An interesting point was made to me a few weeks ago. Ultimately, the most honest and selfless branch of government is the judiciary, that body comprised of educated men with tenure.
Hmmm... the judicial branch? I don't know. It's made up of a bunch of lawyers, much like Congress is. About the only difference is they aren't subject to re-election every few years.
To play devils advocate, don't those sort of illegal immigrants typically have more children, meaning they are pushing the demographic towards a better retirees:taxpayers ratio?
That's questionable. Early on more than a few Supreme Court Justices were interested in granting themselves more powers. I do wonder though just how much the election thing is an issue. I've got an idea, but it'd be better in its own thread, I think.
Yes, absolutely. Take a look at the situation in Japan, with an aging population and a dropping birth rate. Absent an influx of immigrants, the U.S. would be in the same situation.
But ultimately that breaks down too, as the economy can only support so much industry. Yes there is some growth in service, but has its limits as well. And eventually you reach a population saturation point, where your infrastructure can't support any more people. So when that happens--not "if", "when"--the last generation gets left holding the bag. Ponzi Scheme. Doomed to fail.
That would be true if they were legal immigrants, with declared jobs, paying taxes on their salaries. Illegal immigrants do not pay income tax, or Social Security tax, or anything of the sort. So they are a drain on the system, rather than a help to it. To be a help, they have to be here legally.
I love how everyone talks about how stupid voters are. Well, someone had to vote for William J. Clinton and George W. Bush, two of the most useless and awful American presidents in decades.
Uh, that saturation point is well beyond twice the current U.S. population. As population grows, industry and jobs should scale with it. And if the federal government hadn't spent the last generation or so looting the SS trust fund — the giant surplus generated by the Boomers when they worked would be more than enough to cover their needs in retirement. Get the government's operating fund to pay back all of the IOU's and there's no issue at all. Of course, then G.W. Bush would have to admit that the actual budget deficit is about twice the number generally advertised.
I don't see how you can say that. The change he might be bringing may be narrow, or unimportant. But by the same logic, if he changes one thing from the current status quo, he brings change. Can you really say that he'll keep every single practice and policy of the Bush administration and keep a straight face? Even the thing that you said before about keeping troops in Iraq under the aegis of the UN is a change, albeit an arguably minor one.
^ Then they're ALL candidates of change and he should quit saying it like he quit wearing his flag pin.
On the nonsensical, nonexistent Social Security "crisis": Social Security simply is not in fiscal crisis, no matter what Republicans and Obama say. Not in comparison to the rest of the government, anyway, and even moreso, not in comparison to other entitlement programs. Bush's hideously overexpensive and inefficient prescription drug program for Medicare alone blows twice the hole in the federal budget that Social Security rates to over the next 42 years. We could do more to solve entitlement cost issues by simply allowing drug reimportation and allowing the federal government to negotiate drug prices for Medicare Part D than by any possible reform of Social Security.
Shit. A blogger, hosted by the New York Times!? I'm sold. Clearly there is no issue. Hell, Harmon sold his case a lot more effectively and it still doesn't boil down to "if", it is "when". Because even if the US has a lot higher capacity to absorb population, and even if there are a lot more funds for the program, eventually, there will be a day when Social Security fails because there are more people receiving benefits than are paying into the program--unless the system is reworked. Because Ponzi Schemes fail. And the sooner SS gets fixed, the less painful it is going to be.
Ponzi scheme is exactly the what should be printed on every paycheck in place of "SSI" or anything like that. Of course, that assumes the average wage-slave knows what a Ponzi scheme is.
OK. I actually took the time to read that drivel. So the guy's argument isn't that Social Security is in trouble, it is that there are bigger problems out there than its eventual failure? OK. Lets do a little drill: Go to your tax records and dig out your most recent Social Security Statement. It's a 4 page newsletter. Look up how much you've paid into Social Security over your life (it should be in the middle of Page 3). I'm what, 1/3 of the way through my working years? And still haven't reached my peak earning potential--lotsa years as a student and working as a dishwasher or a janitor and such. Even so, I've managed to pay almost $15,000 into Social Security. And People I've worked for have put in another $15 grand or so. So over twenty years, $29 thousand dollars that I could've been given as compensation for my work has instead been given to retired people. Now, part two: If Social Security's failure really isn't that big a deal to you, you should have no problem with taking whatever the bottom line from your Social Security Statement (in my case it was 29 grand), walking down to the local retirement home, and writing them a check for that amount. After all, it's only a "second-tier...issue", right?
First of all, what Harmon Bokai said. Second of all, let's take a look at one industry that will need increasing numbers of local employees, and is therefore safe from outsourcing - healthcare. An aging population needs more healthcare. Eventually some of its members will need nursing home care. There is a nationwide shortage of skilled nurses, and local shortages of semi-skilled/unskilled people willing to work in nursing homes. Your first wave of immigrants can fill the semi-skilled/unskilled needs. The ambitious ones and their children can train as nurses. Their children can earn PhDs and find targeted cures for various cancers. That aside, maybe over the course of the next half century the U.S. will catch up with the rest of the industrialized world in realizing that the 40-hour work week with two weeks' vacation is antiquated and needs to be rethought. What'll do that is not forethought and intelligent planning, but the price of gas and ever-longer commutes. Maybe by mid-century the U.S. will function as a 21st-century civilization.
On that theme. What significant change has Obama brought about in his time in the US Senate, as well as his time in the Illinois Legislature? As an Illinois resident, I figure you are perfectly suited to answer this question.
Don't you NEOCONS and DITTOHEADS think for a minute that it's not obvious what you're trying to do. It's all part of the VAST RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY, that tried to make Bill Clinton look like a horny buffoon with a Big Mac addiction, and his loyal wife appear to be frosty and ruthless, as though she were an ice cube wearing heels. And now all you NEOCONS and DITTOHEADS are trying to undermine the only (sob) hope for our great nation (whimper), Barak H Obama (and trying to impugn his good name by pointing out that his middle name is hussein just so insensitive). Can't you see how much he cares. He cares deeply. He cares for children. He cares for the future. He cares for the environment more than Mr. Gore. He wants to change things NOW. He cares so much so he sees that change must come immediately. Can't you NEOCONS and DITTOHEADS see the need for change? Obama can see it. He's a man of change. He's a man who can do it now. How can we move forward with out change? How can we have change without Obama? Can't you NEOCONS and DITTOHEADS see it? Obama is the only way our nation can move forward. This caring man of compassion, who hates all of those people who have made this country live without change, is saddened for the future. (Although, Mrs. Clinton is almost as sad 'cause she cried for our future in the debates). But Obama is also hopeful because of the change he knows he can do. It may not be clear to all of the rest of us, 'cause we can't comprehend all of the changes that need to be made, but it's so plain that Obama can. His compassion and caring make him the perfect man to lead us in the change. So, to all the NEOCONS and DITTOHEADS who oppose and ridicule him, and call his plan for change into question: You will concede, or be crushed beneath the wheels of change that Obama will set in motion when he is installed in the highest office in the land come January 2009.
That's all a very nice appeal to emotions and red herring, but it completely sidesteps the FACT that Social Security is a program that is impossible to sustain and will, one day fail. Still, I guess it is more effective than Pardot, who effectively said "So what?" I don't know. But if, over the course of my work life, the Government takes enough money from me to buy a starter house in many parts of the country and promises that when I retire the Government will pay me a monthly stipend, but they don't come through on that promise, I'm gonna be pissed.
That's all a very nice appeal to emotions and red herring, but it completely sidesteps the FACT that Social Security is a program that is impossible to sustain and will, one day fail. Still, I guess it is more effective than Pardot, who effectively said "So what?" I don't know. But if, over the course of my work life, the Government takes enough money from me to buy a starter house in many parts of the country and promises that when I retire the Government will pay me a monthly stipend, but they don't come through on that promise, I'm gonna be pissed.
I thought the topic at that point was "why it's a good idea to add young workers to an aging population." Honey, if I had back every penny of principal - not even interest, just the principal - that I've been paying in since 1967... I'm in no way defending the concept of Social Security. But it's here, and if you're going to disband it, you have to figure out a way to do so without robbing everyone who's paid into it. I've yet to see anyone offer a substantive way to do that. Seriously, just give me back what I've paid in, and you can do whatever you want to after that.
I thought the topic at that point was "why it's a good idea to add young workers to an aging population." Honey, if I had back every penny of principal - not even interest, just the principal - that I've been paying in since 1967... I'm in no way defending the concept of Social Security. But it's here, and if you're going to disband it, you have to figure out a way to do so without robbing everyone who's paid into it. I've yet to see anyone offer a substantive way to do that. Seriously, just give me back what I've paid in, and you can do whatever you want to after that.
I thought the topic at that point was "why it's a good idea to add young workers to an aging population." Honey, if I had back every penny of principal - not even interest, just the principal - that I've been paying in since 1967... I'm in no way defending the concept of Social Security. But it's here, and if you're going to disband it, you have to figure out a way to do so without robbing everyone who's paid into it. I've yet to see anyone offer a substantive way to do that. Seriously, just give me back what I've paid in, and you can do whatever you want to after that.
That's all a very nice appeal to emotions and red herring, but it completely sidesteps the FACT that Social Security is a program that is impossible to sustain and will, one day fail. Still, I guess it is more effective than Pardot, who effectively said "So what?" I don't know. But if, over the course of my work life, the Government takes enough money from me to buy a starter house in many parts of the country and promises that when I retire the Government will pay me a monthly stipend, but they don't come through on that promise, I'm gonna be pissed.
Jees-us. That'll be the last time I accept a large pepperoni and mushroom from a kid wearing a Grateful Dead shirt under his Pizza Hut jacket. Glad I stopped short of singing, "Give Peace A Chance"
I'm firmly against illegal immigration but I seem to recall a study linked here a few months ago that suggested many illegal immigrants actually end up giving more to the US economy than they take due to using false social security numbers and the like which means any tax withheld by their employer disapears into the system with no chance of claiming any back. Also with all this talk of Ponzi schemes and how they will inevitably fail, isn't the entire capitalist economy (at least the version in Western countries with share price being a major focus) eventually also going to fail by those standards since they rely on companies constantly expanding their profits and markets?
