The answer is so obvious so why isn't anything being done?

[trapdoor]

Evidently one year of budget shortfalls for the SS fund represents failure to Trap. Perhaps the SS fund could just demand payment on the bonds issued to it from the government? All that needs to be done to fix SS is to raise the cap and force the government to start paying off the IOUs. As for economic forecasts about what the world will be like in 25 years...is this a George Carlin bit? An economist accurately predicting the economy 20, 30 or 45 years in advance? That must be some killer weed...

If the anticipated revenue would recoup the loss next year,it wouldn't represent a failure. As there is no anticipated increase in revenue that will cause this to happen, yes, it represents a failure.

Further, for the past 60 years we've been using Social Security to defray the expenses of our operations, borrowing from the revenue SS generates in order to pay for general-fund expenses, which we needed to do because those expenses exceeded our revenues from other sources. Now, this year and for the foreseeable future, revenues from all sources, including Social Security, are less than the payouts to all sources, including Social Security. How, then, can we redeem the Social Security trust fund? By borrowing more money, of course, which will itself have to be repaid out of future revenues -- and those future revenues already are not expected to be able to meet the expenses we already have, without borrowing additional money.

All that needs to be done to fix SS is to raise the cap and force the government to start paying off the IOUs

This would be a laughable statement if the situation were not so dire. Raising the cap isn't going to happen -- it's a political impossibility. What WILL happen is that the requirements to meet benefits will change: The Social Security retirement qualification age will move again, proving to young people that they will never see a social security check, but because the age of benefits is a moving target.

An economist accurately predicting the economy 20, 30 or 45 years in advance?

Read "The Rise and Fall of Great Powers" by Paul Kennedy, who accurately predicted the breakup of the Soviet Union, based on data acquired over the preceding 20 years (the book was published in 1987).

 

[trapdoor]

You can thank Reagan for that loophole. Under Carter you would have gotten benefits if you worked more than 20 hours.

The loophole didn't matter, Degs, at that point I'd already been denied any financial aid save for student loans.

 

[degsme]

The loophole didn't matter, Degs, at that point I'd already been denied any financial aid save for student loans.

yes... ALSO due to Reagan.

Remember he cut your likelihood of getting financial aid by 66%

 

[trapdoor]

yes... ALSO due to Reagan.

Remember he cut your likelihood of getting financial aid by 66%

Degs, I wasn't rejected because of a lack of dollars. There was plenty of financial aid lying around if I'd been of the correct gender or skin color. As for hours worked -- when I applied for the financial aid I had zero hours a week. I was 26, had just gotten out of the Army (Aug. '89), and had no parental assistance. Yeah -- the dollars were assigned based on need.

 

[degsme]

Degs, I wasn't rejected because of a lack of dollars. There was plenty of financial aid lying around if I'd been of the correct gender or skin color.

Yes you were rejected because of a lack of dollars. No it was not because of your skin color. only 12% of the funding was set aside for minority applicants. The LACK OF DOLLARS came from a 66% cut in PELL and other college grants put into place by the guy YOU VOTED FOR.

And then the loophole denying you benefits ALSO was put there by THE GUY YOU VOTED FOR.

And then the tax cuts that Tripled the defict - and which went MOSTLY TO PEOPLE LIKE ME??? Also THE GUY YOU VOTED FOR (btw I want to thank you personally for picking up part of my share of the deficit so that I could go to Australia for the Americas Cup with my increased tax refund... what did you do in 1986?

 

[trapdoor]

Yes you were rejected because of a lack of dollars. No it was not because of your skin color. only 12% of the funding was set aside for minority applicants. The LACK OF DOLLARS came from a 66% cut in PELL and other college grants put into place by the guy YOU VOTED FOR.

Degs - where are you deriving your figures? Particularly this "12 percent of the funding" figure.

If your figures are accurate, and if we were only talking about Pell Grants, you'd have a point -- I was given no access to ANY financial aid.

And then the loophole denying you benefits ALSO was put there by THE GUY YOU VOTED FOR.

The loophole didn't deny me financial aid, Degs. When I applied for the aid, I wasn't working -- the loophole had no affect at all.

In 1986, I finished basic and AIT and was stationed at Fort Belvoir, Va.

 

[trapdoor]

Housekeeping: I'm out-of-town for the next couple of days. So I may be late in responding.

 

[degsme]

Degs - where are you deriving your figures? Particularly this "12 percent of the funding" figure.

By the time you were applying, the Bakke ruling had eliminated quotas. Thus any sort of "race based" funding was limited by "diversity goals" ie matching the student population to the diversity in the local population. African Americans make up 11.x% of the population. That means AT MOST 12% of the grants were set aside.

If your figures are accurate, and if we were only talking about Pell Grants, you'd have a point -- I was given no access to ANY financial aid.

RIGHT - because Reagan CUT THEM Because Reagan cut Financial Aid, public schools (ie as opposed to private endowment schools) were left with a 67% cut in their Financial Aide budget. So they cut back on the top of their tier.

As you have stated, because your parents made a middle class wages, that made you ineligible from a financial perspective even though your 'rents weren't chipping in anything.

But that failure to get FA.. is 100% DUE TO REAGAN. 100%.

The loophole didn't deny me financial aid, Degs. When I applied for the aid, I wasn't working -- the loophole had no affect at all.

No it denied you BENEFITS.

IOW Reagan - the guy you voted for - screwed your over twice financially.

In 1986, I finished basic and AIT and was stationed at Fort Belvoir, Va.

Yup Which means you were paying for my tax cuts... thank you.

 

[trapdoor]

By the time you were applying, the Bakke ruling had eliminated quotas. Thus any sort of "race based" funding was limited by "diversity goals" ie matching the student population to the diversity in the local population. African Americans make up 11.x% of the population. That means AT MOST 12% of the grants were set aside.

If that were the case, I'd have received a grant. I was, for the purposes of the program, destitute, and I'd have been in the "other" 88 percent of applicants, and if your numbers are accurate, 88 percent of the funding would have gone to people like me. I don't think that happened in the real world.

RIGHT - because Reagan CUT THEM Because Reagan cut Financial Aid, public schools (ie as opposed to private endowment schools) were left with a 67% cut in their Financial Aide budget. So they cut back on the top of their tier.

Well, there are a number of things I could say here, but among them is that there is a problem reflected in other resources if the federal funding amounted to more than 2/3s of a school's financial aid budget.

As you may recall, collegiate funding is one area where I'd be in favor of more federal funding -- I'd give it to anyone who scored at least 80 percent on the SAT or ACT. So it's an area where I have mixed emotions. I'm in favor of more governmental education funding at the college level, but "governmental" and "federal" are not the same thing. I don't really see a role for federal government in education or its funding. If no federal funding had been available, at all, in the 1989/90 timeframe you and I wouldn't be having this discussion. My beef is not with the existence of the funding, but with its distribution.

As you have stated, because your parents made a middle class wages, that made you ineligible from a financial perspective even though your 'rents weren't chipping in anything.

This IS NOT, for the HUNDREDTH TIME, true. My parents WERE NOT a factor in my rejection for financial aid because I was 26 years old and had not lived in my parent's home for several years. I was not their dependent and their income was no factor at all in my application.

Yup Which means you were paying for my tax cuts... thank you.

BS -- the taxes you paid were paying my salary.