Reply #17

In the discussion thread: Social Security Disability Seen Insolvent Unless Congress Votes [View all]

Tue May 29, 2012, 12:54 PM

17. Another misinformed poster

The Social Security Trustees long term projection is just that, and assume varies factors stay the same, so what you posted is not new information. Even the most bullish Kudlow (of the Kudlow Report) will acknowledge U.S. growth will not stay so stagnant over a long period of time. Yes, the most potential for growth comes from the LDC's or even the emerging markets, and the U.S. is already an established, matured MDC. But social security will always be solvent as long as U.S. growth continues to improve, because it is afterall a trust fund.

Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

90 replies	Author	Time	Post
Social Security Disability Seen Insolvent Unless Congress Votes [View all]	Purveyor	May 2012	OP
Well, pretty much the whole damn country will be insolvent as long as the HOUSE	annabanana	May 2012	#1
And this is most likely what will happen to SS after its trust fund is gone.	dkf	May 2012	#2
Many will not be able to save anything for retirement. For many just surviving	RKP5637	May 2012	#4
Well look at the denial that there is even a problem with SS.	dkf	May 2012	#6
At one time retirement was part of being employed and SS was some	RKP5637	May 2012	#7
There isn't a problem with Social Security.	Zalatix	May 2012	#8
Well then no big deal right? I guess the insolvency of the disability fund is of no consequence?	dkf	May 2012	#10
If there is a thief robbing the bank the problem isn't with the bank, it's with the thief.	Zalatix	May 2012	#18
The "plutocrats" to whom you refer are the US Congress. Now what? nt	Romulox	May 2012	#24
Those aren't Plutocrats, those are minions doing the Plutocrats' bidding.	Zalatix	May 2012	#35
Plutocrat -- A person whose power derives from their wealth.	Romulox	May 2012	#36
As long as Nancy Pelosi keeps fighting the interests of Plutocrats, yes.	Zalatix	May 2012	#37
"keeps fighting"??? Her own interests? Do you have any specific examples of her ever doing this?	Romulox	May 2012	#38
Let's see..... I could waste all day citing examples or I could do cite this...	Zalatix	May 2012	#39
You said against her own interests, and yet her wealth has grown substantially while in office...	Romulox	May 2012	#40
Yes, and? You're just trying to make up some outrage now.	Zalatix	May 2012	#46
You need to define your terms. A person of great wealth in power, who grows that wealth while in	Romulox	May 2012	#47
Then you don't know what a Plutocrat is.	Zalatix	May 2012	#48
Those are definitions that YOU have crafted from whole cloth. Nancy is worth $35 million, 14 or so	Romulox	May 2012	#49
I've provided CITES to back up my opinion, and my definitions are 100% NOT made up.	Zalatix	May 2012	#50
You didn't "cite" anything. You regurgitated "the LIST". Worthless. nt	Romulox	May 2012	#65
The list is only WORTHLESS because it contradicts your delusions about Nancy Pelosi.	Zalatix	May 2012	#71
I'm done talking to you. Take it to meta, where we can complain to third parties!!!	Romulox	May 2012	#72
You're done because you have NO FACTS to back up your arguments. See ya!	Zalatix	May 2012	#74
What nonsense. The "99%" frame was constructed by OWS last Summer--it is not part of any classical	Romulox	May 2012	#66
So? The 99% have always been here, throughout history. And Nancy Pelosi fights for them.	Zalatix	May 2012	#73
How many things has she taken "off the table"?	Mairead	May 2012	#45
It's not up to me to show what she's "taken off the table". Why don't you show us?	Zalatix	May 2012	#51
It's up to you if you have integrity.	Mairead	May 2012	#52
You made an accusation, the burden of proof is on you.	Zalatix	May 2012	#53
You must be joking.	Mairead	May 2012	#56
You'll get absolutely nowhere with me with your Pelosi-bashing. Nowhere. Period. Dot. Stop.	Zalatix	May 2012	#63
And we are now in the "But she is OUR plutocrat!" zone. Zalatix, I hardly knew ye... nt	Romulox	May 2012	#67
And now you are lying about what I said. Nancy Pelosi is NOT a Plutocrat by any credible definition.	Zalatix	May 2012	#68
"You have yet to come up with any proof except "it's common knowledge""	Mairead	May 2012	#77
What? No cites to back up your accusations against Pelosi? I'm shocked, I tells ya!	Zalatix	May 2012	#79
I have no intention of continuing	Mairead	May 2012	#80
And this argument will end with you showing that you have no facts to support your case.	Zalatix	May 2012	#81
I'm not sure what to make of this poster's new direction. I honestly don't believe it's sincere. nt	Romulox	May 2012	#64
I know what your direction is. It's in the direction of bashing Democrats who fight for the 99%.	Zalatix	May 2012	#69
LOL. Sure you do. Why not complain about this in meta? nt	Romulox	May 2012	#70
Yes, and when you do suggest it and I do it, you call for me to be banned.	Zalatix	May 2012	#76
This is priceless. I started a thread in meta complaining about you. nt	Romulox	May 2012	#82
You intentionally mis-represent what a Plutocrat is AND you also intentionally mis-represent posts.	Zalatix	May 2012	#83
It's silly because you are accusing me of doing what you yourself just did. "Projection"	Romulox	May 2012	#84
You're getting all confused and tangled up with your web there!	Zalatix	May 2012	#85
It was heartening to find some support in meta. I'm done with the strange, combative behavior. nt	Romulox	May 2012	#86
Republicans appreciate all this irrational Pelosi-bashing.	Zalatix	May 2012	#89
Nor do I. (nt)	Mairead	May 2012	#78
Oh but I am quite sure of your "direction" here.	Zalatix	Jun 2012	#90
not this again	CreekDog	May 2012	#75
You are ill informed about how social security works	Harmony Blue	May 2012	#9
Then again nothing to fix for social security disability. The article is a bunch of hooey.	dkf	May 2012	#13
You've only been given the correct information 1,000 or so times.	girl gone mad	May 2012	#30
Lol. Well SS, Medicare and the deficit will never need to be addressed right?	dkf	May 2012	#34
What would be your solution?	Kingofalldems	May 2012	#61
I believe you're wrong about that	Mairead	May 2012	#42
the trust fund is not the program, and the program isn't financed from the TF, i believe is what	HiPointDem	May 2012	#54
If indeed that's what was meant, it is indeed wrong	Mairead	May 2012	#57
Uh, no, they're not. SS was set up as a pay-go program. Money to pay retirees doesn't come from	HiPointDem	May 2012	#58
Thanks, then.	Mairead	May 2012	#59
Maybe this is a better one than you read	HiPointDem	May 2012	#60
That looks written by weasels too	Mairead	May 2012	#62
I agree. They were set up as a cushion for the unexpected, same as a cushion in one's	HiPointDem	May 2012	#87
Most people don't expect to be disabled	loyalsister	May 2012	#28
People need to talk to their representatives - now.	freshwest	May 2012	#3
I live in just about a 100% teabagger state. Our representatives could	RKP5637	May 2012	#5
You don't by chance live in Kansas?	KansDem	May 2012	#11
Yep! n/t	RKP5637	May 2012	#14
I live in a blue area and talk to my representatives and they do all they can.	freshwest	May 2012	#16
Thank you, freshwest, for the pep talk. Eventually it just gets	RKP5637	May 2012	#31
There is no problem with social security	Harmony Blue	May 2012	#12
The Social Security Trustees disagree with you.	former9thward	May 2012	#15
Another misinformed poster	Harmony Blue	May 2012	#17
I am not posting my opinions.	former9thward	May 2012	#23
Look, you clearly don't understand	Harmony Blue	May 2012	#29
Don't bother with the condescending 'cutting of slack'.	former9thward	May 2012	#32
"The trustees are projecting what they think is most likely"	Mairead	May 2012	#44
Pro-austerity scare tactics.	marmar	May 2012	#19
Yup	Harmony Blue	May 2012	#20
Get used to it.	Marr	May 2012	#22
Mitt told us they can just borrow from their parents.	closeupready	May 2012	#21
Well then. let's go find Mitt's parents.	RC	May 2012	#25
Yep, this'll work well for me. My parents are now about 113! n/t	RKP5637	May 2012	#33
Journalism FAIL.	KamaAina	May 2012	#26
SOCIAL SECURITY IS NOT INSOLVENT!!!!! forgive the yelling	rustydog	May 2012	#27
One of two legal definitions of "insolvency" is "not able to pay ones bills as they become due."	Romulox	May 2012	#41
Bernie Sanders has a solution	LongTomH	May 2012	#43
What a bullshit article. What they don't tell you is that the fix is very easy and has been done	HiPointDem	May 2012	#55
If true, there is another reason - the number of unemployed people who are under 62 and applying	jwirr	May 2012	#88

Edit History

Please login to view edit histories.