It's about how many people are working vs how many people, young and old, there are to support, who are not working. You bet Nick. Lets import 60 million of the uneducated, illegals, muslims, and poor, so all those retirees can continue to golfing in Palm Springs.
"They can only eat food, and that has to be produced by people who work. If the workers aren't there because they were never born, no amount of money fixes that. No "program" can fix that."
There is another answer...technology. Technology is the means to increase our productivity and wealth.
Technology is not cheap...it is an investment. It also requires trained scientists, engineers, mathematicians. People need to invent and produce new machines and technology. Salaries for these individuals must be high enough to attract the best and the brightest to scientific fields. The technology we produce here stays here too.
Is it nationalistic..you bet it is.
American companies need to do this...then sell these machines to the rest of the world. This is why I am most adamant about Americans retaining their technological edge.
I vehemently oppose any short term economic solution which compromises our long term ability to find technological solutions to future problems.
That's right: forget about it. Because it's not about "programs." It's about how many people are working vs how many people, young and old, there are to support, who are not working. Nice dance there Nick. You managed to tap-dance your way around every point I made. AGAIN: Social Security is structured in the same manner as a Ponzi scheme. Do you understand that? Do you know what that means? It means that to pay out for current retirees every future generation must be considerably larger than the previous generation because the program itself is actuarially bankrupt and always needs more bodies in the system.
Now does turning our country upside down with mass waves of 3rd world immigration just to keep those old democrat welfare programs going make sense to you? Or is the better path privatizing these bankrupt programs so they don't require hyper-levels of immigration to pay out to current retirees?
And forget about all your rhetoric concerning Democrats and Social Security and FDR and LBJ. That's all noise. Money is not the issue. Money is just a symbol. What matters is the quantity of actual goods and services in the economy at the time, and that is a function of how many people are working, not how many "dollars" somebody might have in a vault somewhere.
What a screed of superfluous double talk. No, Nick, more warm bodies does not a good country make. If population aggregates were the measure of a good economy then China and India would have the highest standard of living. Especially when such immigrants are primarily 3rd world peasants from cultures that have little connection to western civilization.
When we should be searching the world for the best minds we are instead importing staggering levels of 3rd world immigrants. This policy only makes sense if one wants to destroy America.
There is no such thing as "fixing the programs so that they work." That's a financial illusion. People can't eat money. They can only eat food, and that has to be produced by people who work. If the workers aren't there because they were never born, no amount of money fixes that. No "program" can fix that. The only thing that could have fixed it was having more children 20 years previously.
It's back to the past with you. Reliance on cheap manual labor only inhibits the financial incentives to innovate machinery that automate manual tasks. As long as employers can get away with employing illegal labor and artificially depress wages for such tasks, automation will suffer. Is this the way the leading 1st world country and innovation center of the world should go?
Setting the country up for a culture that euthanizes its old to get them out of the way is hardly a "conservative" position. But that's what you're doing, calling yourself a conservative the whole way. You'd multiply the Culture of Death, and call it "actuarially sound." And maybe it is. But it's not how I want to do it. Killing people to get them out of the way is not on my conservative agenda.
Now that is funny. You argue like a teary-eyed liberal democrat. "Want some Strawmen"? In Nick's little closed-end Binary World if America does not open its borders to the world to save his beloved bankrupt democrat great society programs then the only other option is to kill granny and grandpa. How did you ever get so screwed up? You sir are obviously NOT a conservative. But you do sound alot like the twice removed from reality Beltway types that are running this country into the ground.
That's right: forget about it. Because it's not about "programs." It's about how many people are working vs how many people, young and old, there are to support, who are not working.