14 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

Whether or I want to or not, the fact is that illegal aliens do contribute to the longevity of social security's ability to pay full benefits.

If that were the case, SS would not have run a deficit since 2010. 

3 minutes ago, TedG said:

I inhabit a universe where I recognize these programs are growing out of control.  

 

https://www.pgpf.org/article/cbo-report-highlights-americas-unsustainable-and-deteriorating-fiscal-outlook/

 

 

Yes, something should be done about the rising level of debt. The question is what is to be done.

1 minute ago, Alan Zweibel said:

Your second point is bizarre. Why don't you understand that the reason the population can't be grown to infinity is that human beings, and yes, that includes immigrants aren't immortal. What don't you understand about the ratio of working people to retired people is what's crucial?

How much do you want to grow the population for the sake of SS.

 

 

 

 

1 minute ago, TedG said:

If that were the case, SS would not have run a deficit since 2010. 

Wow! I don't even know how to address such flagrant cluelessness. Have you ever heard the phrase "bending the curve". Do you think it's impossible to slow a rate of decline or growth. That there's no such thing as mitigation or delay?

Just now, Alan Zweibel said:

Wow! I don't even know how to address such flagrant cluelessness. Have you ever heard the phrase "bending the curve". Do you think it's impossible to slow a rate of decline or growth. That there's no such thing as mitigation or delay?

Immigration is the only tool to bend the curve? 

4 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

Yes, something should be done about the rising level of debt. The question is what is to be done.

Cut spending to 19% of the GDP. 

2 minutes ago, TedG said:

How much do you want to grow the population for the sake of SS.

 

 

 

 

Do you understand that this graph actually supports my point about the ratio of workers to beneficiaries? Or let me put it another way: Do you understand that your claim that the ratio of workers to beneficiaries is irrelevant is nonsense?

1 minute ago, TedG said:

Cut spending to 19% of the GDP. 

Thanks for the assertion. It does nothing to mitigate the fact that you support increasing the debt by lowering taxation.

Just now, Alan Zweibel said:

Do you understand that this graph actually supports my point about the ratio of workers to beneficiaries? Or let me put it another way: Do you understand that your claim that the ratio of workers to beneficiaries is irrelevant is nonsense?

I asked you the question.   How much do you want to grow the population via immigration?   

Just now, Alan Zweibel said:

Thanks for the assertion. It does nothing to mitigate the fact that you support increasing the debt by lowering taxation.

You don't think that federal spending needs to be cut? 

Just now, TedG said:

I asked you the question.   How much do you want to grow the population via immigration?   

Deflecting much? You claimed that having a younger work force would make no difference. Yet you introduced a graph that says exactly the opposite. So, do you acknowledge that your claim was false?

Just now, Alan Zweibel said:

Deflecting much? You claimed that having a younger work force would make no difference. Yet you introduced a graph that says precisely the opposite. So, do you acknowledge that your claim was false?

How many people do you need to import to change the ratio?   You are the self-proclaimed math wizard?  

What ratio will be needed? 

3 minutes ago, TedG said:

You don't think that federal spending needs to be cut? 

I"m sure that there are some areas that could do with a trimming. But the nonsensical kind of cuts you propose - over 50 percent of discretionary spending -would never get off the ground.

Just now, Alan Zweibel said:

I"m sure that there are some areas that could do with a trimming. But the nonsensical kind of cuts you propose - over 50 percent of discretionary spending -would never get off the ground.

Well, as long as we have the current crop of Democrats.  Nothing will get cut. 

Just now, TedG said:

How many people do you need to import to change the ratio?   You are the self-proclaimed math wizard?  

What ratio will be needed? 

What ratio will be needed to do what? Any increase in the ratio of workers to beneficiary will mitigate the situation. Which is a fact you repeatedly denied.

Just now, Alan Zweibel said:

What ratio will be needed to do what? Any increase in the ratio of workers to beneficiary will mitigate the situation. Which is a fact you repeatedly denied.

What ratio is needed?

Just now, TedG said:

Well, as long as we have the current crop of Democrats.  Nothing will get cut. 

And as long as we have the current crop of Republicans, not only will taxes not be raised, there's no reason to believe that they won't be cut further.

2 minutes ago, TedG said:

What ratio is needed?

According to what you claimed, the ratio is irrelevant. So why are you even asking the question? Or do you now acknowledge that the ratio of workers to retirees is relevant"?

Just now, Alan Zweibel said:

And as long as we have the current crop of Republicans, not only will taxes not be raised, there's no reason to believe that they won't be cut further.

They cut NRP, and the Dems acted like it was the end of the world. 

Just now, Alan Zweibel said:

According to what you claimed, the ratio is irrelevant. So why are you even asking the question? Or do you now acknowledge that the ration of workers to retirees is relevant"?

Please show me where I said that? 

3 minutes ago, TedG said:

Please show me where I said that? 

Just one of many of your clueless comments: Sentence #2

Just now, Alan Zweibel said:

Just one of many of your clueless comments: Sentence #2

Again, when did I say the ratio didn't matter?   You are trying to put words in my mouth. 

42 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

First off, as I pointed out, even in Germany, a manufacturing powerhouse, manufacturing as a percentage of the economy was in decline. As economies develop, services overtake manufacturing.

And your concern for American workers is touching. I'm sure you, like President Trump support strong trade unions. Otherwise, what bargaining power of American workers was there that NAFTA undercut?

What's more, let's say that American manufacturers didn't move abroad. Do you seriously believe that non-American manufacturers wouldn't produce those goods at a cheaper price?

So, I think you should support the race to the bottom. 

18 hours ago, dutch boy said:

It sure seems that way. No other President has accomplished so much in such a short period of time. 

 

All facetiousness aside, I actually believe that you might be correct in this observation.

 

There are just too many that seem to have some sort of gut-autonomic reaction to Trump.

 

These are the ones who are unable to see the FORREST for the TREES.

 

And, IMHO....Trump is an OAK of a Man.....

 

Powerful.

Great Sense of Humor...

And, a great deal more.