I would think that Perfect 10 magazine would be enthralled to know that there is an easy, simple way to find out who is sharing their copywritten material. Without Google and other search engines, these photos would still be shared, but now Perfect 10 can be aware of the majority of those stealing their content. Google has handed them a list of sites who are infringing on their copywright, and now they're pissed off? I don't get it. If I were Norm Zada, I'd be sending Google a stripper gram for their efforts.
I think the main issue is computing time. If it calculated by board position, it only has to look at one variable condition. If it goes by moves, the longer the game goes, the more computation that needs to be done. If you use the board method, you can also teach the software what are legal moves. I don't think that's such a big issue.
I can vouch for this man's story, as basically give a big ditto, on all the points he listed. All of this happened with me, too. It's seriously worth it.
This is the same legislation that make recording a movie in the theatre a felony with a potential three year jail sentence. I don't know how pro fair use it is. I don't think recording and pirating a movie like that should be legal, but it shouldn't warrant jail time.
Around the office, we use instant messenger as our primary means of communcation. So, to subvert the system, we create a bunch of fake screen names, similar to those of we were pranking, changing O's (oh's) for 0's (zero's), 1's (one's) for l's (ell's), and such, and sending other people around the office messages like "Could you come see me?", swamping one person's office with uninvited visitors asking "what did you want?", killing two birds with one stone. Good stuff.
For anyone in New Jersey looking for what classes do and don't transfer to and from community colleges to the four year schools in the state, check NJ Transfer at http://www.njtransfer.org/. A most invaluable resource.
The posted did not say "Just a good example of capitalists, who are all scumbags". That's what you incorrectly infered. It's like someone who complains about crooked cops. They're not complaining about all cops being crooked, they're complaining about the ones who are. My uncle is a capitalist in the sense that eh owns and runs his own business, and he couldn't be more ethical in the way he operates it. The same could not be said for the **AA's. They are cumbag captialists, or rather just scumbags. The fact that they're captialists is ancillary to the argument.
Parent, Parent's Parent, and all children are huffing and puffing over nothing, literally. The inheritance tax, or estate tax, by it's proper name, was abolished, for good or bad, in the 2003 tax cut. Thanks.
I currently use www.seekdotnet.com for my MS/.Net hosting, and have an account with www.ipowerweb.com for some php/mysql hosting. Both do web and email, both have a nice back end control panel, both have been rock solid reliability wise, both are fairly cheap, and both have been good with regards to service response, i.e. responding to questions and emails. So, depending on your needs, I would definitely suggest the above two hosts.
Powell, who maintained a light regulatory hand as the nation's chief media watchdog but collected some of the largest indecency fines against U.S. broadcasters
He didn't do much regulating, but he also did a lot of regulating. If that's not doublethink, i don't know what is.
I would say the something special is the lavishness and extremism of the celebration, with gala's and ball's and the like. ALl this glorification during a time when, I don't know if you knew this or not, when we are at war. It seems crass to celebrate an electoral vistory when our men and women are dying overseas.
Did you know FDR skipped out on any big celebration during his relection during WWII? That's class, my man. Class.
I guess you missed my point. When President Reagan reformed social security in 1983, he had us all pay more into the Social Security system than was currently needed. This Social Security surplus was to be saved in the form of treasury bills, and when it came time for those who were paying this surplus to retire, the system would be running a temporary deficit, in which time these t-bills could be cashed in to make up for the difference. Those paying extra would therefore be saving for when the would be retiring and putting a strain on the system.
This plan works great, except when that money being saved is the immediately spent, via large federal deficit spending. So when, 10 years later, President Clinton got his deficit reduction act passed, he was putting the country on the path to a balanced budget, even a federal surplus. That surplus just happened the be the extra money being put into the system via the Social Security trust fund purchasing treasury bills from it's own surplus. What was going on, and is going on, is that the federal deficit is much larger than it really is, but it's only being floated by the payroll taxes paid towards Social Security. So simply by balancing the budget (I think he ran a small surplus in his final year) he was preserving Social Security.
BTW: I might be an idiot, but I'd be willing to guess I'm more knowledgable on Social Secrutiy then you happen to be.
Yeah, it was, and they fixed it. What they did was raise the taxation rate on a couple of highest tax brackets in 1993, Clinton's deficit reduction act. This got our budget back in the black, and that surplus was, I repeat WAS going to pay for Social Security.
I also imagine you'd like to discuss the privatization plans that Clinton and Gore were pushing. What they were NOT pushing was personal savings accounts. What they WERE talking about was instead of purchasing t-bills with the surplus, they wanted to invest that money in slightly higher performing private securities as well. Things like currency markets and utilities. The idea was to increase the rate of return on SS's investments. Republicans totally shot this down, since it wasn't "gasp" secure. I wasn't really for or against Clinton and Gore's plan, since I was, well, a teenager, and didn't follow this stuff much. But if I had to guess now, I migh be somewhat for a partial investment of the security surplus in ultra low risk securities, but I'm still on the fence.
Even if private accounts did out perform social security, they are bad for so many reasons. But lets stick with the outperformance issue for a moment. Let's go with the article, and say SS currrent gets 3.5% where a phase out plan would earn 4.5%. That's on average. Meaning, under the Bush proposed plan, some people will earn more, and some will earn less. It's great that the average rate of return will be higher, but damned if I'm one of the ones who hits a down market when I retire, or perhaps over my working life my picks of private securities don't perform well, and I don't have enough to retire. There are two words in Social Security. THe first Social, implying this is a program where everyone is helping everyone, not MY acount and MY funds and MY money type thinking. The second is Security, referring to the fact that no matter how good I am at picking winners on the NASDAQ, when I retire, and can't earn a living for myself anymore, I'll have peace of mind knowing that I can afford to eat and sleep.
As for tying SS to inflation vs. wages, during economic growth, cost of living increases faster than inflation. People have more money to spend, so prices go up, but the things that matter more like food and housing expenses increase faster. The article points this out, that is benefits were tied to inflation back when the program was established, todays average monthly check would be ~$300 instead of ~$1100, effectively taking any meaning out of the program. Yes, costs would be lowered, but the program would be useless. This is actually what the President and supporters of his program are aiming for: the destruction of Social Security and anything having to do with the New Deal and FDR. From this standpoint, the Presidents plan makes even more sense.
Coughing up blood, I imagine you're referring to the Clinton years when he proposed privatization as well. When he was president, things did look very dire. But guess what? He reduced govenrment spending (in real, inflation adjusted dollars) to the point where the general budget had a surplus, which was going to pay for social security, like it should have. The problem was fixed, as indicated by the Social Security trustees revisions in their report saying that the life expectancy of the program has increased 7 years since 1997, meaning the problem was solved, or at least, progressively getting better due to reforms made during the Reasgan and Clinton presidencies.
No. Wrong. When having discussions about Social Security and any "crisis" and plans for phasing it out (privatizing it), growth always refers to national economic growtch, which is measured with teh GDP, gross domestic product. The GDP has an effect, and is affected by, changes in the stock market, but the stock market has very little affect on the current system for Social Security, so it would irrelevant to bring it up when talking about our current plan. Only when discussing a phase out (privatization) would the stock market become relevant. Besides, the average retiree doesn't have the time to monitor the market and their investments enough to get anywhere near a 10% return over the lifespan of a career. That's where managers would come in, and they would add an overhead of about 3% to properly manage all of these tiny accounts. The current system of Social Security has less than 1% overhead. Privatization is a scheme to make Bush's real constituency, the uber wealthy, even wealthier but dumping millions of American's retirement dollars into the markets, getting a one time boom, and then all those who were already heavily invested cash out, crashing the system, destroying Social Security, which is the real aim of this plan.
Explain to me how tax cuts stifle economic growth. I'm totally serious. I keep hearing this, and I would like to know. This is just me, but the revenue that the government takes it doesn't get thrown down a well or made into a comfortable bed, but instead gets spent. A large portion of this spending goes towards the government beauracracy, meaning jobs. Putting money into people's pocket but providing a service to the government. The other big spending goes into buying things. Like military gear, which is largely a domestic industry, pouring more money into employers and again, you guessed it, jobs.
Money is THE zero sum game. And when it's in government hands, it tends to get spent in the country of that government. You might also hear this called pork.
He was not making any sort of judgement or conclusion. He was rebutting a previous comment saying that the tax cuts somehow increased total tax revenue.
I guess you passed over the part that went like this:
What's more, there is a strong case to be made that the agency is erring on the side of being overly pessimistic. If its more optimistic projection turns out to be correct, then there will be no need for any benefit cuts or payroll-tax increases over the full 75 years.
The 2018 is pretty much a worst case scenario. If the conditions occured that would make the system run a deficit in 15-20 years, the stck market would also flounder. Meaning private investments and 401K's would not be a great option to social security.
Social Security isn't truly designed to be 100% of retiree income. In fact, if you continued reading:
Social Security does not provide, and was not meant to provide, a satisfactory retirement on its own. The average stipend for a 65-year-old retiring today is $1,184 a month, or about $14,000 a year. About half of Americans also have private pension plans, but for two-thirds of the elderly, Social Security supplies the majority of day-to-day income. For the poorest 20 percent, about seven million, Social Security is all they have. Even those figures understate the program's importance. According to an agency publication, ''Income of the Population 55 or Older: 2000,'' 8 percent of elderly beneficiaries were poor, but a startling 48 percent would have been below the poverty line had they not been receiving Social Security.
So many seniors and retirees did save up, and try as they might, without Social Security, they'd be in poverty.
Let's see how many senators and representatives think that the re-election of the president was a public chime for the abolishment of guaranteed retirement benefits. Whatever scheme the President comes up with first has to start in Congress, and plenty of members of his own party wouldn't commit the political suicide required to go through with any sort of privitization. The AARP is mobilizing the largest voting constituency in this country against this, and that has many elected officials wary of attaching their names (and heads) to this idea.
So if you, or your retirement manager at your bank, decided it would be a good idea to invest in the government, since U.S. treasury bills are the world's safest investment, when it came time for you to retire and you went to cash in those bills, how would you feel when they told you sorry, all out of cash, tough luck? That's basically what you are describing, but instead of just you, it's 300 million Americans who have paid into the system.
Slashdot Mirror
Who knew I shared the same birthday as The Taco? He's 4 years older than I, but woo! I have a new "Who do you share birthday's with?" answer!
Happy Birthday CmdrTaco!
I would think that Perfect 10 magazine would be enthralled to know that there is an easy, simple way to find out who is sharing their copywritten material. Without Google and other search engines, these photos would still be shared, but now Perfect 10 can be aware of the majority of those stealing their content. Google has handed them a list of sites who are infringing on their copywright, and now they're pissed off? I don't get it. If I were Norm Zada, I'd be sending Google a stripper gram for their efforts.
That explains why people who are war supporters seem to be incompatible with civil society.
I think the main issue is computing time. If it calculated by board position, it only has to look at one variable condition. If it goes by moves, the longer the game goes, the more computation that needs to be done. If you use the board method, you can also teach the software what are legal moves. I don't think that's such a big issue.
I can vouch for this man's story, as basically give a big ditto, on all the points he listed. All of this happened with me, too. It's seriously worth it.
This is the same legislation that make recording a movie in the theatre a felony with a potential three year jail sentence. I don't know how pro fair use it is. I don't think recording and pirating a movie like that should be legal, but it shouldn't warrant jail time.
I think you mean the empty set.
Around the office, we use instant messenger as our primary means of communcation. So, to subvert the system, we create a bunch of fake screen names, similar to those of we were pranking, changing O's (oh's) for 0's (zero's), 1's (one's) for l's (ell's), and such, and sending other people around the office messages like "Could you come see me?", swamping one person's office with uninvited visitors asking "what did you want?", killing two birds with one stone. Good stuff.
For anyone in New Jersey looking for what classes do and don't transfer to and from community colleges to the four year schools in the state, check NJ Transfer at http://www.njtransfer.org/. A most invaluable resource.
The posted did not say "Just a good example of capitalists, who are all scumbags". That's what you incorrectly infered. It's like someone who complains about crooked cops. They're not complaining about all cops being crooked, they're complaining about the ones who are. My uncle is a capitalist in the sense that eh owns and runs his own business, and he couldn't be more ethical in the way he operates it. The same could not be said for the **AA's. They are cumbag captialists, or rather just scumbags. The fact that they're captialists is ancillary to the argument.
Parent, Parent's Parent, and all children are huffing and puffing over nothing, literally. The inheritance tax, or estate tax, by it's proper name, was abolished, for good or bad, in the 2003 tax cut. Thanks.
http://www.torrentspy.com/
I currently use www.seekdotnet.com for my MS/.Net hosting, and have an account with www.ipowerweb.com for some php/mysql hosting. Both do web and email, both have a nice back end control panel, both have been rock solid reliability wise, both are fairly cheap, and both have been good with regards to service response, i.e. responding to questions and emails. So, depending on your needs, I would definitely suggest the above two hosts.
Powell, who maintained a light regulatory hand as the nation's chief media watchdog but collected some of the largest indecency fines against U.S. broadcasters
He didn't do much regulating, but he also did a lot of regulating. If that's not doublethink, i don't know what is.
I would say the something special is the lavishness and extremism of the celebration, with gala's and ball's and the like. ALl this glorification during a time when, I don't know if you knew this or not, when we are at war. It seems crass to celebrate an electoral vistory when our men and women are dying overseas.
Did you know FDR skipped out on any big celebration during his relection during WWII? That's class, my man. Class.
I guess you missed my point. When President Reagan reformed social security in 1983, he had us all pay more into the Social Security system than was currently needed. This Social Security surplus was to be saved in the form of treasury bills, and when it came time for those who were paying this surplus to retire, the system would be running a temporary deficit, in which time these t-bills could be cashed in to make up for the difference. Those paying extra would therefore be saving for when the would be retiring and putting a strain on the system.
This plan works great, except when that money being saved is the immediately spent, via large federal deficit spending. So when, 10 years later, President Clinton got his deficit reduction act passed, he was putting the country on the path to a balanced budget, even a federal surplus. That surplus just happened the be the extra money being put into the system via the Social Security trust fund purchasing treasury bills from it's own surplus. What was going on, and is going on, is that the federal deficit is much larger than it really is, but it's only being floated by the payroll taxes paid towards Social Security. So simply by balancing the budget (I think he ran a small surplus in his final year) he was preserving Social Security.
BTW: I might be an idiot, but I'd be willing to guess I'm more knowledgable on Social Secrutiy then you happen to be.
Yeah, it was, and they fixed it. What they did was raise the taxation rate on a couple of highest tax brackets in 1993, Clinton's deficit reduction act. This got our budget back in the black, and that surplus was, I repeat WAS going to pay for Social Security.
I also imagine you'd like to discuss the privatization plans that Clinton and Gore were pushing. What they were NOT pushing was personal savings accounts. What they WERE talking about was instead of purchasing t-bills with the surplus, they wanted to invest that money in slightly higher performing private securities as well. Things like currency markets and utilities. The idea was to increase the rate of return on SS's investments. Republicans totally shot this down, since it wasn't "gasp" secure. I wasn't really for or against Clinton and Gore's plan, since I was, well, a teenager, and didn't follow this stuff much. But if I had to guess now, I migh be somewhat for a partial investment of the security surplus in ultra low risk securities, but I'm still on the fence.
Even if private accounts did out perform social security, they are bad for so many reasons. But lets stick with the outperformance issue for a moment. Let's go with the article, and say SS currrent gets 3.5% where a phase out plan would earn 4.5%. That's on average. Meaning, under the Bush proposed plan, some people will earn more, and some will earn less. It's great that the average rate of return will be higher, but damned if I'm one of the ones who hits a down market when I retire, or perhaps over my working life my picks of private securities don't perform well, and I don't have enough to retire. There are two words in Social Security. THe first Social, implying this is a program where everyone is helping everyone, not MY acount and MY funds and MY money type thinking. The second is Security, referring to the fact that no matter how good I am at picking winners on the NASDAQ, when I retire, and can't earn a living for myself anymore, I'll have peace of mind knowing that I can afford to eat and sleep.
As for tying SS to inflation vs. wages, during economic growth, cost of living increases faster than inflation. People have more money to spend, so prices go up, but the things that matter more like food and housing expenses increase faster. The article points this out, that is benefits were tied to inflation back when the program was established, todays average monthly check would be ~$300 instead of ~$1100, effectively taking any meaning out of the program. Yes, costs would be lowered, but the program would be useless. This is actually what the President and supporters of his program are aiming for: the destruction of Social Security and anything having to do with the New Deal and FDR. From this standpoint, the Presidents plan makes even more sense.
Coughing up blood, I imagine you're referring to the Clinton years when he proposed privatization as well. When he was president, things did look very dire. But guess what? He reduced govenrment spending (in real, inflation adjusted dollars) to the point where the general budget had a surplus, which was going to pay for social security, like it should have. The problem was fixed, as indicated by the Social Security trustees revisions in their report saying that the life expectancy of the program has increased 7 years since 1997, meaning the problem was solved, or at least, progressively getting better due to reforms made during the Reasgan and Clinton presidencies.
No. Wrong. When having discussions about Social Security and any "crisis" and plans for phasing it out (privatizing it), growth always refers to national economic growtch, which is measured with teh GDP, gross domestic product. The GDP has an effect, and is affected by, changes in the stock market, but the stock market has very little affect on the current system for Social Security, so it would irrelevant to bring it up when talking about our current plan. Only when discussing a phase out (privatization) would the stock market become relevant. Besides, the average retiree doesn't have the time to monitor the market and their investments enough to get anywhere near a 10% return over the lifespan of a career. That's where managers would come in, and they would add an overhead of about 3% to properly manage all of these tiny accounts. The current system of Social Security has less than 1% overhead. Privatization is a scheme to make Bush's real constituency, the uber wealthy, even wealthier but dumping millions of American's retirement dollars into the markets, getting a one time boom, and then all those who were already heavily invested cash out, crashing the system, destroying Social Security, which is the real aim of this plan.
Explain to me how tax cuts stifle economic growth. I'm totally serious. I keep hearing this, and I would like to know. This is just me, but the revenue that the government takes it doesn't get thrown down a well or made into a comfortable bed, but instead gets spent. A large portion of this spending goes towards the government beauracracy, meaning jobs. Putting money into people's pocket but providing a service to the government. The other big spending goes into buying things. Like military gear, which is largely a domestic industry, pouring more money into employers and again, you guessed it, jobs.
Money is THE zero sum game. And when it's in government hands, it tends to get spent in the country of that government. You might also hear this called pork.
He was not making any sort of judgement or conclusion. He was rebutting a previous comment saying that the tax cuts somehow increased total tax revenue.
I guess you passed over the part that went like this:
What's more, there is a strong case to be made that the agency is erring on the side of being overly pessimistic. If its more optimistic projection turns out to be correct, then there will be no need for any benefit cuts or payroll-tax increases over the full 75 years.
The 2018 is pretty much a worst case scenario. If the conditions occured that would make the system run a deficit in 15-20 years, the stck market would also flounder. Meaning private investments and 401K's would not be a great option to social security.
Social Security isn't truly designed to be 100% of retiree income. In fact, if you continued reading:
Social Security does not provide, and was not meant to provide, a satisfactory retirement on its own. The average stipend for a 65-year-old retiring today is $1,184 a month, or about $14,000 a year. About half of Americans also have private pension plans, but for two-thirds of the elderly, Social Security supplies the majority of day-to-day income. For the poorest 20 percent, about seven million, Social Security is all they have. Even those figures understate the program's importance. According to an agency publication, ''Income of the Population 55 or Older: 2000,'' 8 percent of elderly beneficiaries were poor, but a startling 48 percent would have been below the poverty line had they not been receiving Social Security.
So many seniors and retirees did save up, and try as they might, without Social Security, they'd be in poverty.
Let's see how many senators and representatives think that the re-election of the president was a public chime for the abolishment of guaranteed retirement benefits. Whatever scheme the President comes up with first has to start in Congress, and plenty of members of his own party wouldn't commit the political suicide required to go through with any sort of privitization. The AARP is mobilizing the largest voting constituency in this country against this, and that has many elected officials wary of attaching their names (and heads) to this idea.
So if you, or your retirement manager at your bank, decided it would be a good idea to invest in the government, since U.S. treasury bills are the world's safest investment, when it came time for you to retire and you went to cash in those bills, how would you feel when they told you sorry, all out of cash, tough luck? That's basically what you are describing, but instead of just you, it's 300 million Americans who have paid into the system.