, never actually posts a budget surplus.  Amusingly your showing why fiscal conservatism pays off.  You have surpluses. 

4)  Except it's not quoted out of context.  Very specifically if he doesn't make a deal, the very first bills he is not paying is Social Security.  Despite Social Security supposidly being a government bond.  The Government doesn't consider not paying social security a default on it's obligations.

5)  Which is why the Republicans want to fix via privatisation.  The Democrats want no changes.  So your choices in america are, A slow move to privatisation and a chance for everyone to save, vs a game of jenga waiting to collapse on retirees.

6) I'd recheck your basic math.  Increasing only the high end values in no way effects the Median.  Your thinking of a Mean.  The whole point of the Median is that it isn't effected by extreme outliers nearly as much as a simple average.

Example

2, 6, 6, 8, 10

Mean:6.4  Median: 6.

Now lets say everyone stays the same except the super rich.

2, 6, 6, 8, 14.

Mean: 7.2  Median: 6.

So the Median, remains the same if only the rich make more money.

 

Aside from which the number of millionaries and billionares and the amount of money the rich make per year has been going down since 07.  That's why our Tax receipts are way lower then they used to be, the money being more equally spread around means that it's taxed at a lower overall rate.  Which is ironically a perverse incentive of progressive taxation... the government can get more money without raising taxes by creating more millionaries and focusing the money on the super rich.