Rand Paul's Hat is in the ring!

[Tiberius]

What is the mean adult income of first generation third world immigrants who arrived here as impoverished children?

Doesn't matter, they and their children will have the ability to improve themseveles and earn more. The world doesn't stand still tasker

[FireChan]

Doesn't matter, they and their children will have the ability to improve themseveles and earn more. The world doesn't stand still tasker

If that's what you're basing your projection on, it DOES matter. Sounds like you're crossing your fingers.

[Dante]

I don't know how you can justify any kind of major immigration or amnesty when we have a army of millions of unemployed. Enabled by the welfare state to sit on their asses and snub lower paying jobs or ones that require actual physical exertion . All this convoluted BS about one immigrant adding jobs is just a smoke screen and fantasy reality that won't really happen.

[Tiberius]

I don't know how you can justify any kind of major immigration or amnesty when we have a army of millions of unemployed. Enabled by the welfare state to sit on their asses and snub lower paying jobs or ones that require actual physical exertion . All this convoluted BS about one immigrant adding jobs is just a smoke screen and fantasy reality that won't really happen.

Wo! Time out! You are actually saying that since we have lazy people we can't legalize others that are willing to work??? Come on Dante! Within a few generations their families will be voting Republican

[TakeYouToTasker]

Doesn't matter, they and their children will have the ability to improve themseveles and earn more. The world doesn't stand still tasker

Oh, it does matter, because them improving themselves isn't the issue. The mean income of all first generation immigrants is around 32k (US Census), and that number is bolstered by skilled labor comming from places other than third world countries. Second generation Americans (their kids, which which is now three full generations deep) will earn a mean income of around 42k (US Census).

 

Only by the third generation (the fourth generation living here) do immigrant families begin to pay for themselves within the system.

Edited April 7, 2015 by TakeYouToTasker

[Chef Jim]

Doesn't matter, they and their children will have the ability to improve themseveles and earn more. The world doesn't stand still tasker

 

As long as they can doe something about the illegal immigrants that don't pay any taxes first.

[Magox]

 

It doesn't help, at all, when the overwhelming majority of recipients have paid in less that they will receive. At that point, it's become nothing more than another entitlement, and the funding and long term viability becomes further undermined.

 

The Senate's proposal patches the system for the very short term, but serves to do nothing more than kick the can a bit further down the road, and further exacerbate the long term problems.

 

That goes against the analysis performed by the Social Security actuaries. The problem is and was that all those births that occurred after WW II, well those chickens are coming home to roost. A stagnating population coupled with a booming aging population is a problem with the way our S.S system works. S.S has always relied on future generations to pay for those that are collecting benefits. Am I advocating that the status quo is sustainable over the long haul? No, but that wasn't what we were talking about. What we are talking about is adding more people to the pot to add revenues to the system. Hence, immigration being a positive for S.S (and no, not just for the short-term, but for the long-term)

 

Also, the point that you made that the overwhelming majority of people are going to be receiving more in benefits than what they pay in, also misses the mark. First off, S.S was designed to pay out more than it received. The reason why it was created was to serve as a safety net, not as a means for the government to profit. In any case, check it

 

WASHINGTON (AP) -- People retiring today are part of the first generation of workers who have paid more in Social Security taxes during their careers than they will receive in benefits after they retire. It's a historic shift that will only get worse for future retirees, according to an analysis by The Associated Press.

Previous generations got a much better bargain, mainly because payroll taxes were very low when Social Security was enacted in the 1930s and remained so for decades.

"For the early generations, it was an incredibly good deal," said Andrew Biggs, a former deputy Social Security commissioner who is now a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. "The government gave you free money and getting free money is popular."

 

Again, the proposed legislation is a net positive for S.S and it's solvency. It's not the panacea but it is part of the solution. Couple that with mean's testing on the most wealthy and extending the age by a couple years to 67, and voilaaaa, problem solved.

Edited April 7, 2015 by Magox

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

That goes against the analysis performed by the Social Security actuaries. The problem is and was that all those births that occurred after WW II, well those chickens are coming home to roost. A stagnating population coupled with a booming aging population is a problem with the way our S.S system works. S.S has always relied on future generations to pay for those that are collecting benefits. Am I advocating that the status quo is sustainable over the long haul? No, but that wasn't what we were talking about. What we are talking about is adding more people to the pot to add revenues to the system. Hence, immigration being a positive for S.S (and no, not just for the short-term, but for the long-term)

 

Also, the point that you made that the overwhelming majority of people are going to be receiving more in benefits than what they pay in, also misses the mark. First off, S.S was designed to pay out more than it received. The reason why it was created was to serve as a safety net, not as a means for the government to profit. In any case, check it

 

Again, the proposed legislation is a net positive for S.S and it's solvency. It's not the panacea but it is part of the solution. Couple that with mean's testing on the most wealthy and extending the age by a couple years to 67, and voilaaaa, problem solved.

Chief Social Security actuary, Stephen Goss, reports that immigration reform does nothing for the long term solvency of Social Security, though it does help pay the costs of the baby boomers in the near term. Assuming zero change in opperating costs or cola benefits, it simply increases the solvency timeline by two years, from 2033 to 2035.

 

Are you willing to opperate under the assumptions that governmental costs won't increase, or that the government is a trustworthy entity in regards to assessing it's own ongoing costs, well... I don't know what to tell you.

[Magox]

Chief Social Security actuary, Stephen Goss, reports that immigration reform does nothing for the long term solvency of Social Security, though it does help pay the costs of the baby boomers in the near term. Assuming zero change in opperating costs or cola benefits, it simply increases the solvency timeline by two years, from 2033 to 2035.

 

Are you willing to opperate under the assumptions that governmental costs won't increase, or that the government is a trustworthy entity in regards to assessing it's own ongoing costs, well... I don't know what to tell you.

 

 

Can you provide a link to that? Even though I've already provided you links stating the contrary.

 

Here is what Stephen Goss says.

 

In 2010 Goss said if not for the millions of illegal workers paying into the system Social Security would have “entered persistent shortfall of tax revenue to cover payouts starting in 2009."

He tells The Daily Ticker today that things may have to change. “It might mean that we might have to have a higher tax rate or lower benefits,” he says.

 

In 2007 the Congressional Budget Office projected that granting amnesty to illegal immigrants would actually boost Social Security funds $57 billion by 2017. Steven Goss of the Social Security Administration also claims that amnesty would more than double the numbers of those paying into social security and depending on legislation might benefit the fund.

 

 

Can you provide a link to that? Even though I've already provided you links stating the contrary.

 

Here is what Stephen Goss says.

 

 

More from Stephen Goss:

 

Stephen Goss, chief actuary for the Social Security Administration, told the Daily Beast, “Even as it stands under current policy, unauthorized immigrants contribute positively to the financing of social security not only in terms of their own contributions, but in the succeeding generations when they have children on our soil that are citizens from day one.”

 

 

 

And no, it's not by two years. I already provided you the links from the actuaries of S.S stating otherwise. Unless you provide something credible and non partisan, then it's all pure speculation from your point of view.

 

Here is what S.S actuaries say:

 

The legislation through about 2060 would substantially reduce Social Security costs expressed as a percent of taxable payroll as a result of increased taxable earnings. Between 2061 and 2075, it would increase costs very slightly as the millions of individuals granted registered provisional-immigrant status and legal permanent-resident status from the reduction of backlogs over the next several years move from working age to retirement age. After 2074, the legislation would again reduce costs as increased new legal immigration, and the added births to additional immigrants, expand the labor force and shift the age distribution of the population to somewhat younger ages.

 

Edited April 7, 2015 by Magox

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

I'd vote for his dad. Not too sure about him.

[Very wide right]

Thank God,a small government guy.The liberal media will crucify this guy.

[Magox]

Rand could possibly be able to get a lot of new voters that wouldn't normally vote GOP. But, and it's a big but, many of the hawkish traditional GOP voters would sit it out. My father who was in the military wouldn't even consider voting for him, even if that means not voting at all. And I know there are many others that feel the same way. But it would be entertaining seeing him run against Hillary, he'd be to the left of her on all sorts of issues, such as drug legalization, the relationship between banks and politicians and foreign policy. He'd have her tied up in all sorts of knotts, Hillary would basically have to brandish her hawkish bonafides, which of course could alienate many younger voters.

[Very wide right]

Rand could possibly be able to get a lot of new voters that wouldn't normally vote GOP. But, and it's a big but, many of the hawkish traditional GOP voters would sit it out. My father who was in the military wouldn't even consider voting for him, even if that means not voting at all. And I know there are many others that feel the same way. But it would be entertaining seeing him run against Hillary, he'd be to the left of her on all sorts of issues, such as drug legalization, the relationship between banks and politicians and foreign policy. He'd have her tied up in all sorts of knotts, Hillary would basically have to brandish her hawkish bonafides, which of course could alienate many younger voters.

Why would a military man not vote for a freedom loving small government guy?

[Tiberius]

Why would a military man not vote for a freedom loving small government guy?

If he cuts/guts the military he might have a problem. Or if the axe that cuts government goes after the VA.

[TakeYouToTasker]

Why would a military man not vote for a freedom loving small government guy?

His father might be a "rah rah" military hawk, as mine is.

[Tiberius]

That goes against the analysis performed by the Social Security actuaries. The problem is and was that all those births that occurred after WW II, well those chickens are coming home to roost. A stagnating population coupled with a booming aging population is a problem with the way panacea but it is part of the solution. Couple that with mean's testing on the most wealthy and extending the age by a couple years to 67, and voilaaaa, problem solved.

Well that was really interesting, thanks for posting

[TakeYouToTasker]

Well that was really interesting, thanks for posting

It's based on limited actuarial work, and not even accounting for the governments own addendum actuarial work.

[Tiberius]

It's based on limited actuarial work, and not even accounting for the governments own addendum actuarial work.

Ya, ok

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Magox]

Why would a military man not vote for a freedom loving small government guy?

 

Because my father perceives him to be an isolationist, much like Rand's father. Foreign policy matters to my father and he believes interventionism is a key role for the U.S

 

He's also a very traditional GOP voter, he's not a hard line right winger, doesn't like the thought of what he perceives to be extreme ideas such as abolishing the IRS or VA. He doesn't like the idea of legalizing marijuana. In his view, Rand is too far out there for his taste.

Edited April 8, 2015 by Magox

[truth on hold]

Unfortunately Paul has watered down and diluted hia non-interventionist foreign policy, libertarian domestic policy stance, to appease the party's big money donors. Now its hard to differentiate from any of the other knucklehead contenders. Repubes are in the process of handing dems another election because what he's backing off of are issues that would resonate positively voters.