[AsSeenOnTV]

Originally Posted by devildog2067

Where did I say anything about amnesty?

(Hint: I didn't. You did.)

Hint, I bolded and put in red color what your said, and saying the expense wont be all that great. Did i say you said anything about amnesty?
I stated that by giving any ss aide to once illegals who didnt pay into the system, who will now qualify for the free handout, will be a drag on our already overwhelmed system.

[devildog2067]

Originally Posted by AsSeenOnTV

Hint, I bolded and put in red color what your said, and saying the expense wont be all that great. Did i say you said anything about amnesty?

Seriously? You want to do this? It's not going to end well for you.

Let's quote the part of my post that you bolded:

Originally Posted by devildog2067

And frankly, again--the costs aren't large enough to matter. Yes, taking care of illegals is expensive, but not hundreds of billions of dollars expensive.

You say

Originally Posted by AsSeenOnTV

I stated that by giving any ss aide to once illegals who didnt pay into the system, who will now qualify for the free handout, will be a drag on our already overwhelmed system.

But I didn't say anything at all about illegals drawing on Social Security. You did.

Illegals don't currently get to draw on Social Security unless they try do to it fraudulently. So, the only way they'd get "ss aide" is through some sort of mechanism to making them legal, commonly referred to as amnesty. You allude to it yourself through your use of the words "once illegals" implying that they are illegal no longer.

Your argument has nothing to do with anything. It's part of an entirely different discussion. And in any case, you're still wrong: the demographics of illegal aliens hugely skew towards young people. Most illegals aren't retirement age, so they wouldn't be drawing benefits. If an amnesty were declared and they stayed and worked legally, most of them would spend years or decades paying into SS, rather than drawing benefits without having contributed.

In sum, you are both rhetorically and mathematically wrong.

[certifiedfunds]

Originally Posted by AsSeenOnTV

Hint, I bolded and put in red color what your said, and saying the expense wont be all that great. Did i say you said anything about amnesty?
I stated that by giving any ss aide to once illegals who didnt pay into the system, who will now qualify for the free handout, will be a drag on our already overwhelmed system.

Whether someone "paid in" or not doesn't matter since that money is gone anyway.

What it may mean is simply that obligations grow, but don't beat your chest about paying in or not paying in because it really is irrelevant since someone else has to pay those benefits anyway.

[Glock20 10mm]

Originally Posted by GRIMLET

Lets keep borrowing money and giving it away to project force and protect other countries.
Lets keep a military spread all over the globe. Africa, you're up next for a big operation.
Lets fail to fix social programs. I dont have a clue but I bet a few have sound ideas on how to fix it.
Lets stay divided on everything and get nothing accomplished.

Lets stay on the same track and watch the nation implode.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire

I was thinking the same thing...

[racerford]

Originally Posted by devildog2067

PPS: I think the very first step towards ending the budget crisis is giving Americans enough math education to understand why the plan you propose is stupid.

Social Security, Medicare, defense. Those are the buckets that matter. Fix those.

Social Security is not a part of the official Budget deficit. Perhaps you don't know how the tax system and federal Budget works.

That is not to say Social Security does not have it's problems, but it is not part of the federal Budget deficit.

[devildog2067]

Originally Posted by racerford

Social Security is not a part of the official Budget deficit. Perhaps you don't know how the tax system and federal Budget works.

So what? It's money the government spends that they tax me in order to pay for.

Were we limiting our discussion to only fixing the problems that the federal government admits to in the official budget? Why would we do that?

EDITED TO ADD: Also, Social Security spending is most definitely part of the federal budget. The distinction you're looking for is the difference between the "mandatory" and "discretionary" budgets. I am aware that Social Security taxes don't go into the same revenue bucket as regular income taxes.

[certifiedfunds]

Originally Posted by racerford

Social Security is not a part of the official Budget deficit. Perhaps you don't know how the tax system and federal Budget works.

That is not to say Social Security does not have it's problems, but it is not part of the federal Budget deficit.

How so? Government takes in X and spends Y.

Honest question. What don't I know?

[Kingarthurhk]

Originally Posted by SC Tiger

Short term - yes. Long term we need a substitute for oil. Ethanol might be it but it would need to be refined and made out of something other than foodstock. I still say kudzu is the way to go if it could work.

A former cow-irker once suggested small nuclear power plants for cars. His point is that, since power should not be an issue just make the car like a tank! (This was just us BSing around the breakroom table, not a serious discussion btw).

Yes, we need a long term solution to fossil fuels. Unfortunately, nothing viable has been presented yet for the combustion engine that is cost effective and actually works.

Getting away from foreign oil is essential. We need to get off the Middle East's teat and drill in own country both on land and off shore. We can sustain ourselves, and let OPEC dry up like a hot dessert wind.

[AsSeenOnTV]

Originally Posted by devildog2067

I become a criminal nearly every day when I drive to work; there's a stretch of Lake Shore Drive where the speed limit is 40. I usually drive a bit over 60 and cops regularly pass me doing 70+, it's 4 lanes wide in each direction and straight as an arrow.

The fact is, while I don't condone it, I understand why someone who is faced with a lifetime of abject poverty combined with the risk of having their sons beheaded and their daughters raped to death by drug gangs might choose to instead come here to live and work even if it makes them a criminal.

And frankly, again--the costs aren't large enough to matter. Yes, taking care of illegals is expensive, but not hundreds of billions of dollars expensive. If every illegal went home tomorrow, it still would't come close to fixing the budget problem.

Social Security and Medicare. Those need to get fixed.

So you are saying the costs that Illegal aliens give us isn't large enough to matter? And we aren't talking just the tax they would put on our Social Security Program, but every program. The drain on local law enforcement agencies across the country in the crimes they commit, Drugs, sexual, robberies, hit and runs, every kind of crime they commit, plus the drain on our medical benefits they receive for free. (have you ever been to a hospital lately?) The Illegal welfare some of these 20 millions claim. Food assistance programs, from WIC, school lunches, food stamps, Medicaid for some who have figured out how to scam the system. Our drain on the school systems, and the added costs illegals can have. Anchor babies. The millions of dollars a day to incarcerate illegals in local jails, prisons let alone federal prisons for some of these illegals. Let alone the social programs like welfare and others that many take advantage of. And countless other benefits they receive from the US. Heck, who wouldn't want to sneak into america for all of these benefits we give them. Billions a year, if not hundreds of billions. And you state these costs aren't large enough to matter.
Really? It is that kind of thinking why this last president and his buddies have spent us into the crisis we are all hearing about now.

[Glock20 10mm]

Originally Posted by Kingarthurhk

Yes, we need a long term solution to fossil fuels. Unfortunately, nothing viable has been presented yet for the combustion engine that is cost effective and actually works.

Getting away from foreign oil is essential. We need to get off the Middle East's teat and drill in own country both on land and off shore. We can sustain ourselves, and let OPEC dry up like a hot dessert wind.

Actually there are alternatives, but the problem is (hey same problem oil had initially!) is start up and acceptance. This nation is more than capable of producing vehicles that get excellent mileage and can run of CNG. An abundant fuel in our reserve.

The problem... cost prohibitive to build the support infrastructure. Now CNG vehicles would be great for commuter or passenger vehicles. Where more power is needed then a gasoline option or even a diesel option should be there.

As for main power, we can EASILY clean our power up and produce what we need with a minimum of fossil fuels... again the problem... start up costs.

There are so many technologies out there that require very little in the way of fossil fuel to sustain but fear, uncertainty and poor execution have pretty much killed those options for now.

Meant to add there are two other prohibitions against alternatives:

- EPA / Psycho environmentalists
- NIMBY's

[devildog2067]

Originally Posted by AsSeenOnTV

So you are saying the costs that Illegal aliens give us isn't large enough to matter?

Not quite.

I'm saying that the costs that we incur taking care of illegals is so small next to the future liabilities of Social Security and Medicare, that even if every illegal disappeared tomorrow it wouldn't come close to fixing our fiscal crisis.

Billions a year, if not hundreds of billions.

It's definitely billions. Probably tens of billions. Definitely not hundreds of billions.

And you state these costs aren't large enough to matter.
Really?

Yes, really. You can get upset about it as much as you like. Numbers don't care how you feel.

We could end foreign aid tomorrow, kick out every illegal tomorrow, shut down NASA and the Department of Education and kick out the UN and whatever else. Doing all of that stuff together doesn't come close to fixing the problem, and as long as you're incapable of seeing that we're never going to get out of this mess. It's like someone owing you a million dollars and trying to come up with it by having a garage sale.

[racerford]

Originally Posted by certifiedfunds

How so? Government takes in X and spends Y.

Honest question. What don't I know?

Social Security is not part of the official budget or budget deficit. So when you hear the 1 trillion dollar a year deficit or the 16 trillion dollar debt, Social Security is not in those numbers.

If you knew that, it was not evidenced by what I qouted from your post.

[devildog2067]

Originally Posted by racerford

Social Security is not part of the official budget or budget deficit.

The Congressional Budget Office disagrees with you. Yes, there are different budgets, and yes, Social Security is excluded from some of them, but they are accounting formalities. The "unified" federal budget (which is also maintained by the CBO) does contain Social Security spending.

So when you hear the 1 trillion dollar a year deficit or the 16 trillion dollar debt, Social Security is not in those numbers.

The "16 trillion dollar debt" has nothing formally to do with any budgets. It's the total amount of US securities outstanding.

As for "the deficit" it depends on which one you are talking about. On the unified budget, Social Security is not an off-budget transaction.

[racerford]

Originally Posted by devildog2067

The Congressional Budget Office disagrees with you. Yes, there are different budgets, and yes, Social Security is excluded from some of them, but they are accounting formalities. The "unified" federal budget (which is also maintained by the CBO) does contain Social Security spending.



The "16 trillion dollar debt" has nothing formally to do with any budgets. It's the total amount of US securities outstanding.

As for "the deficit" it depends on which one you are talking about. On the unified budget, Social Security is not an off-budget transaction.

Again it is not in the official budget, it is not in the trillion dollar a year "budget deficit. The unified budget is not the official budget. The Social Security Trust Fund has a surplus, so it is not part of the $16 trillion debt.

[saluki9]

Originally Posted by racerford

Social Security is not part of the official budget or budget deficit. So when you hear the 1 trillion dollar a year deficit or the 16 trillion dollar debt, Social Security is not in those numbers.

If you knew that, it was not evidenced by what I qouted from your post.

That is simply not true.

When congress removes money from the SS trust fund, they create treasury securities as part of the "IOU" those absolutely are part of the national debt.

Here is the latest statement of public debt.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/r...opds122012.pdf

You will see the Special treasury securities owed to SS listed under the row titled "Government Account Series"

[saluki9]

Originally Posted by racerford

Again it is not in the official budget, it is not in the trillion dollar a year "budget deficit. The unified budget is not the official budget. The Social Security Trust Fund has a surplus, so it is not part of the $16 trillion debt.

Again, false

When the SS "trust fund" receives a dollar, first they take out what they owe for benefits for this month. The rest is immediately taken and spent in other areas of government. In return the Treasury issues a security to the trust fund to replace the money that they just spent. This is ABSOLUTELY included in that $16T figure

[racerford]

Originally Posted by saluki9

That is simply not true.

When congress removes money from the SS trust fund, they create treasury securities as part of the "IOU" those absolutely are part of the national debt.

Here is the latest statement of public debt.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/r...opds122012.pdf

You will see the Special treasury securities owed to SS listed under the row titled "Government Account Series"

That debt is not created by Social Security spending. The Trust Fund has a surplus therefore by definition, no debt. Yes the government borrows money from the fund, but it is the general spending that creates the need for debt not SS.

So that debt is owed TO SS, not by the the SS Trust Fund.

The SS Trust Fund is not part of the debt, it funds the debt.

So when the bank lends money to you; it is your debt not the banks debt. It is an asset for the bank.

A more accurate accounting of the debt is that would say that while the US government has $16 trillion in debts, not all are owed to someone else. So the net debt is somewhat less than $16 trillion.

Think of it this way, if you had 500k in your Roth IRA and you borrowed 50K from it to buy a house. Would you say that you were 50k in debt or would you say you currently had 450K for your retirement? Either way you are not broke.

When everyone talks about the US debt as if it is household debt, they always fail to talk about the US assets.

[HollowHead]

Originally Posted by Kingarthurhk

Getting away from foreign oil is essential. We need to get off the Middle East's teat and drill in own country both on land and off shore. We can sustain ourselves, and let OPEC dry up like a hot dessert wind.

No argument here, but consumption must also be addressed. HH

[N4LP]

Originally Posted by Glock20 10mm

Line item 1, false during our nations founding and after the war we did receive financial aid... from those damn French and I believe there were a couple of other nations that helped as well. But the French were very interested in our success.

Other than that correction I agree 100% with your prose! Can't help others if we are unable to help ourselves first.

You don't have to go that far back. 9/11, Katrina, Gulf Oil Spill, Sandy etc.

Suprisngly we don't accept most of it.

Accepting Disaster Relief from Other Nations: Lessons from Katrina and the Gulf Oil Spill

[saluki9]

Originally Posted by racerford

That debt is not created by Social Security spending. The Trust Fund has a surplus therefore by definition, no debt. Yes the government borrows money from the fund, but it is the general spending that creates the need for debt not SS.

So that debt is owed TO SS, not by the the SS Trust Fund.

The SS Trust Fund is not part of the debt, it funds the debt.

So when the bank lends money to you; it is your debt not the banks debt. It is an asset for the bank.

A more accurate accounting of the debt is that would say that while the US government has $16 trillion in debts, not all are owed to someone else. So the net debt is somewhat less than $16 trillion.

Think of it this way, if you had 500k in your Roth IRA and you borrowed 50K from it to buy a house. Would you say that you were 50k in debt or would you say you currently had 450K for your retirement? Either way you are not broke.

When everyone talks about the US debt as if it is household debt, they always fail to talk about the US assets.

Thanks for explaining how that works

If you're talking about unfunded liabilities similar to PBO for a public pension that figure is currently 8.6 trillion dollars for the next 70 or so years.

See http://www.ssa.gov/oact/tr/2012/IV_B_LRest.html

[MulletLoad]

Originally Posted by Kingarthurhk

I fail to see how arming dictators, and sending large sums of money to folks like Saddam Hussein, as we did for a really long time, while he actively tortured and genocided parts of his population is Christian.

Do you have te slightest clue as to what goes on outside of TX?

[certifiedfunds]

Originally Posted by racerford

Social Security is not part of the official budget or budget deficit. So when you hear the 1 trillion dollar a year deficit or the 16 trillion dollar debt, Social Security is not in those numbers.

If you knew that, it was not evidenced by what I qouted from your post.

I still don't understand what you are trying to say. Please explain.

[certifiedfunds]

Originally Posted by racerford

That debt is not created by Social Security spending. The Trust Fund has a surplus therefore by definition, no debt. Yes the government borrows money from the fund, but it is the general spending that creates the need for debt not SS.

So that debt is owed TO SS, not by the the SS Trust Fund.

The SS Trust Fund is not part of the debt, it funds the debt.

So when the bank lends money to you; it is your debt not the banks debt. It is an asset for the bank.

A more accurate accounting of the debt is that would say that while the US government has $16 trillion in debts, not all are owed to someone else. So the net debt is somewhat less than $16 trillion.

Think of it this way, if you had 500k in your Roth IRA and you borrowed 50K from it to buy a house. Would you say that you were 50k in debt or would you say you currently had 450K for your retirement? Either way you are not broke.

When everyone talks about the US debt as if it is household debt, they always fail to talk about the US assets.

It appears you are playing accounting games here.

The government takes in X and it spends Y. The net is surplus or debt.

You may count the IOUs in the SS ledger as an asset but it is still money owed by the taxpayers. Calling them an asset is a bit of a stretch.

If SS had a surplus it wouldn't be funded hand to mouth. The government can only extract +/- 20% of GDP in taxes. Label it however you wish. The bottom line is that SS and Medicare alone account for $1.3T in annual expenditures on total (including SS/MC taxes) revenue of about $2.4T. In fact, if you follow the rabbit hole far enough you quickly reach the conclusion that virtually all federal revenues are consumed by welfare spending, leaving all other governmental functions (mostly discretionary spending) to debt.

[ChiTownPicaro]

Originally Posted by lockANDload

I say we stop housing all these inmates with life sentences. Reinstate death penelty in all states. Eye for an Eye. This is a start! People need to be held accountable for their actions.

You realize that many of those people are innocent. What did the Founding Fathers think about innocent men and women going to prison and being punished unjustly? Might want to look that up.

[ChiTownPicaro]

Originally Posted by devildog2067

I become a criminal nearly every day when I drive to work; there's a stretch of Lake Shore Drive where the speed limit is 40. I usually drive a bit over 60 and cops regularly pass me doing 70+, it's 4 lanes wide in each direction and straight as an arrow.

The fact is, while I don't condone it, I understand why someone who is faced with a lifetime of abject poverty combined with the risk of having their sons beheaded and their daughters raped to death by drug gangs might choose to instead come here to live and work even if it makes them a criminal.

And frankly, again--the costs aren't large enough to matter. Yes, taking care of illegals is expensive, but not hundreds of billions of dollars expensive. If every illegal went home tomorrow, it still would't come close to fixing the budget problem.

Social Security and Medicare. Those need to get fixed.

Don't forget all the parking problems in the city.