mr_genius

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Dec 19, 2006 -> 06:10 PM) Even if the trust fund is used up, with the pessimistic version of the projections and no change ever happening to the funding side, at current tax rates people retiring in 2042 will still receive a higher payout than people retiring in 2006. absolutely impossible. you're reading the numbers wrong on this entire issue. there is no way that, without a substantial tax increase, social security can survive after exhaustion of the trust. there is no way. no financial experts are reaching the same conclusions as you. the US government even admits there will need to be a large increase in payroll tax to handle this. well, we agree to disagree on this one. no need to keep arguing IMHO.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Dec 19, 2006 -> 05:45 PM) The fact is, every time they put out one of these estimates, it keeps showing that the situation in the previous year was better than the trustees report had predicted it to be in every case except for the stable case above, and because of that, the projections get progressively less bad every year. i would imagine some years it gets worse. as we all know, predictions are not an exact science. well, unless those predictions are my 2007 white sox predictions.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Dec 19, 2006 -> 05:21 PM) The upper line is not the "Massive tax increase" line. First of all, even if the worst projections were right, the tax increase required would be equivalent to roughly 2% of GDP; hardly massive. uh, a payroll tax increase of 2% of the GDP is massive. "the cost of Social Security expressed as a percentage of taxable payroll will grow from 11.07 percent to 19.29 percent." 8% payroll increase to fund social security. thats a lot. well, i guess it's not that much if you are coming from an idealogical standpoint that a 50% - 60% tax rate is reasonable.

both the 04 and 06 proections show complete exhaustion of the SS trust fund. both show that only a massive tax increase will solve the problem if the system is not changed. honestly, i have not heard one expert on social security state that there is not going to be a serious problem funding the system if changes are not made. i'm not a financial expert so i'll trust their years of experience.

the conclusions you are reaching are wrong. sorry. almost every expert on the subject thinks they're wrong too. just curious, whats your source for this info?

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Dec 19, 2006 -> 04:30 PM) The actual article 2k5 posted doesn't even mention property taxes as far as I can tell. so, i can still luuuv articles that do.

QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Dec 19, 2006 -> 04:34 PM) so the answer is put Al Gore in a lock box along with all the other retirees that refuse to die LOCK BOX!

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Dec 19, 2006 -> 04:29 PM) For us, just letting the program proceed naturally, under the worse case projections 50 years from now (assuming that the next 50 years is no where near as prosperous as the last 50 years), leaves Social Security able to pay out a higher amount of money per recipient (inflation adjusted) than it does today. sorry, but you're totally wrong. from the SSA "Social Security's financing problems are long term and will not affect today's retirees and near-retirees, but they are very large and serious. People are living longer, the first baby boomers are nearing retirement, and the birth rate is low. The result is that the worker-to-beneficiary ratio has fallen from 16.5-to-1 in 1950 to 3.3-to-1 today. Within 40 years it will be 2-to-1. At this ratio there will not be enough workers to pay scheduled benefits at current tax rates." http://www.ssa.gov/qa.htm

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Dec 19, 2006 -> 03:48 PM) In about 10 years, people will be wishing that they had kept the social security money in that lockbox rather than spending it. in 50 years people will realize that social security needed a major overhaul to keep itself sustainable. lockbox doesn't fix problem.

Nobel Peace Prize. what an honor! seriously though, if they offer me one i'll totally accept.

LOCK BOX!

i luuuuv studies that suggest lowering property taxes

QUOTE(Texsox @ Dec 17, 2006 -> 10:21 PM) Interesting, if the former President Bush was challenged to a debate by Cindy Sheehan, would he be chicken for not responding? GMAB people. The lack of respect for Presidents is appalling. I don't think any of you would have been saying this if Reagan turned down a challenge from someone. And say what you will about Carter, but he has lived a very noble life. I believe he has walked the talk for many decades. Could you imagine Reagan building homes for poor people? Traveling the world to monitor elections. I am far prouder of Carter than anyone that followed him. Cindy Sheehan isn't a scholar and expert on a controversial book former president Bush wrote. What would they debate? "NO BLOOD FOR OIL!" or some other slogan she has learned?

QUOTE(knightni @ Nov 22, 2006 -> 07:42 AM) lol

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Dec 17, 2006 -> 09:00 AM) He'll have more foreign policy experience than our current President. :-) oh man, i hope the bar hasn't been lowered to "well, he'll probably have a better foreign policy that GW Bush."

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Dec 17, 2006 -> 01:59 PM) Jimmy Carter couldn't smoke a ham to save Christmas.

QUOTE(Heads22 @ Dec 16, 2006 -> 08:43 PM) I'm glad to hear this. i figured most of you guys logged on to see my opinion of the deal

QUOTE(shawnhillegas @ Dec 15, 2006 -> 12:17 PM) How will these people make their 2 dollars a day without soxtalk? yea, this is a cold hearted move by soxtalk.

i like this trade

Obama never really says anything worth while he's just been pumped up by the media.

yea, he's going to jail. or atleast he should.

the Democrats are not even going to try to stop pork. it's a smokescreen, i'm sure they already know exactly how they are going to get around any new 'ear marking' legislation.

QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Dec 13, 2006 -> 11:48 AM) Europe's "The Final Countdown"

Azita Youssefi, The Scissor Girls.

QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Dec 11, 2006 -> 11:22 PM) Pocket Full of Kryptonite By the Spin Doctors... awesome album dude, wtf i can't believe i voted for you