Al Gore Scandal!

[NorthSideSox72]

That's my point. You are stepping out saying Gore would have been so much better, but there is absolutely nothing any of you can base that on.

Its not "nothing" either. Its educated guessing. We know what Bush's policies have been, and they have been (on the whole) disastrous. We know what Gores policies would probably have been like, in the general sense. Therefore, we can take some educated guesses. They are not pulled out of nothing like the flip of a coin. but they are, yes, guesses.

[YASNY]

Its not "nothing" either. Its educated guessing. We know what Bush's policies have been, and they have been (on the whole) disastrous. We know what Gores policies would probably have been like, in the general sense. Therefore, we can take some educated guesses. They are not pulled out of nothing like the flip of a coin. but they are, yes, guesses.

 

It's pure speculation. That's all it is and all it ever will be.

 

Since we're doing this theoretical exercise, it's also entirely possible that with Mr. Gore in office, the 9/11 plot could have been disrupted by our governnment in the summer of 2001 before it happened, and thus either the Bin laden group would have had to arrange for a different operation to hit the U.S. before the U.S. would have taken action against them, or the Bin Laden group could have remained in Afghanistan working to destabilize other countries in the region without any real effort by the U.S. to stop them. And who knows what that could have done.

A few more years of the results of the Iraq debacle, and I think that we'll actually have plenty to base it on.

 

You guys are the ones doing this theoretical exercise. I'm saying that you don't have s*** to base it on other than pure rhetoric. Which doesn't amount to a hill of beans.

[KipWellsFan]

Here's your assmuption based on a whole lof of nothing.

We haven't had any successful attacks on us since. You are assuming that would be the case with Gore in office. I'm not willing to jump to that conclusion.

 

Well those are Northside's "assumptions" not mine. And I said I think Gore would have done better on the world stage. I don't really think of terrorist attacks on US soil as a indicator of this. I don't really assume anything.

 

Like you say this is all speculation.

[YASNY]

Well those are Northside's "assumptions" not mine. And I said I think Gore would have done better on the world stage. I don't really think of terrorist attacks on US soil as a indicator of this. I don't really assume anything.

 

Like you say this is all speculation.

 

If we had terrorist attacks on the US, what would the world stage matter to the American people. Not a damn thing.

[NorthSideSox72]

It's pure speculation. That's all it is and all it ever will be.

You guys are the ones doing this theoretical exercise. I'm saying that you don't have s*** to base it on other than pure rhetoric. Which doesn't amount to a hill of beans.

We're just saying, based on what information we have, that we think its likely Gore would have done better. We do have s*** to base it on, its not rhetoric at all - its educated guessing. What's the harm?

[YASNY]

We're just saying, based on what information we have, that we think its likely Gore would have done better. We do have s*** to base it on, its not rhetoric at all - its educated guessing. What's the harm?

 

I believe Scott Podsednik can be the AL MVP this year ... based on an educated guess. It's as legitimate of a guess as you are making here.

[sox4lifeinPA]

BTW, thanks PA for ruining a perfectly funny thread

 

suck it Trabeck

 

Who's to say we wouldn't have had 5 more 9-11's since then if Gore was in office. You guys are make making some hellacious assumptions based on a whole bunch of nothing.

 

 

Neville Chamberlin vs. Winston Churchill... imo.

[mr_genius]

LOCK BOX!

[Balta1701]

LOCK BOX!

In about 10 years, people will be wishing that they had kept the social security money in that lockbox rather than spending it.

[Texsox]

I saw him cutting down acres of Rainforest to build a chain of Ruby Tuesdays!!

 

That's going to put them out of business, so good bye Ruby Tue. . .*

 

 

 

*damn, even I can't stoop to that low a pun.

[mr_genius]

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.

[sox4lifeinPA]

in 50 years people will realize that social security needed a major overhaul to keep itself sustainable. lockbox doesn't fix problem.

 

a lockbox fixes the problem for tex, when he retires in 10 years.

 

 

but you're right...for us, it doesn't.

[Balta1701]

a lockbox fixes the problem for tex, when he retires in 10 years.

but you're right...for us, it doesn't.

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.

[mr_genius]

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

Edited December 19, 2006 by mr_genius

[sox4lifeinPA]

People are living longer

 

 

so the answer is put Al Gore in a lock box along with all the other retirees that refuse to die

[mr_genius]

so the answer is put Al Gore in a lock box along with all the other retirees that refuse to die

 

LOCK BOX!

[Balta1701]

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

Actually, you're the one who's totally wrong. The key word there is "Scheduled benefits". With Social security as it is currently structured, the "scheduled benefits" actually rise at a rate faster than that of inflation, so if inflation were 0 for the next 50 years, Social Security payments would still increase every year. If the worst case scenario in the Trustees prediction comes true, once the Social Security trust fund runs out, Social Security will still be able to pay out 85% of the "Scheduled benefits" at the time. But because Social Security grows faster than inflation, 85% of the Scheduled benefits 40 years from now is actually greater than 100% of the benefits now.

 

Furthermore, there is still significant reason to doubt the "worst case scenario" projection, the exhaustion of the social security trust fund, because previous evidence has shown that the system is actually more stable than the projections indicate. In 1994, when they predicted when the trust fund would be exhaustsed, they predicted 2029. In 2004, they predicted the same even would happen in 2042, in other words, 12 years passed, and the exhaustion date moved 13 years into the future. How could this happen? Very simple...the Social Security administration in making those predictions assumes something like a 1.6-2% GDP growth per year. Any time that growth beats that number, more money comes into the system than was predicted, the date winds up moving farther into the future. In fact, if we average just over 2% GDP growth for the next 40 years, the Social Security trust fund NEVER goes bankrupt, and Social Security never misses a payment.

 

Graphically, here's that same fact:

 

 

The upper line on that graph is the "low cost" projection, the same one which has been consistently the most accurate for the last 10 years.

[mr_genius]

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?

Edited December 19, 2006 by mr_genius

[NorthSideSox72]

Actually, you're the one who's totally wrong. The key word there is "Scheduled benefits". With Social security as it is currently structured, the "scheduled benefits" actually rise at a rate faster than that of inflation, so if inflation were 0 for the next 50 years, Social Security payments would still increase every year. If the worst case scenario in the Trustees prediction comes true, once the Social Security trust fund runs out, Social Security will still be able to pay out 85% of the "Scheduled benefits" at the time. But because Social Security grows faster than inflation, 85% of the Scheduled benefits 40 years from now is actually greater than 100% of the benefits now.

 

Furthermore, there is still significant reason to doubt the "worst case scenario" projection, the exhaustion of the social security trust fund, because previous evidence has shown that the system is actually more stable than the projections indicate. In 1994, when they predicted when the trust fund would be exhaustsed, they predicted 2029. In 2004, they predicted the same even would happen in 2042, in other words, 12 years passed, and the exhaustion date moved 13 years into the future. How could this happen? Very simple...the Social Security administration in making those predictions assumes something like a 1.6-2% GDP growth per year. Any time that growth beats that number, more money comes into the system than was predicted, the date winds up moving farther into the future. In fact, if we average just over 2% GDP growth for the next 40 years, the Social Security trust fund NEVER goes bankrupt, and Social Security never misses a payment.

 

Graphically, here's that same fact:

 

 

The upper line on that graph is the "low cost" projection, the same one which has been consistently the most accurate for the last 10 years.

This information is intriguing to me. Where did you get it?

[Balta1701]

This information is intriguing to me. Where did you get it?

The second graph comes from the 2004 Social Security Trustees report. The first graph is a compilation of the projected dates shown in line 2 in that report for the 10 years before 1994, and the confirming data for that chart (something whipped up during the social security debate back in 05) can be found here, although they're often in PDF form.

 

For example, just so you may be inclined to believe me more without having to scroll through several 200+ page pdf reports, here is the identical graph from the 1997 OASDI report. You can compare it to the 2004 version which is copied from the link above. You'll note that the line 2, which is generally the line the media cites as the "Doomsday" line for Social Security, has moved from 2029 to 2041 within the space of 7 years.

 

Edited December 19, 2006 by Balta1701

[mr_genius]

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.

Edited December 19, 2006 by mr_genius

[Balta1701]

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.

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. The upper line there is in fact the higher-growth higher-productivity model, which in reality has been far more accurate, and which makes much more likely assumptions about growth (1.6% GDP growth vs. 2% GDP growth for the next 40 years)

[mr_genius]

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.

Edited December 19, 2006 by mr_genius

[Balta1701]

2 interesting graphs in response, from the 2005 and 2006 OASDI reports.

 

2005:

2006:

 

In the space of 2 years in those reports, the projected deficit almost 75 years from now has decreased from nearly 6% to 5.35%.

 

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.

Edited December 19, 2006 by Balta1701

[mr_genius]

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.