Communist California to require Solar Panels on all new homes

[Toddsterpatriot]

Currently there is zero in the SS fund and those working are paying those who are retired.

Currently there is about $2.8 trillion in the SS Trust Fund.

True, there is about $2.8 Trillion in the account of Social Security but there is no trust fund.

We have a massive unfunded liability.

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

True, there is about $2.8 Trillion in the account of Social Security but there is no trust fund.

So where is the $2.8 trillion?

As you know, and know well, it was loaned to our government and spent. Instead of a credit, which erroneously showed as a surplus during the administration of former President Bill Clinton.

As you know, and know well, it was loaned to our government

And when you loan to government, you get a bond.

Your point being? Or did you simply need to post something?

The Trust Fund holds bonds.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

All government securities are obligations to the taxpayers.

Yup.

They are debts, not assets.

They're debts and assets.

When the government issues a security to itself, how much has it increased the assets of the government?

When the government issues a security to itself, how much has it increased the assets of the government?

By exactly the same amount it has increased the liabilities of the government.

Exactly. The net change is $0.00. Zero, zip, nada, nothing. That's how much the Trust Fund is worth.

Exactly. The net change is $0.00. Zero, zip, nada, nothing.

Bingo! The trust fund reduced the amount of debt the Treasury had to sell to the public.

Not by one cent.

$2 trillion in the Trust Fund didn't reduce borrowing from the public by $2 trillion?

Why not?

 

[danielpalos]

In California's defense, solar technology is improving and prices are coming down. Solar windows, may be the next big thing.

 

[HappyJoy]

Who said he's playing?

A lot of conservatives in this forum seem to have a mental block when it comes to Social Security. They just an't admit that it's a huge swindel.

That's lifted many a senior citizen out of poverty.

Social Security Keeps 22 Million Americans Out of Poverty: A State-By-State Analysis

Remember when we had poor houses? Yeah, not in my lifetime either.

They may not be institutions...but they exist.

Not like the good old days.

According to my link SS keeps 22 million out of poverty. So, deal with that 'bad' news.

There is no way to actually know that.

Many people didn't put anything away because there is SS. If not for SS, and you were just SOL if you didn't save, I would be willing to bet most of those people would have done what we are doing today with our IRA's.

I wish all the money I (and my employers) contributed to the program were in a conservative growth account all these years. What I would be worth today....... Plus the fact that if I die before I get to use it, or use very little of it, my heirs would have a nice jump in life. They would be able to buy a home, payoff the home they have, or even move to a larger and better home. Maybe start a nice college fund for their kids.

Oh, you're making excuses. The poverty rate among the elderly has dropped drastically due to social security. But please don't go changing your views on SS, it's one of many things that makes the far right unpopular.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

A lot of conservatives in this forum seem to have a mental block when it comes to Social Security. They just an't admit that it's a huge swindel.

That's lifted many a senior citizen out of poverty.

Social Security Keeps 22 Million Americans Out of Poverty: A State-By-State Analysis

Remember when we had poor houses? Yeah, not in my lifetime either.

They may not be institutions...but they exist.

Not like the good old days.

According to my link SS keeps 22 million out of poverty. So, deal with that 'bad' news.

There is no way to actually know that.

Many people didn't put anything away because there is SS. If not for SS, and you were just SOL if you didn't save, I would be willing to bet most of those people would have done what we are doing today with our IRA's.

I wish all the money I (and my employers) contributed to the program were in a conservative growth account all these years. What I would be worth today....... Plus the fact that if I die before I get to use it, or use very little of it, my heirs would have a nice jump in life. They would be able to buy a home, payoff the home they have, or even move to a larger and better home. Maybe start a nice college fund for their kids.

Oh, you're making excuses. The poverty rate among the elderly has dropped drastically due to social security. But please don't go changing your views on SS, it's one of many things that makes the far right unpopular.

I hate to break it to you, but that's alway been my view of SS. But I'm happy to hear how accurate your crystal ball is when you say all those people would be in poverty today without SS. That's because my parents are both on SS, and THEY WOULD be in poverty today if that was all they had. However my father planned well ahead of time for these years.

Remember what I said about the two words "government" and "force" when combined. There is a reason we never had the option of paying into SS instead of it being mandated.

 

[HappyJoy]

That's lifted many a senior citizen out of poverty.

Social Security Keeps 22 Million Americans Out of Poverty: A State-By-State Analysis

Remember when we had poor houses? Yeah, not in my lifetime either.

They may not be institutions...but they exist.

Not like the good old days.

According to my link SS keeps 22 million out of poverty. So, deal with that 'bad' news.

There is no way to actually know that.

Many people didn't put anything away because there is SS. If not for SS, and you were just SOL if you didn't save, I would be willing to bet most of those people would have done what we are doing today with our IRA's.

I wish all the money I (and my employers) contributed to the program were in a conservative growth account all these years. What I would be worth today....... Plus the fact that if I die before I get to use it, or use very little of it, my heirs would have a nice jump in life. They would be able to buy a home, payoff the home they have, or even move to a larger and better home. Maybe start a nice college fund for their kids.

Oh, you're making excuses. The poverty rate among the elderly has dropped drastically due to social security. But please don't go changing your views on SS, it's one of many things that makes the far right unpopular.

I hate to break it to you, but that's alway been my view of SS. But I'm happy to hear how accurate your crystal ball is when you say all those people would be in poverty today without SS. That's because my parents are both on SS, and THEY WOULD be in poverty today if that was all they had. However my father planned well ahead of time for these years.

Oh, I don't question this has always been your belief, as unpopular as it is. What I want you to do is keep preaching about it and be sure to identify yourself as a conservative. Thanks!

Remember what I said about the two words "government" and "force" when combined. There is a reason we never had the option of paying into SS instead of it being mandated.

Oh know, the government is forcing people to save for retirement, the horror. Good, it's helped keep people out of poverty.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

For starters you clearly misunderstood the post and you doubled down on that fact.

But since you brought it up, yes solar does work in Seattle, obviously you didn't look into that either before posting did you?

"Works", perhaps yes. Efficiently? Not at all. Other than the fact that temperatures are far lower than, say my area of North Florida where it is still extremely unpopular.

Here is an IKEA in Washington with a solar roof

It's viable and now some solar panels work best in defused light so they are more productive on cloudy days.

I'm sorry solar is 'extremely' unpopular in North Florida but that's kind of the shitty part of the state anyway.

The fact that IKEA put it on their roof proves nothing. You have no idea how much the spent or how much power it produces. It could be a big money loser, for all you know.

The fact that IKEA has it on their roof and you don't proves IKEA is smart.

I'm pretty sure they did the math before throwing it up on the roof, it's not like it's a god damned mystery or anything.

For all I know, it's a money saver for me.

A lot of conservatives in this forum seem to have a mental block when it comes to Social Security. They just an't admit that it's a huge swindel.

That's lifted many a senior citizen out of poverty.

Social Security Keeps 22 Million Americans Out of Poverty: A State-By-State Analysis

Remember when we had poor houses? Yeah, not in my lifetime either.

They may not be institutions...but they exist.

Not like the good old days.

According to my link SS keeps 22 million out of poverty. So, deal with that 'bad' news.

Social Security is bad news.

That fact that it keeps them out of poverty tells us very little about the rest.

It's bad news but yet you haven't posted and when I post good news about SS you completely disregard it. Makes total sense.

It's an argument that requires a great many definitions.

1. What is "good" news.
2. What is "bad" news.
3. What is poverty (which I realize has a specific defintion...but isn't one everybody thinks is correct...it is somewhat arbitrary.....and can become an entire debate on it's own).
4. The alternatives certainly are not discussed.

So when someone touts it as keeping people out of poverty, I find that meaningless. My response is no more meaningful.....

Your good news isn't so good to me. My bad news is just as meaningless. It's what we do in America.

BTW: While I totally understand the basis for Social Security when it was established.....poor houses were a very very tiny thing in reality....but they made great propaganda.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

That's lifted many a senior citizen out of poverty.

Social Security Keeps 22 Million Americans Out of Poverty: A State-By-State Analysis

Remember when we had poor houses? Yeah, not in my lifetime either.

They may not be institutions...but they exist.

Not like the good old days.

According to my link SS keeps 22 million out of poverty. So, deal with that 'bad' news.

There is no way to actually know that.

Many people didn't put anything away because there is SS. If not for SS, and you were just SOL if you didn't save, I would be willing to bet most of those people would have done what we are doing today with our IRA's.

I wish all the money I (and my employers) contributed to the program were in a conservative growth account all these years. What I would be worth today....... Plus the fact that if I die before I get to use it, or use very little of it, my heirs would have a nice jump in life. They would be able to buy a home, payoff the home they have, or even move to a larger and better home. Maybe start a nice college fund for their kids.

Oh, you're making excuses. The poverty rate among the elderly has dropped drastically due to social security. But please don't go changing your views on SS, it's one of many things that makes the far right unpopular.

I hate to break it to you, but that's alway been my view of SS. But I'm happy to hear how accurate your crystal ball is when you say all those people would be in poverty today without SS. That's because my parents are both on SS, and THEY WOULD be in poverty today if that was all they had. However my father planned well ahead of time for these years.

Remember what I said about the two words "government" and "force" when combined. There is a reason we never had the option of paying into SS instead of it being mandated.

Social Security....at the time.....was probably one of the better options available to the government trying to deal with a society in transition.

The sad thing is that it really never did much for the elderly who had made super low incomes (relative to what it paid to people who made more money). In that sense it was something of retirement program.

But, while I don't like it, the fact is that the elderly were being marginalized as the country was going through the I.R. and G.D. The unemployment rate was over 50%. But it should not have been a permanent thing.

Politicians have so screwed it up and put so many people on the rolls that were not supposed to be there...that they are going to screw it up for the people who need it the most.

I am not a fan either and wish I had that money back too.

But, I can see why it was done at the time.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

They may not be institutions...but they exist.

Not like the good old days.

According to my link SS keeps 22 million out of poverty. So, deal with that 'bad' news.

There is no way to actually know that.

Many people didn't put anything away because there is SS. If not for SS, and you were just SOL if you didn't save, I would be willing to bet most of those people would have done what we are doing today with our IRA's.

I wish all the money I (and my employers) contributed to the program were in a conservative growth account all these years. What I would be worth today....... Plus the fact that if I die before I get to use it, or use very little of it, my heirs would have a nice jump in life. They would be able to buy a home, payoff the home they have, or even move to a larger and better home. Maybe start a nice college fund for their kids.

Oh, you're making excuses. The poverty rate among the elderly has dropped drastically due to social security. But please don't go changing your views on SS, it's one of many things that makes the far right unpopular.

I hate to break it to you, but that's alway been my view of SS. But I'm happy to hear how accurate your crystal ball is when you say all those people would be in poverty today without SS. That's because my parents are both on SS, and THEY WOULD be in poverty today if that was all they had. However my father planned well ahead of time for these years.

Oh, I don't question this has always been your belief, as unpopular as it is. What I want you to do is keep preaching about it and be sure to identify yourself as a conservative. Thanks!

Remember what I said about the two words "government" and "force" when combined. There is a reason we never had the option of paying into SS instead of it being mandated.

Oh know, the government is forcing people to save for retirement, the horror. Good, it's helped keep people out of poverty.

Poverty is an arbitrary word and if your goal is to stay above that line (just above it), enjoy. Most of us look forward to more.

The 22 million who would be in poverty might not be if they had saved and not depended on it.

In that sense, it is simply shifting money and did not do anything independent of what a private program would do.

With the exception of the really poor...but even then I am not so sure.

A good friend is living in India because her S.S. can't even pay for an apartment in the U.S.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

A lot of conservatives in this forum seem to have a mental block when it comes to Social Security. They just an't admit that it's a huge swindel.

That's lifted many a senior citizen out of poverty.

Social Security Keeps 22 Million Americans Out of Poverty: A State-By-State Analysis

Remember when we had poor houses? Yeah, not in my lifetime either.

They may not be institutions...but they exist.

Not like the good old days.

According to my link SS keeps 22 million out of poverty. So, deal with that 'bad' news.

There is no way to actually know that.

Many people didn't put anything away because there is SS. If not for SS, and you were just SOL if you didn't save, I would be willing to bet most of those people would have done what we are doing today with our IRA's.

I wish all the money I (and my employers) contributed to the program were in a conservative growth account all these years. What I would be worth today....... Plus the fact that if I die before I get to use it, or use very little of it, my heirs would have a nice jump in life. They would be able to buy a home, payoff the home they have, or even move to a larger and better home. Maybe start a nice college fund for their kids.

Less 10-15% for maintenance fees.

That's way to much.

 

[HappyJoy]

"Works", perhaps yes. Efficiently? Not at all. Other than the fact that temperatures are far lower than, say my area of North Florida where it is still extremely unpopular.

Here is an IKEA in Washington with a solar roof

It's viable and now some solar panels work best in defused light so they are more productive on cloudy days.

I'm sorry solar is 'extremely' unpopular in North Florida but that's kind of the shitty part of the state anyway.

The fact that IKEA put it on their roof proves nothing. You have no idea how much the spent or how much power it produces. It could be a big money loser, for all you know.

The fact that IKEA has it on their roof and you don't proves IKEA is smart.

I'm pretty sure they did the math before throwing it up on the roof, it's not like it's a god damned mystery or anything.

For all I know, it's a money saver for me.

That's lifted many a senior citizen out of poverty.

Social Security Keeps 22 Million Americans Out of Poverty: A State-By-State Analysis

Remember when we had poor houses? Yeah, not in my lifetime either.

They may not be institutions...but they exist.

Not like the good old days.

According to my link SS keeps 22 million out of poverty. So, deal with that 'bad' news.

Social Security is bad news.

That fact that it keeps them out of poverty tells us very little about the rest.

It's bad news but yet you haven't posted and when I post good news about SS you completely disregard it. Makes total sense.

It's an argument that requires a great many definitions.

1. What is "good" news.
2. What is "bad" news.
3. What is poverty (which I realize has a specific defintion...but isn't one everybody thinks is correct...it is somewhat arbitrary.....and can become an entire debate on it's own).
4. The alternatives certainly are not discussed.

You're making it unnecessarily difficult. For purposes here it's the official poverty line. Yo're better off above it than below it. Why make it so complicated? Good news = social security keeps millions of seniors above the poverty line, bad news = sucks to be a conservative having to defend the idea of getting rid of SS.

So when someone touts it as keeping people out of poverty, I find that meaningless. My response is no more meaningful.....

Of course you do, you don't like SS so you have to find something to nit pick at. It's quite obvious.

Your good news isn't so good to me. My bad news is just as meaningless. It's what we do in America.

BTW: While I totally understand the basis for Social Security when it was established.....poor houses were a very very tiny thing in reality....but they made great propaganda.

Elderly poverty was a very real big thing before SS.

 

[HappyJoy]

Not like the good old days.

According to my link SS keeps 22 million out of poverty. So, deal with that 'bad' news.

There is no way to actually know that.

Many people didn't put anything away because there is SS. If not for SS, and you were just SOL if you didn't save, I would be willing to bet most of those people would have done what we are doing today with our IRA's.

I wish all the money I (and my employers) contributed to the program were in a conservative growth account all these years. What I would be worth today....... Plus the fact that if I die before I get to use it, or use very little of it, my heirs would have a nice jump in life. They would be able to buy a home, payoff the home they have, or even move to a larger and better home. Maybe start a nice college fund for their kids.

Oh, you're making excuses. The poverty rate among the elderly has dropped drastically due to social security. But please don't go changing your views on SS, it's one of many things that makes the far right unpopular.

I hate to break it to you, but that's alway been my view of SS. But I'm happy to hear how accurate your crystal ball is when you say all those people would be in poverty today without SS. That's because my parents are both on SS, and THEY WOULD be in poverty today if that was all they had. However my father planned well ahead of time for these years.

Oh, I don't question this has always been your belief, as unpopular as it is. What I want you to do is keep preaching about it and be sure to identify yourself as a conservative. Thanks!

Remember what I said about the two words "government" and "force" when combined. There is a reason we never had the option of paying into SS instead of it being mandated.

Oh know, the government is forcing people to save for retirement, the horror. Good, it's helped keep people out of poverty.

Poverty is an arbitrary word and if your goal is to stay above that line (just above it), enjoy. Most of us look forward to more.

No, we already established it;s the poverty limit, that's what we are going by.

The 22 million who would be in poverty might not be if they had saved and not depended on it.

All 22 million? Most?

In that sense, it is simply shifting money and did not do anything independent of what a private program would do.

But we already know the poverty rate dropped among the elderly with the introduction of social security. You seem to want to ignore this point.

With the exception of the really poor...but even then I am not so sure.

A good friend is living in India because her S.S. can't even pay for an apartment in the U.S.

Social Security was never meant to be lived on solely, you;'re still expected to save, I'm sue you know this and not sure what your friends lack of planning has to do with this.

 

[Some Guy]

Oh know, the government is forcing people to save for retirement, the horror. Good, it's helped keep people out of poverty.

Perfectly indicative of the real ideological argument going on in the country right now.

Is saving for retirement a good, smart thing? Yes, we agree!

Should people be forced to save for retirement under the threat of imprisonment? You say yes, I say no.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

You are the one who seems to be trying to extract something that isn't there.

1. As already stated....S.S. was needed at the time. You didn't acknowledge that statement in your quote which makes me wonder why you howl at conservatives when it appears you follow hack policy yourself.
2. There is now way to know if the 22 million would have been there without out it. As you pointed out, my friend should have done a better job (which I would agree with).
3. That S.S provides income to the elderly is not in dispute.
4. How meaningful that is....is not judged by the arbitrary poverty line (or any other for that matter). The question is...would they have the same income if they didn't have S.S.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Oh know, the government is forcing people to save for retirement, the horror. Good, it's helped keep people out of poverty.

Perfectly indicative of the real ideological argument going on in the country right now.

Is saving for retirement a good, smart thing? Yes, we agree!

Should people be forced to save for retirement under the threat of imprisonment? You say yes, I say no.

Another fallacy of the plan (although you may not have intended to say this).

It isn't supposed to be a retirement program.

You don't save for retirement.

The courts have stated you have no "right' to S.S.

It is a paygo system and one that is in trouble in the long term.

 

[HappyJoy]

Oh know, the government is forcing people to save for retirement, the horror. Good, it's helped keep people out of poverty.

Perfectly indicative of the real ideological argument going on in the country right now.

Is saving for retirement a good, smart thing? Yes, we agree!

Should people be forced to save for retirement under the threat of imprisonment? You say yes, I say no.

Yes, the government should because it's what's best for society. I'd prefer people live off their own money in retirement rather than depend on public assistance because they screwed up.

 

[Some Guy]

Yes, the government should because it's what's best for society. I'd prefer people live off their own money in retirement rather than depend on public assistance because they screwed up.

Best for society in your opinion. Therefore, your opinion = justification for threat of imprisonment.

 

[HappyJoy]

Yes, the government should because it's what's best for society. I'd prefer people live off their own money in retirement rather than depend on public assistance because they screwed up.

Best for society in your opinion. Therefore, your opinion = justification for threat of imprisonment.

Sure, buddy if that makes you feel better. If you don't pay your taxes to include SSDI then yeah, you could wind up in prison.

So, better take responsibility and do your share, comrade.

Do you like that I threw in 'comrade' for you? You're welcome.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

They may not be institutions...but they exist.

Not like the good old days.

According to my link SS keeps 22 million out of poverty. So, deal with that 'bad' news.

There is no way to actually know that.

Many people didn't put anything away because there is SS. If not for SS, and you were just SOL if you didn't save, I would be willing to bet most of those people would have done what we are doing today with our IRA's.

I wish all the money I (and my employers) contributed to the program were in a conservative growth account all these years. What I would be worth today....... Plus the fact that if I die before I get to use it, or use very little of it, my heirs would have a nice jump in life. They would be able to buy a home, payoff the home they have, or even move to a larger and better home. Maybe start a nice college fund for their kids.

Oh, you're making excuses. The poverty rate among the elderly has dropped drastically due to social security. But please don't go changing your views on SS, it's one of many things that makes the far right unpopular.

I hate to break it to you, but that's alway been my view of SS. But I'm happy to hear how accurate your crystal ball is when you say all those people would be in poverty today without SS. That's because my parents are both on SS, and THEY WOULD be in poverty today if that was all they had. However my father planned well ahead of time for these years.

Remember what I said about the two words "government" and "force" when combined. There is a reason we never had the option of paying into SS instead of it being mandated.

Social Security....at the time.....was probably one of the better options available to the government trying to deal with a society in transition.

The sad thing is that it really never did much for the elderly who had made super low incomes (relative to what it paid to people who made more money). In that sense it was something of retirement program.

But, while I don't like it, the fact is that the elderly were being marginalized as the country was going through the I.R. and G.D. The unemployment rate was over 50%. But it should not have been a permanent thing.

Politicians have so screwed it up and put so many people on the rolls that were not supposed to be there...that they are going to screw it up for the people who need it the most.

I am not a fan either and wish I had that money back too.

But, I can see why it was done at the time.

The one bad thing (I shouldn't say just one) about social programs is once they're in place, it's impossible to get rid of them. I call this my raccoon theory.

You see a raccoon digging in your garbage can. So you go in the house and get that nice meaty hambone you were going to throw away at the end of the week. The animal dines in delight. Now give it a few seconds and try to take that hambone back and see what happens.

This is exactly how government handouts work. Once you give it to people, they believe it rightfully belongs to them no matter who provided it. And politicians from both sides are afraid of getting their hand chewed off in an attempt to take it away.

What started off as benevolence turned into over 80 federal welfare programs in less than a century, and the Democrats only want to see more.

Now that we see the problems these programs are causing, it's certainly a good enough reason to never support a candidate or party that wants more of them.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Where is this on the scale between reality and blowing fantasy bubbles out of your butt?

Oh, so you can't answer either. How surprising.

They have for decades by keeping wages artificially low.

Really, do explain. What policies have the Republicans administered that had anything to do with what a private business pays their employees.

You worked multiple jobs because your employer didn't pay you a livable wage.

At times yes, at other times, no, I just got a second job to get ahead. This is the horse and carrot theory. If you feed a horse carrots, you're not going to get the work out of him as you can dangling a carrot in front of a horse.

As liberalism progressed, less and less people wanted to pull the cart. They just went to government for their daily allowance of carrots. Then complain that they aren't getting enough.

I'm only left in I feel that employees are a businesses greatest asset. The fact is that business owners and investors are grossly over-paid.

No, business people and investors don't get paid. They create their own money.

Of course, non-rich people can do the same, it's just they'd rater work for somebody else and bitch instead. But anybody not happy with the wage they make are welcome to open their own business and pay their workers whatever they like.

Businesses produce products or services. To sell their products or service, price is the main factor. Ss if you and I had widget factories, and I paid my employees what they were worth, and you overpaid all your employees, I'm going to steal all of your customers and put you out of business, because I can sell my widgets two dollars less than you can.

Which is why we need Democrats running the government and policy again. Unions have been broken and the greatest generation died so there is no one else to protect the non rich.

Then why didn't DumBama and the rest of the crooks bring back unions when they had the chance? Go ahead, bring back unions. It will only have the same result it did as last time, and that is businesses moving out of the country or otherwise investing in automation.

That's happening regardless. If you're so interested in saving American jobs then why don't you take a pay cut?

Yes it is happening, but will happen even faster than it is now if that's what you want. How would me taking a pay cut save an American job? If you want to save American jobs, support Republicans and their quest to eliminate illegals and build a wall so they stop coming here and taking American jobs.

Yes, Americans are lining up for the opportunity to be a part of the exciting meat processing industry. Second only in demand to the tomato harvesting arts.