Now it is only a question of syntax and proper english. In other words, the implication that she was actively or purposely lying is false, however she needs to study the word solvent a little more. Then again, we all use incorrect vocabulary and only hope that a less finicky person won't scrutinize each and every word.
Nancy Pelosi: Lies, Lies, and More Lies
- Thread starter elprincipe
- Start date
elprincipe
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 60 (100%)
[quote name='MrBadExample'][quote name='elprincipe']Nope, never admitted anything of the sort. I don't know why you can't accept simple logic. Something is either solvent or it isn't. It can either cover its debts or it can't. You can't be "solvent for 50 years". That means you are insolvent because you can't cover all your debts. Sorry, it was a lie and you are just wrong.
Maybe those weren't the best examples of lies, although they are good ones, but they were current ones, which was why they were used.[/quote]
You're trying so hard and failing so miserably. What she said was true and you can't admit your mistake.[/quote]
Evidently you can't understand the English language, and that is not my mistake. Too bad.
Maybe those weren't the best examples of lies, although they are good ones, but they were current ones, which was why they were used.[/quote]
You're trying so hard and failing so miserably. What she said was true and you can't admit your mistake.[/quote]
Evidently you can't understand the English language, and that is not my mistake. Too bad.
elprincipe
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 60 (100%)
[quote name='neopolss']Now it is only a question of syntax and proper english. In other words, the implication that she was actively or purposely lying is false, however she needs to study the word solvent a little more. Then again, we all use incorrect vocabulary and only hope that a less finicky person won't scrutinize each and every word.[/quote]
I wouldn't have such a view except for a pattern of lies and deception from this particular person over a very long period of time. I realize we all make mistakes, obviously. And you haven't followed Pelosi long, if at all, if you think she wasn't actively and purposefully lying because of said pattern of lies and deception.
I wouldn't have such a view except for a pattern of lies and deception from this particular person over a very long period of time. I realize we all make mistakes, obviously. And you haven't followed Pelosi long, if at all, if you think she wasn't actively and purposefully lying because of said pattern of lies and deception.
. I don't know why you can't accept simple logic. Something is either solvent or it isn't. It can either cover its debts or it can't. You can't be "solvent for 50 years". That means you are insolvent because you can't cover all your debts. Sorry, it was a lie and you are just wrong.
If nothing is done, if we do a few minor things it wil remain solvent even beyond that, will you please please stop lying elprinc.
If nothing is done, if we do a few minor things it wil remain solvent even beyond that, will you please please stop lying elprinc.
elprincipe
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 60 (100%)
[quote name='Msut77'][quote name='elprincipe']. I don't know why you can't accept simple logic. Something is either solvent or it isn't. It can either cover its debts or it can't. You can't be "solvent for 50 years". That means you are insolvent because you can't cover all your debts. Sorry, it was a lie and you are just wrong.[/quote]
If nothing is done, if we do a few minor things it wil remain solvent even beyond that, will you please please stop lying elprinc.[/quote]
So you're admitting it's not solvent now? At least one of you is able to accept black-and-white facts, although I'm rather shocked it was Msut. Further, I can't understand why you would accuse me of lying while agreeing with me, but I can't understand your way of thinking most of the time, so whatever.
And I've fixed the quotes for you. There is a quote button for a reason, to make it easier for all of us. Find it and use it.
If nothing is done, if we do a few minor things it wil remain solvent even beyond that, will you please please stop lying elprinc.[/quote]
So you're admitting it's not solvent now? At least one of you is able to accept black-and-white facts, although I'm rather shocked it was Msut. Further, I can't understand why you would accuse me of lying while agreeing with me, but I can't understand your way of thinking most of the time, so whatever.
And I've fixed the quotes for you. There is a quote button for a reason, to make it easier for all of us. Find it and use it.
What? It is Solvent right now, where did I say anything different.
You are using a ridiculous argument that if its not 50 solvent 50 years down the road its not solvent ever.
I pointed out how it will stay solvent even beyong the 50 years with fairly minor changes.
elprincipe
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 60 (100%)
[quote name='Msut77']
What? It is Solvent right now, where did I say anything different.
You are using a ridiculous argument that if its not 50 solvent 50 years down the road its not solvent ever.
I pointed out how it will stay solvent even beyong the 50 years with fairly minor changes.[/quote]
Jesus, and I thought you actually understood the meaning of the word "solvent" there for a second. Go read the definition again and you'll see that Social Security is NOT SOLVENT. You can make changes and cause it to become solvent, but it is NOT SOLVENT RIGHT NOW. It can pay its debts right now, meaning for some finite number of years, but it is not solvent. Being solvent and being able to pay SOME debts are not the same. "Solvent" means being able to pay ALL LEGAL DEBTS. Understand now, finally, I hope?
What? It is Solvent right now, where did I say anything different.
You are using a ridiculous argument that if its not 50 solvent 50 years down the road its not solvent ever.
I pointed out how it will stay solvent even beyong the 50 years with fairly minor changes.[/quote]
Jesus, and I thought you actually understood the meaning of the word "solvent" there for a second. Go read the definition again and you'll see that Social Security is NOT SOLVENT. You can make changes and cause it to become solvent, but it is NOT SOLVENT RIGHT NOW. It can pay its debts right now, meaning for some finite number of years, but it is not solvent. Being solvent and being able to pay SOME debts are not the same. "Solvent" means being able to pay ALL LEGAL DEBTS. Understand now, finally, I hope?
Drocket
CAGiversary!
First off, just to be clear, SS is only 'insolvent' (according to your definition) in the worst-case-scenario (that's the one where there's an increase in lifespan equal to the one for the past 40 years
(most doctors doubt there will be), pretty much everyone retires as soon as they're able (many won't), that the economy expands at the lowest estimated rate based on the past 40 years (the average rate from the past 40 years is quite a bit higher) and so on.) Its entirely possible that SS is entirely solvent now - many predictions say that it is. One good flu season in the next 40 years and it will be.
Secondly, SS doesn't HAVE any debts. What it has is projected expenses. There's a big difference there. A debt is a specific amount that you WILL have to pay. A projected expense is an amount that you may have to pay, depending on a whole lot of other things.
Thirdly, even if worst case scenarios come to pass, SS will at that point have a rather minor debt. That will continue for less than 15 years (even according to worst case scenario) before it moves back into the black, at which point it'll be quite able to pay off its debt. So your claim that its insolvent, according to your definition, requires looking at a very specific time period and not the full long-term future. What you're saying is that if you ever go into debt, even if you know you'll be able to pay it off later, you're insolvent.
(most doctors doubt there will be), pretty much everyone retires as soon as they're able (many won't), that the economy expands at the lowest estimated rate based on the past 40 years (the average rate from the past 40 years is quite a bit higher) and so on.) Its entirely possible that SS is entirely solvent now - many predictions say that it is. One good flu season in the next 40 years and it will be.
Secondly, SS doesn't HAVE any debts. What it has is projected expenses. There's a big difference there. A debt is a specific amount that you WILL have to pay. A projected expense is an amount that you may have to pay, depending on a whole lot of other things.
Thirdly, even if worst case scenarios come to pass, SS will at that point have a rather minor debt. That will continue for less than 15 years (even according to worst case scenario) before it moves back into the black, at which point it'll be quite able to pay off its debt. So your claim that its insolvent, according to your definition, requires looking at a very specific time period and not the full long-term future. What you're saying is that if you ever go into debt, even if you know you'll be able to pay it off later, you're insolvent.
elprincipe
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 60 (100%)
[quote name='Msut77']
Yes it is solvent right now, you are taking the insane position that it isnt because it might not be solvent decades from now.[/quote]
No, I am taking the factual position that Social Security can't cover it's debts with its current income. Therefore, it is insolvent. I give up if you still can't understand, and nobody living in the real world would argue otherwise.
Yes it is solvent right now, you are taking the insane position that it isnt because it might not be solvent decades from now.[/quote]
No, I am taking the factual position that Social Security can't cover it's debts with its current income. Therefore, it is insolvent. I give up if you still can't understand, and nobody living in the real world would argue otherwise.
elprincipe
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 60 (100%)
[quote name='Drocket']Gee, I couldn't help but to notice that you skipped my post. I feel slighted 
[/quote]
Sorry I upset you. Next time post something relvant and don't be such an asshole about it, and maybe I'll respond.
[/quote]Sorry I upset you. Next time post something relvant and don't be such an asshole about it, and maybe I'll respond.
Drocket
CAGiversary!
[quote name='elprincipe']Sorry I upset you. Next time post something relvant and don't be such an asshole about it, and maybe I'll respond. [/quote]
I'm not really sure how what I posted wasn't relevant. We were discussing the solvency/insolvency of Social Security. I pointed out that, according to your own definition (which doesn't even apply in Social Securities case because they don't actually have any debts, only projected expenses which may or may not be accurate) that SS is only 'insolvent' if you look at a specific period of time between 40 and 50 years from now. If you look beyond that window, SS is quite solvent because as the baby boom generation dies off, SS will move back into the black and be quite able to pay off any debt that they accumulate. So, even according to your black-and-white definition of solvency, SS is entirely solvent because they can simply go into debt for a few years, debt that they'll easily be able to pay off later.
[/quote]I'm not really sure how what I posted wasn't relevant. We were discussing the solvency/insolvency of Social Security. I pointed out that, according to your own definition (which doesn't even apply in Social Securities case because they don't actually have any debts, only projected expenses which may or may not be accurate) that SS is only 'insolvent' if you look at a specific period of time between 40 and 50 years from now. If you look beyond that window, SS is quite solvent because as the baby boom generation dies off, SS will move back into the black and be quite able to pay off any debt that they accumulate. So, even according to your black-and-white definition of solvency, SS is entirely solvent because they can simply go into debt for a few years, debt that they'll easily be able to pay off later.
[quote name='Drocket'][quote name='elprincipe']Sorry I upset you. Next time post something relvant and don't be such an asshole about it, and maybe I'll respond. [/quote]
I'm not really sure how what I posted wasn't relevant. We were discussing the solvency/insolvency of Social Security. I pointed out that, according to your own definition (which doesn't even apply in Social Securities case because they don't actually have any debts, only projected expenses which may or may not be accurate) that SS is only 'insolvent' if you look at a specific period of time between 40 and 50 years from now. If you look beyond that window, SS is quite solvent because as the baby boom generation dies off, SS will move back into the black and be quite able to pay off any debt that they accumulate. So, even according to your black-and-white definition of solvency, SS is entirely solvent because they can simply go into debt for a few years, debt that they'll easily be able to pay off later.[/quote]
I've heard this one many times also. While technically true, the SS will return to solvency when baby boomer retirees begin to die, it doesn't account for the fact that another, larger crisis looms after that when the children of baby boomers begin to retire and draw social security. Picrture 20 million boomers finally kicking and 40 million new retirees begin to collect social security (for example's sake).
[/quote]I'm not really sure how what I posted wasn't relevant. We were discussing the solvency/insolvency of Social Security. I pointed out that, according to your own definition (which doesn't even apply in Social Securities case because they don't actually have any debts, only projected expenses which may or may not be accurate) that SS is only 'insolvent' if you look at a specific period of time between 40 and 50 years from now. If you look beyond that window, SS is quite solvent because as the baby boom generation dies off, SS will move back into the black and be quite able to pay off any debt that they accumulate. So, even according to your black-and-white definition of solvency, SS is entirely solvent because they can simply go into debt for a few years, debt that they'll easily be able to pay off later.[/quote]
I've heard this one many times also. While technically true, the SS will return to solvency when baby boomer retirees begin to die, it doesn't account for the fact that another, larger crisis looms after that when the children of baby boomers begin to retire and draw social security. Picrture 20 million boomers finally kicking and 40 million new retirees begin to collect social security (for example's sake).
Drocket
CAGiversary!
Do you even understand what the Baby Boom was? There AREN'T 40 million baby-boomer children to replace the 20 million baby boomers - there are 20 million baby boomer children to replace the 40 million baby boomers. The very essense of the Social Security problem is that there just aren't that many baby-boomer children because the birth rate dropped off, so there will be fewer workers to support the large number of retired people.
As the retired baby boom generation dies off, they'll be replaced by far fewer new retirees. The workforce remains relatively stable (actually, grows slightly, according to current birth trends), meaning more workers per retiree, which means Social Security moves back into the black and can repay any debts they may have accumulated, then begins accumulating a fall-back stockpile again.
As the retired baby boom generation dies off, they'll be replaced by far fewer new retirees. The workforce remains relatively stable (actually, grows slightly, according to current birth trends), meaning more workers per retiree, which means Social Security moves back into the black and can repay any debts they may have accumulated, then begins accumulating a fall-back stockpile again.
bread's done