The unofficial online home for fans of the Western Michigan University Broncos. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

(10-25-2022 07:15 AM)Charm City Bronco Wrote:  

(10-24-2022 09:24 PM)ktotten Wrote:  Are you saying this isn't the strategy if the GOP takes the house or are you splitting hairs over the quote?

They're gonna fill their diapers and cry if McCarthy isn't quoted exactly as saying that. Though anyone with half a brain and isn't a fascist knows he said it. As he says it in the story.

Do you work at Fox News now? You can't misquote someone and then get mad and call names when you can't provide that they actually said what you are claiming.

(10-25-2022 09:13 AM)HeatherF Wrote:  

(10-25-2022 07:15 AM)Charm City Bronco Wrote:  

(10-24-2022 09:24 PM)ktotten Wrote:  Are you saying this isn't the strategy if the GOP takes the house or are you splitting hairs over the quote?

They're gonna fill their diapers and cry if McCarthy isn't quoted exactly as saying that. Though anyone with half a brain and isn't a fascist knows he said it. As he says it in the story.

Do you work at Fox News now? You can't misquote someone and then get mad and call names when you can't provide that they actually said what you are claiming.

This coming from the party projecting "They want open borders, high crime and inflation".

"To stimulate policy discussions, the Commonwealth Fund asked a group of Medicare thought leaders with a variety of backgrounds and political affiliations to outline how they would extend the life of the trust fund. This series presents their perspectives, highlighting areas of commonality while also putting forth some new ideas for addressing this pressing issue".

Options for Extending Medicare’s Trust Fund: The Commonwealth Fund Solvency Series
https://www.commonwealthfund.org/series/...e-solvency

A companion piece by Joel White and Liz Fowler discusses some challenges Congress could face in advancing Medicare solvency legislation:

What Would It Take to Restore Medicare’s Financial Solvency?
https://www.commonwealthfund.org/blog/20...l-solvency

Medicare solvency could be addressed through reconciliation, and a piece by Sara Egge, Liz Fowler, and Rachel Nuzum:

The Role of Reconciliation in Advancing President Biden’s Health Agenda
https://www.commonwealthfund.org/blog/2021/role-reconciliation-advancing-president-bidens-health-agenda takes a closer look at this issue."

Dear Broncos,
A main reason for shortfalls in revenues to both Social Security and Medicare is the fact that our congress through the decades has borrowed money from those funds and never put it back. It's probably in the billions, if not more.

(10-25-2022 10:10 AM)Ken Barna Wrote:  Dear Broncos,
A main reason for shortfalls in revenues to both Social Security and Medicare is the fact that our congress through the decades has borrowed money from those funds and never put it back. It's probably in the billions, if not more.

Thats not totally accurate. The Inter-Fund Borrowing Among the Trust Funds was paid back with interest in 1986.

By law, these net cash surpluses are required to be invested in special-issue government bonds and, to a lesser extent, certificates of indebtedness. In return, the federal government gets access to $2.9 trillion in borrowing capacity that it can use for normal line items in its budget. In other words, Social Security's Trust has $2.9 trillion in asset reserves. Social Security is already generating interest income from the federal government on its borrowing. As of Dec. 31, 2018, the $2.9 trillion in special-issue bonds and certificates of indebtedness were yielding an average of 2.85%. Since these bonds range in maturity from 1 to 15 years, there's plenty of opportunity to take advantage of rising yields and adjust the program's bond investments as needed.

Ongoing demographic changes that include the retirement of baby boomers, increased longevity, lower fertility rates, and growing income inequality, are adversely impacting Social Security.

If you all spent the same amount of time makin' some future taxpayers rather than arguing about Fox and CNN, I bet you would have more fun! Take a page out of Todd's playbook... well, maybe an audible from it.

(10-25-2022 10:43 AM)RunningGame Wrote:  If you all spent the same amount of time makin' some future taxpayers rather than arguing about Fox and CNN, I bet you would have more fun! Take a page out of Todd's playbook... well, maybe an audible from it.

When he’s clueless and how funds work without stating it directly.

(10-25-2022 10:39 AM)Brownandgoldlaker Wrote:  

(10-25-2022 10:10 AM)Ken Barna Wrote:  Dear Broncos,
A main reason for shortfalls in revenues to both Social Security and Medicare is the fact that our congress through the decades has borrowed money from those funds and never put it back. It's probably in the billions, if not more.

Thats not totally accurate. The Inter-Fund Borrowing Among the Trust Funds was paid back with interest in 1986.

By law, these net cash surpluses are required to be invested in special-issue government bonds and, to a lesser extent, certificates of indebtedness. In return, the federal government gets access to $2.9 trillion in borrowing capacity that it can use for normal line items in its budget. In other words, Social Security's Trust has $2.9 trillion in asset reserves. Social Security is already generating interest income from the federal government on its borrowing. As of Dec. 31, 2018, the $2.9 trillion in special-issue bonds and certificates of indebtedness were yielding an average of 2.85%. Since these bonds range in maturity from 1 to 15 years, there's plenty of opportunity to take advantage of rising yields and adjust the program's bond investments as needed.

Ongoing demographic changes that include the retirement of baby boomers, increased longevity, lower fertility rates, and growing income inequality, are adversely impacting Social Security.

Word salad to frame an agenda. If you have any idea how funds like this are constructed and operate, you’d know it’s not nearly this simple.

That and since the MAGA-GOP’s only proposed solution is to cut it, I feel really comfortable saying you’re being disingenuous.

(10-25-2022 09:13 AM)HeatherF Wrote:  Do you work at Fox News now? You can't misquote someone and then get mad and call names when you can't provide that they actually said what you are claiming.

The GOP has targeted Medicare and Social Security for generations. Were you born yesterday?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-...-security/

Quote:Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) has suggested that Social Security and Medicare be eliminated as federal entitlement programs, and that they should instead become programs approved by Congress on an annual basis as discretionary spending.

...

Johnson, who is seeking a third term in the Senate, lamented that the Social Security and Medicare programs automatically grant benefits to those who meet the qualifications — that is, to those who had been paying into the system over their working life.

(10-25-2022 12:40 PM)Charm City Bronco Wrote:  The GOP has targeted Medicare and Social Security for generations. Were you born yesterday?

No, I wasn't born yesterday. What an absurd question. If I was just born yesterday, what would I be doing on an internet forum? I wouldn't even be able read what your writing, let alone type a reply. Plus, if you look at my bio you could clearly see I have posts before yesterday. Now can we quit the silly games and you cite where you found that quote?

(10-25-2022 02:06 PM)HeatherF Wrote:  

(10-25-2022 12:40 PM)Charm City Bronco Wrote:  The GOP has targeted Medicare and Social Security for generations. Were you born yesterday?

No, I wasn't born yesterday. What an absurd question. If I was just born yesterday, what would I be doing on an internet forum? I wouldn't even be able read what your writing, let alone type a reply. Plus, if you look at my bio you could clearly see I have posts before yesterday. Now can we quit the silly games and you cite where you found that quote?

Wow what a funny post! - Nobody

(10-24-2022 04:45 PM)ktotten Wrote:  Or allow more people to migrate here. Be the melting pot that made America Great!

And they'd be paying taxes right away. With more babies you'd have to wait another 16 years.

(10-25-2022 04:05 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(10-24-2022 04:45 PM)ktotten Wrote:  Or allow more people to migrate here. Be the melting pot that made America Great!

And they'd be paying taxes right away. With more babies you'd have to wait another 16 years.

We know why that's not even mentioned by them.

The world is over populated. Hasn't bill gates taught you anything? If you're serious about climate change you should be arguing for less babies. That would do much more good than $75,000 electric cars.

Popping out more kids is the biggest way to accelerate climate change, and it's not even close. It would be a lot easier in the long run to deal with a gradual population decline than to deal with the climate hellscape, though admittedly USA can't do it alone.

(10-25-2022 07:50 PM)GRBRONCO Wrote:  The world is over populated. Hasn't bill gates taught you anything? If your serious about climate change you should be arguing for less babies. That would do much more good than $75,000 electric cars.

Oh look, something shiny!!

The whole overpopulation thing is categorically false. Cmon guys, you can't just say whatever pops into your head.

If you're actually interested, please look into it. The bigger issues driving climate change are resource consumption and how we're using the land. Modern agriculture is the biggest culprit. We clear cut forests and use a ton of water and grow a bunch of food...that goes to feeding livestock...that is then fed to humans. It's a super inefficient and harmful system.

I'm sure this isn't the place to get into a nuanced, academic discussion about climate change, but please don't think that overpopulation is the issue.

(10-25-2022 08:34 PM)ColinApocalypse Wrote:  The whole overpopulation thing is categorically false. Cmon guys, you can't just say whatever pops into your head.

If you're actually interested, please look into it. The bigger issues driving climate change are resource consumption and how we're using the land. Modern agriculture is the biggest culprit. We clear cut forests and use a ton of water and grow a bunch of food...that goes to feeding livestock...that is then fed to humans. It's a super inefficient and harmful system.

I'm sure this isn't the place to get into a nuanced, academic discussion about climate change, but please don't think that overpopulation is the issue.

More people equals more resources needed and less wild land. Wild land traps carbon.

(10-25-2022 08:40 PM)GRBRONCO Wrote:  

(10-25-2022 08:34 PM)ColinApocalypse Wrote:  The whole overpopulation thing is categorically false. Cmon guys, you can't just say whatever pops into your head.

If you're actually interested, please look into it. The bigger issues driving climate change are resource consumption and how we're using the land. Modern agriculture is the biggest culprit. We clear cut forests and use a ton of water and grow a bunch of food...that goes to feeding livestock...that is then fed to humans. It's a super inefficient and harmful system.

I'm sure this isn't the place to get into a nuanced, academic discussion about climate change, but please don't think that overpopulation is the issue.

More people equals more resources needed and less wild land. Wild land traps carbon.

That is only true if we continue using resources and treating the land the way we do now, which is completely unsustainable. If we were to actually adopt renewable energy, healthy farming methods, and a better diet, then we would be nowhere near capacity on this planet.

There are thousands of improvements that need to be made. Once you start looking into it, it becomes quite depressing. Even stupid things like the American obsession with giant, useless, resource-consuming grass lawns will be hard to break. So many of these issues are just ingrained in our culture.

(10-25-2022 08:47 PM)ColinApocalypse Wrote:  

(10-25-2022 08:40 PM)GRBRONCO Wrote:  

(10-25-2022 08:34 PM)ColinApocalypse Wrote:  The whole overpopulation thing is categorically false. Cmon guys, you can't just say whatever pops into your head.

If you're actually interested, please look into it. The bigger issues driving climate change are resource consumption and how we're using the land. Modern agriculture is the biggest culprit. We clear cut forests and use a ton of water and grow a bunch of food...that goes to feeding livestock...that is then fed to humans. It's a super inefficient and harmful system.

I'm sure this isn't the place to get into a nuanced, academic discussion about climate change, but please don't think that overpopulation is the issue.

More people equals more resources needed and less wild land. Wild land traps carbon.

That is only true if we continue using resources and treating the land the way we do now, which is completely unsustainable. If we were to actually adopt renewable energy, healthy farming methods, and a better diet, then we would be nowhere near capacity on this planet.

There are thousands of improvements that need to be made. Once you start looking into it, it becomes quite depressing. Even stupid things like the American obsession with giant, useless, resource-consuming grass lawns will be hard to break. So many of these issues are just ingrained in our culture.

The houses too. Thought I read that they are twice as big as they used to be back in the 50s - and for smaller families on average. Of course, more people means you need to be more efficient just to not lose ground.