Malibu2 said:

---

Troutslime said:

---

Malibu2 said:

---

All else equal I believe I get a positive return on investment from my taxes. In RE investment I know of tax avoidance strategies that I don't use* because I believe my business has some responsibility to fund roads, courts, schools, military, etc.

*I may ultimately use some of these strategies with the caveat that I will only use the 100% of the savings for charity I believe in.

---

Now do your SS contributions at a 5% return vs what you will receive at retirement. Then do inflation adjustments on that money given the government has a habit of creating said inflation.

---

The return on SS is making sure olds don't die homeless in the street due to lack of funds. I think we've all gotten our money's worth out of that one over the years.

SS has some structural solvency issues to solve that we must all be clear headed about. Declining birth rates, higher life expectancy, Ponzi scheme implementation mean the program cannot exist in perpetuity at its current form. Means testing, increased age limits, removing income caps etc. should be implemented for long term survival.

---

so...charge higher wage earners more, then deny them benefits because they made more? That hardly seems fair by any definition.

Malibu2 said:

---

Troutslime said:

---

Malibu2 said:

---

All else equal I believe I get a positive return on investment from my taxes. In RE investment I know of tax avoidance strategies that I don't use* because I believe my business has some responsibility to fund roads, courts, schools, military, etc.

*I may ultimately use some of these strategies with the caveat that I will only use the 100% of the savings for charity I believe in.

---

Now do your SS contributions at a 5% return vs what you will receive at retirement. Then do inflation adjustments on that money given the government has a habit of creating said inflation.

---

The return on SS is making sure olds don't die homeless in the street due to lack of funds. I think we've all gotten our money's worth out of that one over the years.

SS has some structural solvency issues to solve that we must all be clear headed about. Declining birth rates, higher life expectancy, Ponzi scheme implementation mean the program cannot exist in perpetuity at its current form. Means testing, increased age limits, removing income caps etc. should be implemented for long term survival.

---

F that noise! Let SS die and if old people are dying in the streets, so be it.

No Spin Ag said:

---

aggiephoenix02 said:

---

I was allowed to start a thread asking if anyone regrets taking the vaccine. I thought for sure that thread would get nuked, so I'm hoping the mods have wised up a little.

ALL the threads about Biden voter regret have been nuked. Staff says it's a troll thread, and I responded to staff that I know posters have been sending each other private messages about this topic since it's for some reason off limits on the boards. There is a real interest in this discussion.

Please be cordial to the Biden voters, and DONT GET THIS THREAD NUKED!

[We put this part in bold and we are going to remove disrespectful posts that get a lot of negative votes. Give your opinions but posts that are disrespectful or have name calling will be removed and that goes for either side. -There is the warning. -Staff]

So... Biden voters... any buyers remorse?

---

The only way I could do my part in getting rid of Trump was by pulling the lever for Biden. I can't have any remorse if I already got what I wanted from my vote.

---

So the unmitigated disaster that is the Biden administration and it's devastating effects on this country are less important than owning Trump? Maybe next time you should consider who the replacement is. Say what you will about Trump, but the Democrat party is anti American trash with an extremely destructive policy agenda. It's absolutely insane to give them any more power.

1) I don't think those are great examples. Everybody acknowledges the horrible waste of the military, but due to its unique mission, we all just tolerate it. As for highways, the current system isn't cutting it, which is why many states are supplementing theirs with private toll roads.

2) I see your point, but if the economic strain on the system is growing due to bad dietary decisions by a growing swath of society, is this really the time to abandon private competition and the lower costs it brings? We all know that a single provider economy is less efficient than a competitive one; even liberal economists acknowledge this. We suck it up and deal with that when we absolutely have to have the service and don't care about the cost. I'm not sure we can do that here. Healthcare spending is already at, what, 20% of GDP? When combined with the size of our population + the massive bureaucracy it'd take to service it, not to mention the boomer army entering retirement, I think it's a very legitimate concern that if we switched to single payer, we'd collectively surpass our ability to pay for healthcare without huge cuts in service quality. Does this dip in quality actually improve the community good or does it turn into one of those "socialists want everybody to be equally miserable" jokes?

3) I think this would be a good goal. It's absolutely too polarized right now, the glaring example being the individual mandate, which was conceived at the conservative heritage foundation. I think we may also have to acknowledge that as tech improves and doctors have more tools at their disposal, a lot of people may be temporarily priced out of the best treatments until advancements bring down the costs. I know that some callous, but as rich as the US is, we don't have infinite resources, and we're already spending a ridiculous amount of money on health care.

Malibu2 said:

---

Troutslime said:

---

Malibu2 said:

---

All else equal I believe I get a positive return on investment from my taxes. In RE investment I know of tax avoidance strategies that I don't use* because I believe my business has some responsibility to fund roads, courts, schools, military, etc.

*I may ultimately use some of these strategies with the caveat that I will only use the 100% of the savings for charity I believe in.

---

Now do your SS contributions at a 5% return vs what you will receive at retirement. Then do inflation adjustments on that money given the government has a habit of creating said inflation.

---

The return on SS is making sure olds don't die homeless in the street due to lack of funds. I think we've all gotten our money's worth out of that one over the years.

SS has some structural solvency issues to solve that we must all be clear headed about. Declining birth rates, higher life expectancy, Ponzi scheme implementation mean the program cannot exist in perpetuity at its current form. Means testing, increased age limits, removing income caps etc. should be implemented for long term survival.

---

Geez, dude. You sit here and talk about all the "returns" you get on your taxes, and then immediately concede all of the inefficiencies that exist in government programs and how everything needs reforming and fixing. If the federal government was good at doing the things you're suggesting, nobody would be resistant to it.

You know what keeps old people from dying homeless? Lower taxes, incentives to save for retirement, and charity directed at helping those in need. You know what makes the medical system better? Removing the ridiculous government interventions that allow insurance companies to price fix with providers. Trump was the first president to actually go at the pharmaceutical industry, and actually brought down prices of things like insulin. Your boy Biden reversed that because the Democrat strategy is to make things worse so they can cudgel down more big government as the solution. You know what helps the poor? Job creation and incentives to work, not government handouts. You know what helps minority communities? Incentives to form the nuclear family and seek gainful employment. Not conversations about reparations and welfare benefits that disincentivized two-parent households. You know what fixes education? Charter schools and school choice. Not teachers unions and free colleges that are just as bad as public high schools.

Everything you spout is the definition of insanity. The government has proven time and time again that they misallocate funds and get poor returns. None of these issues are a "spending" problem. We've thrown trillions and trillions of dollars at all of it and have receive garbage returns. If you want to make peoples lives better, empower communities not big politics. Quit with your bleeding heart crap and stop voting for things that make you feel good and hurt everyone else in the long run.

And quit the schtick about how you're so well off that it doesn't matter to you. That's either not true, evidenced by the fact that you're posting here incessantly about all of these things, or it is true and you're just ****ing up other peoples lives out of some misconceived notion of altruism. Either way, stop.

I wonder if there is a single voter (as in a real one, not a dead/illegal one) in America who wishes they had voted for Biden. I doubt it.

The_Fox said:

---

Malibu2 said:

---

Troutslime said:

---

Malibu2 said:

---

All else equal I believe I get a positive return on investment from my taxes. In RE investment I know of tax avoidance strategies that I don't use* because I believe my business has some responsibility to fund roads, courts, schools, military, etc.

*I may ultimately use some of these strategies with the caveat that I will only use the 100% of the savings for charity I believe in.

---

Now do your SS contributions at a 5% return vs what you will receive at retirement. Then do inflation adjustments on that money given the government has a habit of creating said inflation.

---

The return on SS is making sure olds don't die homeless in the street due to lack of funds. I think we've all gotten our money's worth out of that one over the years.

SS has some structural solvency issues to solve that we must all be clear headed about. Declining birth rates, higher life expectancy, Ponzi scheme implementation mean the program cannot exist in perpetuity at its current form. Means testing, increased age limits, removing income caps etc. should be implemented for long term survival.

---

F that noise! Let SS die and if old people are dying in the streets, so be it.

---

This is the Christian values of the Republican Party that speak out against LGBT issues (referenced COUNTLESS times in this thread)? Ok just checking, cool.

DallasGrad18 said:

---

Malibu2 said:

---

Troutslime said:

---

Malibu2 said:

---

All else equal I believe I get a positive return on investment from my taxes. In RE investment I know of tax avoidance strategies that I don't use* because I believe my business has some responsibility to fund roads, courts, schools, military, etc.

*I may ultimately use some of these strategies with the caveat that I will only use the 100% of the savings for charity I believe in.

---

Now do your SS contributions at a 5% return vs what you will receive at retirement. Then do inflation adjustments on that money given the government has a habit of creating said inflation.

---

The return on SS is making sure olds don't die homeless in the street due to lack of funds. I think we've all gotten our money's worth out of that one over the years.

SS has some structural solvency issues to solve that we must all be clear headed about. Declining birth rates, higher life expectancy, Ponzi scheme implementation mean the program cannot exist in perpetuity at its current form. Means testing, increased age limits, removing income caps etc. should be implemented for long term survival.

---

Geez, dude. You sit here and talk about all the "returns" you get on your taxes, and then immediately concede all of the inefficiencies that exist in government programs and how everything needs reforming and fixing. If the federal government was good at doing the things you're suggesting, nobody would be resistant to it.

You know what keeps old people from dying homeless? Lower taxes, incentives to save for retirement, and charity directed at helping those in need. You know what makes the medical system better? Removing the ridiculous government interventions that allow insurance companies to price fix with providers. Trump was the first president to actually go at the pharmaceutical industry, and actually brought down prices of things like insulin. Your boy Biden reversed that because the Democrat strategy is to make things worse so they can cudgel down more big government as the solution. You know what helps the poor? Job creation and incentives to work, not government handouts. You know what helps minority communities? Incentives to form the nuclear family and seek gainful employment. Not conversations about reparations and welfare benefits that disincentivized two-parent households. You know what fixes education? Charter schools and school choice. Not teachers unions and free colleges that are just as bad as public high schools.

Everything you spout is the definition of insanity. The government has proven time and time again that they misallocate funds and get poor returns. None of these issues are a "spending" problem. We've thrown trillions and trillions of dollars at all of it and have receive garbage returns. If you want to make peoples lives better, empower communities not big politics. Quit with your bleeding heart crap and stop voting for things that make you feel good and hurt everyone else in the long run.

And quit the schtick about how you're so well off that it doesn't matter to you. That's either not true, evidenced by the fact that you're posting here incessantly about all of these things, or it is true and you're just ****ing up other peoples lives out of some misconceived notion of altruism. Either way, stop.

---

You've fundamentally misrepresented my position here. Both of these things are true:
1. Social security has kept old people who can't work economically secure, and this is a profoundly good thing and worth the cost. And contrary to your claim the government sucks at everything, the government is quite good at getting the checks out on time.
2. The underlying math on SS has changed since the 1930s due to demographic shifts, and as a result must be reformed from its current model if we want point #1 to still stand.

As for the rest, it's a lot of retreads about the panacea of low taxes and low regulation being the bees knees for the combined prosperity of everyone. In many cases you're absolutely right (entitlement reform, school choice), and in others is wishful thinking about the magic of markets to solve problems markets can't solve, like poor people getting cancer treatment and old workers having income when they can't work.

Malibu2 said:

---

DallasGrad18 said:

---

Malibu2 said:

---

Troutslime said:

---

Malibu2 said:

---

All else equal I believe I get a positive return on investment from my taxes. In RE investment I know of tax avoidance strategies that I don't use* because I believe my business has some responsibility to fund roads, courts, schools, military, etc.

*I may ultimately use some of these strategies with the caveat that I will only use the 100% of the savings for charity I believe in.

---

Now do your SS contributions at a 5% return vs what you will receive at retirement. Then do inflation adjustments on that money given the government has a habit of creating said inflation.

---

The return on SS is making sure olds don't die homeless in the street due to lack of funds. I think we've all gotten our money's worth out of that one over the years.

SS has some structural solvency issues to solve that we must all be clear headed about. Declining birth rates, higher life expectancy, Ponzi scheme implementation mean the program cannot exist in perpetuity at its current form. Means testing, increased age limits, removing income caps etc. should be implemented for long term survival.

---

Geez, dude. You sit here and talk about all the "returns" you get on your taxes, and then immediately concede all of the inefficiencies that exist in government programs and how everything needs reforming and fixing. If the federal government was good at doing the things you're suggesting, nobody would be resistant to it.

You know what keeps old people from dying homeless? Lower taxes, incentives to save for retirement, and charity directed at helping those in need. You know what makes the medical system better? Removing the ridiculous government interventions that allow insurance companies to price fix with providers. Trump was the first president to actually go at the pharmaceutical industry, and actually brought down prices of things like insulin. Your boy Biden reversed that because the Democrat strategy is to make things worse so they can cudgel down more big government as the solution. You know what helps the poor? Job creation and incentives to work, not government handouts. You know what helps minority communities? Incentives to form the nuclear family and seek gainful employment. Not conversations about reparations and welfare benefits that disincentivized two-parent households. You know what fixes education? Charter schools and school choice. Not teachers unions and free colleges that are just as bad as public high schools.

Everything you spout is the definition of insanity. The government has proven time and time again that they misallocate funds and get poor returns. None of these issues are a "spending" problem. We've thrown trillions and trillions of dollars at all of it and have receive garbage returns. If you want to make peoples lives better, empower communities not big politics. Quit with your bleeding heart crap and stop voting for things that make you feel good and hurt everyone else in the long run.

And quit the schtick about how you're so well off that it doesn't matter to you. That's either not true, evidenced by the fact that you're posting here incessantly about all of these things, or it is true and you're just ****ing up other peoples lives out of some misconceived notion of altruism. Either way, stop.

---

You've fundamentally misrepresented my position here. Both of these things are true:
1. Social security has kept old people who can't work economically secure, and this is a profoundly good thing and worth the cost. And contrary to your claim the government sucks at everything, the government is quite good at getting the checks out on time.
2. The underlying math on SS has changed since the 1930s due to demographic shifts, and as a result must be reformed from its current model if we want point #1 to still stand.

As for the rest, it's a lot of retreads about the panacea of low taxes and low regulation being the bees knees for the combined prosperity of everyone. In many cases you're absolutely right (entitlement reform, school choice), and in others is wishful thinking about the magic of markets to solve problems markets can't solve, like poor people getting cancer treatment and old workers having income when they can't work.

---

Awful lot of fraud in SS, too. I think SS has a large base of support and could be even larger if it wasn't the unsupportable PONZI scheme, as you 've identified, which is also rife with fraud. Maybe you don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, but the changes you proposed earlier that punish higher wage earners are immoral in my opinion. Even people who wouldn't be robbed by those proposals should see that it's wrong. Everyone forced to pay in should receive the benefit in the end.

TXAGFAN said:

---

The_Fox said:

---

Malibu2 said:

---

Troutslime said:

---

Malibu2 said:

---

All else equal I believe I get a positive return on investment from my taxes. In RE investment I know of tax avoidance strategies that I don't use* because I believe my business has some responsibility to fund roads, courts, schools, military, etc.

*I may ultimately use some of these strategies with the caveat that I will only use the 100% of the savings for charity I believe in.

---

Now do your SS contributions at a 5% return vs what you will receive at retirement. Then do inflation adjustments on that money given the government has a habit of creating said inflation.

---

The return on SS is making sure olds don't die homeless in the street due to lack of funds. I think we've all gotten our money's worth out of that one over the years.

SS has some structural solvency issues to solve that we must all be clear headed about. Declining birth rates, higher life expectancy, Ponzi scheme implementation mean the program cannot exist in perpetuity at its current form. Means testing, increased age limits, removing income caps etc. should be implemented for long term survival.

---

F that noise! Let SS die and if old people are dying in the streets, so be it.

---

This is the Christian values of the Republican Party that speak out against LGBT issues (referenced COUNTLESS times in this thread)? Ok just checking, cool.

---

Hey, I'm perfectly fine with gays marrying. Just keep your hands off my money.

Yeah, you're an economic conservative my ass.

I think your concerns about the basic fairness of paying for a system you receive no return from at all are well placed. Means testing probably used to cap benefits rather than eliminate benefits.

As for fraud, absolutely, we shouldn't waste public dollars on grifters.

Malibu2 said:

---

DallasGrad18 said:

---

Malibu2 said:

---

Troutslime said:

---

Malibu2 said:

---

All else equal I believe I get a positive return on investment from my taxes. In RE investment I know of tax avoidance strategies that I don't use* because I believe my business has some responsibility to fund roads, courts, schools, military, etc.

*I may ultimately use some of these strategies with the caveat that I will only use the 100% of the savings for charity I believe in.

---

Now do your SS contributions at a 5% return vs what you will receive at retirement. Then do inflation adjustments on that money given the government has a habit of creating said inflation.

---

The return on SS is making sure olds don't die homeless in the street due to lack of funds. I think we've all gotten our money's worth out of that one over the years.

SS has some structural solvency issues to solve that we must all be clear headed about. Declining birth rates, higher life expectancy, Ponzi scheme implementation mean the program cannot exist in perpetuity at its current form. Means testing, increased age limits, removing income caps etc. should be implemented for long term survival.

---

Geez, dude. You sit here and talk about all the "returns" you get on your taxes, and then immediately concede all of the inefficiencies that exist in government programs and how everything needs reforming and fixing. If the federal government was good at doing the things you're suggesting, nobody would be resistant to it.

You know what keeps old people from dying homeless? Lower taxes, incentives to save for retirement, and charity directed at helping those in need. You know what makes the medical system better? Removing the ridiculous government interventions that allow insurance companies to price fix with providers. Trump was the first president to actually go at the pharmaceutical industry, and actually brought down prices of things like insulin. Your boy Biden reversed that because the Democrat strategy is to make things worse so they can cudgel down more big government as the solution. You know what helps the poor? Job creation and incentives to work, not government handouts. You know what helps minority communities? Incentives to form the nuclear family and seek gainful employment. Not conversations about reparations and welfare benefits that disincentivized two-parent households. You know what fixes education? Charter schools and school choice. Not teachers unions and free colleges that are just as bad as public high schools.

Everything you spout is the definition of insanity. The government has proven time and time again that they misallocate funds and get poor returns. None of these issues are a "spending" problem. We've thrown trillions and trillions of dollars at all of it and have receive garbage returns. If you want to make peoples lives better, empower communities not big politics. Quit with your bleeding heart crap and stop voting for things that make you feel good and hurt everyone else in the long run.

And quit the schtick about how you're so well off that it doesn't matter to you. That's either not true, evidenced by the fact that you're posting here incessantly about all of these things, or it is true and you're just ****ing up other peoples lives out of some misconceived notion of altruism. Either way, stop.

---

You've fundamentally misrepresented my position here. Both of these things are true:
1. Social security has kept old people who can't work economically secure, and this is a profoundly good thing and worth the cost. And contrary to your claim the government sucks at everything, the government is quite good at getting the checks out on time.
2. The underlying math on SS has changed since the 1930s due to demographic shifts, and as a result must be reformed from its current model if we want point #1 to still stand.

As for the rest, it's a lot of retreads about the panacea of low taxes and low regulation being the bees knees for the combined prosperity of everyone. In many cases you're absolutely right (entitlement reform, school choice), and in others is wishful thinking about the magic of markets to solve problems markets can't solve, like poor people getting cancer treatment and old workers having income when they can't work.

---

Magic of markets? You realize that all of these are markets, government regulation or not, right? Single-payer is still a market. It's just a market that has been manipulated by government intervention and likely carries a greater deadweight loss than a private market with reasonable regulation.

Social security functions today exactly as it was set up to function. If the government had set up IRAs for everyone at the same time and put the same tax dollars in, everyone would be infinitely better off at retirement. The private market, once again, is a better ROI than the Ponzi scheme garbage that currently exists. And if your contention is that social security is a solid income to retire on in and of itself, I'd question your capacity for reason. "Something being better than nothing" doesn't make it a net good, especially considering the opportunity cost of those dollars over a lifetime.

There's no panacea of low taxes. If someone could determine the actual optimal point on a laffer curve, there would be no need to disagree about any of this. Some taxes are absolutely needed for the public good. However, the idea that the entitlements and public programs we waste our limited resources on nowadays are a good investment that provide a "good return" is laughable by any quantitative measure when you compare to private sector performance.

You're defending the side that regularly promotes unfettered spending with no regard for monetary theory. All in search of a utopian society that is not only unachievable, but especially unachievable through government power. You can't tax yourself into wealth. Your side is proving you can print your way into poverty, though.

Try again.

Excellent points.

Malibu2 said:

---

[
1. Social security has kept old people who can't work economically secure, and this is a profoundly good thing and worth the cost. And contrary to your claim the government sucks at everything, the government is quite good at getting the checks out on time.
2. The underlying math on SS has changed since the 1930s due to demographic shifts, and as a result must be reformed from its current model if we want point #1 to still stand.

---

Economic security for old folks is a good thing. Confiscating their money during their prime investing years and then returning a poverty level wage to them 30 years later is a horrible thing.

Can you imagine what their retirement years would look like if the government had just mandated 401k contributions or investment in high quality fixed income instruments (back before the government wrecked interest rates) or something like that? We'd be a nation where even our blue collar workers exit the work force to retire in comfort with a million dollar nest egg and enough money to handle their medical expenses. Instead, they're retiring to a subsistence lifestyle and not enough cash to cover their doctor's bills (leading progressives to claim that we need universal health care).

Can you see why people laugh that socialism is equal misery for all? These financially unsound programs created the problems that you're trying to solve 1) by creating additional government programs we can't afford and 2) further degrading the ones we do have (you listed a number of ways we need to make social security even worse than it is and it's already pretty crappy). SS + MD/MC are already ~50% of federal spending - 2T dollars! - and they suck!

The_Fox said:

---

TXAGFAN said:

---

The_Fox said:

---

Malibu2 said:

---

Troutslime said:

---

Malibu2 said:

---

All else equal I believe I get a positive return on investment from my taxes. In RE investment I know of tax avoidance strategies that I don't use* because I believe my business has some responsibility to fund roads, courts, schools, military, etc.

*I may ultimately use some of these strategies with the caveat that I will only use the 100% of the savings for charity I believe in.

---

Now do your SS contributions at a 5% return vs what you will receive at retirement. Then do inflation adjustments on that money given the government has a habit of creating said inflation.

---

The return on SS is making sure olds don't die homeless in the street due to lack of funds. I think we've all gotten our money's worth out of that one over the years.

SS has some structural solvency issues to solve that we must all be clear headed about. Declining birth rates, higher life expectancy, Ponzi scheme implementation mean the program cannot exist in perpetuity at its current form. Means testing, increased age limits, removing income caps etc. should be implemented for long term survival.

---

F that noise! Let SS die and if old people are dying in the streets, so be it.

---

This is the Christian values of the Republican Party that speak out against LGBT issues (referenced COUNTLESS times in this thread)? Ok just checking, cool.

---

Hey, I'm perfectly fine with gays marrying. Just keep your hands off my money.

Yeah, you're an economic conservative my ass.

---

I didn't say I disagreed with your point of view on social security, just pointing out a curious conflict in the reasoning.

When SS was set up it was by definition a Ponzi scheme, especially for those just on the cusp of retirement. Setting up the original scheme as an IRA would have done nothing to fix the structural problems of giving benefits to workers who barely paid in. When the ratio of young workers to old was 3:1 instead of today's 1:1 and tomorrow's 0.8:1 it worked. It clearly can't anymore.

I'm somewhat agnostic about the question of how to properly save and invest the funds. A broad trustee investment into a well diversified portfolio? Sure. YOLO on crypto, no.

TXAGFAN said:

---

The_Fox said:

---

TXAGFAN said:

---

The_Fox said:

---

Malibu2 said:

---

Troutslime said:

---

Malibu2 said:

---

All else equal I believe I get a positive return on investment from my taxes. In RE investment I know of tax avoidance strategies that I don't use* because I believe my business has some responsibility to fund roads, courts, schools, military, etc.

*I may ultimately use some of these strategies with the caveat that I will only use the 100% of the savings for charity I believe in.

---

Now do your SS contributions at a 5% return vs what you will receive at retirement. Then do inflation adjustments on that money given the government has a habit of creating said inflation.

---

The return on SS is making sure olds don't die homeless in the street due to lack of funds. I think we've all gotten our money's worth out of that one over the years.

SS has some structural solvency issues to solve that we must all be clear headed about. Declining birth rates, higher life expectancy, Ponzi scheme implementation mean the program cannot exist in perpetuity at its current form. Means testing, increased age limits, removing income caps etc. should be implemented for long term survival.

---

F that noise! Let SS die and if old people are dying in the streets, so be it.

---

This is the Christian values of the Republican Party that speak out against LGBT issues (referenced COUNTLESS times in this thread)? Ok just checking, cool.

---

Hey, I'm perfectly fine with gays marrying. Just keep your hands off my money.

Yeah, you're an economic conservative my ass.

---

I didn't say I disagreed with your point of view on social security, just pointing out a curious conflict in the reasoning.

---

Point to where I made an appeal to religion to justify my viewpoint.

I vote my pocketbook. I grew up poor. Now that I have money an assortment of misfits have joined together in the Democratic Party for their personal social issues and are not trying to steal my money to pay for their idiocy.

F that!

Malibu2 said:

---

When SS was set up it was by definition a Ponzi scheme, especially for those just on the cusp of retirement. Setting up the original scheme as an IRA would have done nothing to fix the structural problems of giving benefits to workers who barely paid in. When the ratio of young workers to old was 3:1 instead of today's 1:1 and tomorrow's 0.8:1 it worked. It clearly can't anymore.

I'm somewhat agnostic about the question of how to properly save and invest the funds. A broad trustee investment into a well diversified portfolio? Sure. YOLO on crypto, no.

---

Yeah, but your philosophy begets the idea that you can tax your way out of the problem. You can't. It was stupid and shortsighted to set SS up like that, and it would be stupid to preserve it in any similar form.

You keep trying to poke little holes here and there without addressing the substance of what I'm saying to you. I'm not trying to lay out the particular aspects of SS that I think need reform or who should be the trustee of the money. I'm pointing out the flawed logic your side of the aisle consistently uses to push feel-good policies that make us worse off in the long run. If you're going to try and rebut my assertions, show me where I am wrong. Not how SS was great in 1930.

Troutslime said:

---

Hard to imagine a college educated adult voting personality over policy. Very shallow reasoning.

---

DallasGrad18 said:

---

Malibu2 said:

---

When SS was set up it was by definition a Ponzi scheme, especially for those just on the cusp of retirement. Setting up the original scheme as an IRA would have done nothing to fix the structural problems of giving benefits to workers who barely paid in. When the ratio of young workers to old was 3:1 instead of today's 1:1 and tomorrow's 0.8:1 it worked. It clearly can't anymore.

I'm somewhat agnostic about the question of how to properly save and invest the funds. A broad trustee investment into a well diversified portfolio? Sure. YOLO on crypto, no.

---

Yeah, but your philosophy begets the idea that you can tax your way out of the problem. You can't. It was stupid and shortsighted to set SS up like that, and it would be stupid to preserve it in any similar form.

You keep trying to poke little holes here and there without addressing the substance of what I'm saying to you. I'm not trying to lay out the particular aspects of SS that I think need reform or who should be the trustee of the money. I'm pointing out the flawed logic your side of the aisle consistently uses to push feel-good policies that make us worse off in the long run. If you're going to try and rebut my assertions, show me where I am wrong. Not how SS was great in 1930.

---

Yes, you can tax your way out of some problems. Social security has self evidently done that fairly well on a historical basis. Education spending has boosted literacy rates and economic output per worker beyond its investment. All courtesy of taxes that have made us better off in the long run. What would be stupid is canceling payroll taxes or education spending rather than reforming what is broken.

Malibu2 said:

---

DallasGrad18 said:

---

Malibu2 said:

---

When SS was set up it was by definition a Ponzi scheme, especially for those just on the cusp of retirement. Setting up the original scheme as an IRA would have done nothing to fix the structural problems of giving benefits to workers who barely paid in. When the ratio of young workers to old was 3:1 instead of today's 1:1 and tomorrow's 0.8:1 it worked. It clearly can't anymore.

I'm somewhat agnostic about the question of how to properly save and invest the funds. A broad trustee investment into a well diversified portfolio? Sure. YOLO on crypto, no.

---

Yeah, but your philosophy begets the idea that you can tax your way out of the problem. You can't. It was stupid and shortsighted to set SS up like that, and it would be stupid to preserve it in any similar form.

You keep trying to poke little holes here and there without addressing the substance of what I'm saying to you. I'm not trying to lay out the particular aspects of SS that I think need reform or who should be the trustee of the money. I'm pointing out the flawed logic your side of the aisle consistently uses to push feel-good policies that make us worse off in the long run. If you're going to try and rebut my assertions, show me where I am wrong. Not how SS was great in 1930.

---

Yes, you can tax your way out of some problems. Social security has self evidently done that fairly well on a historical basis. Education spending has boosted literacy rates and economic output per worker beyond its investment. All courtesy of taxes that have made us better off in the long run. What would be stupid is canceling payroll taxes or education spending rather than reforming what is broken.

---

One might argue that a PONZI scheme is irreparably broken by design. Perhaps old-age financial assistance should fold into one of the many financial assistance programs we already have in place. If you aren't making income after you retire from investments, you participate in welfare programs.

Then we can discuss the extravagance of provision in those programs that allow welfare recipients to live in nicer apartments and buy more expensive food items than a working person can afford.

No regrets here. My company's stock has nearly doubled from the date Biden took office and we have lots of new orders coming in. Oh this is all in O&G BTW.

Malibu2 said:

---

DallasGrad18 said:

---

Malibu2 said:

---

When SS was set up it was by definition a Ponzi scheme, especially for those just on the cusp of retirement. Setting up the original scheme as an IRA would have done nothing to fix the structural problems of giving benefits to workers who barely paid in. When the ratio of young workers to old was 3:1 instead of today's 1:1 and tomorrow's 0.8:1 it worked. It clearly can't anymore.

I'm somewhat agnostic about the question of how to properly save and invest the funds. A broad trustee investment into a well diversified portfolio? Sure. YOLO on crypto, no.

---

Yeah, but your philosophy begets the idea that you can tax your way out of the problem. You can't. It was stupid and shortsighted to set SS up like that, and it would be stupid to preserve it in any similar form.

You keep trying to poke little holes here and there without addressing the substance of what I'm saying to you. I'm not trying to lay out the particular aspects of SS that I think need reform or who should be the trustee of the money. I'm pointing out the flawed logic your side of the aisle consistently uses to push feel-good policies that make us worse off in the long run. If you're going to try and rebut my assertions, show me where I am wrong. Not how SS was great in 1930.

---

Yes, you can tax your way out of some problems. Social security has self evidently done that fairly well on a historical basis. Education spending has boosted literacy rates and economic output per worker beyond its investment. All courtesy of taxes that have made us better off in the long run. What would be stupid is canceling payroll taxes or education spending rather than reforming what is broken.

---

Education spending has brainwashed millions of little Marxists that will cause economic ruination of this country once their political power is solidified. Not sure that was exactly a great investment. Different implementation would have given a better return.

No, I do not regret it at all. In fact, as a democratic socialist, I wish it were Sanders or Warren.

aggieforester05 said:

---

Malibu2 said:

---

DallasGrad18 said:

---

Malibu2 said:

---

When SS was set up it was by definition a Ponzi scheme, especially for those just on the cusp of retirement. Setting up the original scheme as an IRA would have done nothing to fix the structural problems of giving benefits to workers who barely paid in. When the ratio of young workers to old was 3:1 instead of today's 1:1 and tomorrow's 0.8:1 it worked. It clearly can't anymore.

I'm somewhat agnostic about the question of how to properly save and invest the funds. A broad trustee investment into a well diversified portfolio? Sure. YOLO on crypto, no.

---

Yeah, but your philosophy begets the idea that you can tax your way out of the problem. You can't. It was stupid and shortsighted to set SS up like that, and it would be stupid to preserve it in any similar form.

You keep trying to poke little holes here and there without addressing the substance of what I'm saying to you. I'm not trying to lay out the particular aspects of SS that I think need reform or who should be the trustee of the money. I'm pointing out the flawed logic your side of the aisle consistently uses to push feel-good policies that make us worse off in the long run. If you're going to try and rebut my assertions, show me where I am wrong. Not how SS was great in 1930.

---

Yes, you can tax your way out of some problems. Social security has self evidently done that fairly well on a historical basis. Education spending has boosted literacy rates and economic output per worker beyond its investment. All courtesy of taxes that have made us better off in the long run. What would be stupid is canceling payroll taxes or education spending rather than reforming what is broken.

---

Education spending has brainwashed millions of little Marxists that will cause economic ruination of this country once their political power is solidified. Not sure that was exactly a great investment. Different implementation would have given a better return.

---

Curse those MEEN department profs for brainwashing me into marxist designs.

cajunaggie08 said:

---

No regrets here. My company's stock has nearly doubled from the date Biden took office and we have lots of new orders coming in. Oh this is all in O&G BTW.

---

To what Biden action do you credit this outcome?

Malibu2 said:

---

DallasGrad18 said:

---

Malibu2 said:

---

When SS was set up it was by definition a Ponzi scheme, especially for those just on the cusp of retirement. Setting up the original scheme as an IRA would have done nothing to fix the structural problems of giving benefits to workers who barely paid in. When the ratio of young workers to old was 3:1 instead of today's 1:1 and tomorrow's 0.8:1 it worked. It clearly can't anymore.

I'm somewhat agnostic about the question of how to properly save and invest the funds. A broad trustee investment into a well diversified portfolio? Sure. YOLO on crypto, no.

---

Yeah, but your philosophy begets the idea that you can tax your way out of the problem. You can't. It was stupid and shortsighted to set SS up like that, and it would be stupid to preserve it in any similar form.

You keep trying to poke little holes here and there without addressing the substance of what I'm saying to you. I'm not trying to lay out the particular aspects of SS that I think need reform or who should be the trustee of the money. I'm pointing out the flawed logic your side of the aisle consistently uses to push feel-good policies that make us worse off in the long run. If you're going to try and rebut my assertions, show me where I am wrong. Not how SS was great in 1930.

---

Yes, you can tax your way out of some problems. Social security has self evidently done that fairly well on a historical basis. Education spending has boosted literacy rates and economic output per worker beyond its investment. All courtesy of taxes that have made us better off in the long run. What would be stupid is canceling payroll taxes or education spending rather than reforming what is broken.

---

So reforming means spending more? I would argue that technological innovation has resolved the problems you mentioned on a much greater scale than government programs. The shift to white collar work with higher salaries and lower risk has allowed people to obtain standards of living far beyond that of previous generations. Financial security and racial equality had spurred literacy more than education spending. The US spends more per student and gets less benefit per capita than tons of countries in the world. We rank in like the 20s in educational performance but spend more than anyone else. If you have numbers to back up your assertions, feel free to share.

You can never tax your way to wealth. I stand by that, and that's why the Democrat notion that progress comes through public policy is nonsense. You may alleviate some burdens or obstacles, but you cannot solve problems through taxation. You especially can't solve them more efficiently than a properly incentivized private sector. The question then becomes how much to spend, and I think we have sufficient evidence to say that the marginal return on investment for these issues is diminishing, not increasing.

WHOOP!'91 said:

---

cajunaggie08 said:

---

No regrets here. My company's stock has nearly doubled from the date Biden took office and we have lots of new orders coming in. Oh this is all in O&G BTW.

---

To what Biden action do you credit this outcome?

---

improved communication of a vaccine roll out plan that had quickened the speed to herd immunity which is driving up demand for all products as our lives get back to normal which has driven up demand for drilling contracts.

cajunaggie08 said:

---

aggieforester05 said:

---

Malibu2 said:

---

DallasGrad18 said:

---

Malibu2 said:

---

When SS was set up it was by definition a Ponzi scheme, especially for those just on the cusp of retirement. Setting up the original scheme as an IRA would have done nothing to fix the structural problems of giving benefits to workers who barely paid in. When the ratio of young workers to old was 3:1 instead of today's 1:1 and tomorrow's 0.8:1 it worked. It clearly can't anymore.

I'm somewhat agnostic about the question of how to properly save and invest the funds. A broad trustee investment into a well diversified portfolio? Sure. YOLO on crypto, no.

---

Yeah, but your philosophy begets the idea that you can tax your way out of the problem. You can't. It was stupid and shortsighted to set SS up like that, and it would be stupid to preserve it in any similar form.

You keep trying to poke little holes here and there without addressing the substance of what I'm saying to you. I'm not trying to lay out the particular aspects of SS that I think need reform or who should be the trustee of the money. I'm pointing out the flawed logic your side of the aisle consistently uses to push feel-good policies that make us worse off in the long run. If you're going to try and rebut my assertions, show me where I am wrong. Not how SS was great in 1930.

---

Yes, you can tax your way out of some problems. Social security has self evidently done that fairly well on a historical basis. Education spending has boosted literacy rates and economic output per worker beyond its investment. All courtesy of taxes that have made us better off in the long run. What would be stupid is canceling payroll taxes or education spending rather than reforming what is broken.

---

Education spending has brainwashed millions of little Marxists that will cause economic ruination of this country once their political power is solidified. Not sure that was exactly a great investment. Different implementation would have given a better return.

---

Curse those MEEN department profs for brainwashing me into marxist designs.

---

More like all those MEEN majors who know nothing about economics or social sciences, so they don't know how to recognize when public policy is bad. Keep on voting with your feelings bud. You'll need your doubled stock when everything costs twice as much.

ETA holy hell I just read your response about Biden's covid response and that was one of the most illiterate lines of reasoning I've ever seen.

DallasGrad18 said:

---

cajunaggie08 said:

---

aggieforester05 said:

---

Malibu2 said:

---

DallasGrad18 said:

---

Malibu2 said:

---

When SS was set up it was by definition a Ponzi scheme, especially for those just on the cusp of retirement. Setting up the original scheme as an IRA would have done nothing to fix the structural problems of giving benefits to workers who barely paid in. When the ratio of young workers to old was 3:1 instead of today's 1:1 and tomorrow's 0.8:1 it worked. It clearly can't anymore.

I'm somewhat agnostic about the question of how to properly save and invest the funds. A broad trustee investment into a well diversified portfolio? Sure. YOLO on crypto, no.

---

Yeah, but your philosophy begets the idea that you can tax your way out of the problem. You can't. It was stupid and shortsighted to set SS up like that, and it would be stupid to preserve it in any similar form.

You keep trying to poke little holes here and there without addressing the substance of what I'm saying to you. I'm not trying to lay out the particular aspects of SS that I think need reform or who should be the trustee of the money. I'm pointing out the flawed logic your side of the aisle consistently uses to push feel-good policies that make us worse off in the long run. If you're going to try and rebut my assertions, show me where I am wrong. Not how SS was great in 1930.

---

Yes, you can tax your way out of some problems. Social security has self evidently done that fairly well on a historical basis. Education spending has boosted literacy rates and economic output per worker beyond its investment. All courtesy of taxes that have made us better off in the long run. What would be stupid is canceling payroll taxes or education spending rather than reforming what is broken.

---

Education spending has brainwashed millions of little Marxists that will cause economic ruination of this country once their political power is solidified. Not sure that was exactly a great investment. Different implementation would have given a better return.

---

Curse those MEEN department profs for brainwashing me into marxist designs.

---

More like all those MEEN majors who know nothing about economics or social sciences, so they don't know how to recognize when public policy is bad. Keep on voting with your feelings bud. You'll need your doubled stock when everything costs twice as much.

ETA holy hell I just read your response about Biden's covid response and that was one of the most illiterate lines of reasoning I've ever seen.

---

I r enginear. words is hard

You really think the changes in the oil and gas market have to do with Biden's vaccine plan, err Trump's vaccine plan? How about the artificial depression in supply caused by Biden's moratorium of fracking and new pipeline creating artificial scarcity and thus increasing demand for oil from other sources. Let's assume you work for Exxon. Of course they reap the benefits from the short term disequilibrium caused by these market pressures, but the negative impacts in the long term on consumers and o&g in general are far worse. Supporting this nonsense is so shortsighted it's hard to imagine being happy about it.

yeetoneato said:

---

No, I do not regret it at all. In fact, as a democratic socialist, I wish it were Sanders or Warren.

---

A democratic socialist? How old are you?

cajunaggie08 said:

---

WHOOP!'91 said:

---

cajunaggie08 said:

---

No regrets here. My company's stock has nearly doubled from the date Biden took office and we have lots of new orders coming in. Oh this is all in O&G BTW.

---

To what Biden action do you credit this outcome?

---

improved communication of a vaccine roll out plan that had quickened the speed to herd immunity which is driving up demand for all products as our lives get back to normal which has driven up demand for drilling contracts.

---

So you don't think Biden's EOs shutting down KXL and ANWR leases has had an impact?

We were already rolling out 1MM vaccines a day when Trump left office. If you weren't aware of the plan, it was being executed anyway. I heard somewhere Trump put a general officer in charge and the feds were sending vaccines out faster than the states could use them.

WHOOP!'91 said:

---

cajunaggie08 said:

---

WHOOP!'91 said:

---

cajunaggie08 said:

---

No regrets here. My company's stock has nearly doubled from the date Biden took office and we have lots of new orders coming in. Oh this is all in O&G BTW.

---

To what Biden action do you credit this outcome?

---

improved communication of a vaccine roll out plan that had quickened the speed to herd immunity which is driving up demand for all products as our lives get back to normal which has driven up demand for drilling contracts.

---

So you don't think Biden's EOs shutting down KXL and ANWR leases has had an impact?

We were already rolling out 1MM vaccines a day when Trump left office. If you weren't aware of the plan, it was being executed anyway. I heard somewhere Trump put a general officer in charge and the feds were sending vaccines out faster than the states could use them.

---

My business is in deepwater drilling. It sucks for those involved, but anything that prohibits drilling on land only helps me out for the time being. Yea a long term ban on gulf drilling would be a negative, but I'm banking on the oil majors getting that overturned eventually. Is it selfish? yup

Interesting comment about Trump selling out his whole family. What we ended up with was a man willing to sell out all 320 million of us to enrich his family.