I've got a very over clockable E2200 on a rig that old and I'm no where near CPU bound nor have I had to actually OC the CPU. Occasional GPU upgrades have kept me in high resolution on my 24" LCD for years. A C2D should have a lot of life left in it.
Thanks for checking my source, but please re-read it. The paragraph you quoted says exactly what I said. SS's deficit can't be covered even by completely removing the cap. You have to ALSO reduce benefits for the people who were previously above the cap in order for the system to no longer be running in deficit. Which is perfectly consistent with my original position: you've got to either inflate or cut benefits.
As for making an example of SS, you introduced that into the conversation; my original post was directed at all entitlement spending. I agree that Medicare (and actually the entire Federal "health care" apparatus) is a much much bigger problem.
If you're interested in some interesting debate on the PPACA and other health care stuff, check out: The Apothecary.
Boy is this the truth. My mortgage banker (and her company) were so ignorant of the risks of what they were doing that they couldn't comprehend why I was being such a difficult customer. I offered to come in and do some 'pro bono' security consulting for them after the deal closed but they had no interest.
Don't hold your breath expecting changes anytime soon either. After talking to quite a few people in the industry I'm learning that 99.999% of their customers just don't care. They (sign and) send whatever they're asked, however they're asked, to wherever they're asked with nary a protest or a hesitation. Often they do it without even reading the documents.
Our brokers were shocked when I told them I wanted to read all the documents. "No one does that!" and "It would take hours!" (Thankfully our title companies were a lot more clue-ful.) I found the entire experience a useful insight into the origins of the US financial crisis.
You're right, I did leave that option out and I was remiss in not explaining why: there is no amount of taxes that's going to make up for the shortfall in entitlements. There simply isn't enough money there.
Even limiting the discussion to SS: removing the tax cap doesn't fix the shortfall. If you removed the cap entirely you'd still have to limit benefits at about to rate for the current cap in order to actually fix the SS deficit. (Source: CRS. And that's just SS.
Raising tax rates also has the problem of diminishing returns. Historically tax rates have been all over the board but no matter what they've been set at we've never collected more than about 20% of GDP and we average about 18%.
The worst problem is that raising taxes, even if it would work, only continues to give the junkies their fix. Instead of attacking our serious SPENDING problems we want to keep putting off the pain of withdrawal with another tax hit (or inflation). Indeed if you look at lot of the commentary on the Internet on the idea of removing the SS tax caps it's inevitably followed by salivating over how all that extra money could be spent on more wish list items.
There is no such thing as a financial perpetual motion machine. I'm not optimistic that we're going to learn this any way other than the hard way.
While I agree that anyone under 55 needs to plan on there being no SS benefits when they retire, we've already passed the point of expenditures exceeding revenues.
Here's the money shot:
"Social Security’s expenditures exceeded non-interest income in 2010 and 2011, the first such occurrences since 1983, and the Trustees estimate that these expenditures will remain greater than non-interest income throughout the 75-year projection period."
Don't worry AC. Although we can't identify you here, you can rest easy knowing that the government is fully aware of the balance in both your 401(k) and Roth IRAs. When push comes to shove expect to start hearing serious talk about "nationalizing" your private savings plans.
" They [Greece] owe actual value..." Yes, ACTUAL VALUE, which Greece can't produce enough of in any currency compared to its current obligations, and
" as long as no one is bothered by that [inflation]..." Except that people WILL be bothered by that, people whose savings are suddenly not keeping up with the skyrocketing cost of living driving them towards poverty.
*facepalm* "Make the interest rates your banks pay negative, keep the deficit as high as it can go (15% interest on bonds is not fun, but if you control your own currency it is payable), etc."
So then the banks buy up all the 15% bonds instead of taking the fed bank rate and you've dug the hole that much deeper! Now you've got an entitlement problem AND a debt problem.
Eventually you have to pay the piper, Nic. The Republicrats and Democans can continue to pretend there's enough money to go around while the country burns down around them but all the hot air in Washington doesn't change the facts that:
1) The baby boomers are about to really start putting a load on our entitlement system. 2) We're already borrowing about 40% of every dollar the Fed spends. 3) There is no actual money in the SS "trust fund" or "lock box" or whatever euphemism you like. 4) All of our entitlement programs will be paying out more than they take in within the next 10 years. 5) The shortfall has to come from somewhere.
You can inflate the currency, you can reduce benefits, or you can do a little of both. What you can't do is have your cake and eat it too. We have some very tough decisions coming.
"The left lost the battle long ago, by imagining nightmares and creating religions out of them. I don't intend to challenge science here, but the battle in the political arena is hopeless because the rhetoric doesn't work anymore. If AGW is a fact, this is a fact too. "
I bought a used copy of the CD and ripped it years and years ago. I'm lazy enough I would have just bought it had it been available on iTunes. Net revenue for you $0.
"Sure, it would be nice if we could tell conservative Americans that their anti-intellectual culture..."
Oh, have we been going easy on the conservatives and not telling them the hard truths? I know it's all coddling and cotton candy for them here on/. but I assumed _somebody_ was giving them honest feedback on their recent performance.
And speaking of being honest, let's be honest with ourselves here for a minute: this proposal is about as paternalistically racist as you can get. Condescending racism, however, isn't a trademark of the American right but of the American left. I think someone once referred to it as the "soft bigotry of low expectations;" a description that fits this initiative to a 'T'.
Except that you left out an important bit: "by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate". The President can, and often does, 'make' Treaties but without Congressional ratification they have no force.
Further Congress can't constitutionally ratify a treaty that exceeds its limited and enumerated powers.
Congress can't constitutionally ratify a treaty that exceeds its enumerated powers. Art. 1 Sec 4 does allow Congress to override local election law but it's not clear that the treaty in question specifically addresses how close monitors could be to the polls in which case Texas law would control.
Slashdot Mirror
I've got a very over clockable E2200 on a rig that old and I'm no where near CPU bound nor have I had to actually OC the CPU. Occasional GPU upgrades have kept me in high resolution on my 24" LCD for years. A C2D should have a lot of life left in it.
Thanks for checking my source, but please re-read it. The paragraph you quoted says exactly what I said. SS's deficit can't be covered even by completely removing the cap. You have to ALSO reduce benefits for the people who were previously above the cap in order for the system to no longer be running in deficit. Which is perfectly consistent with my original position: you've got to either inflate or cut benefits.
As for making an example of SS, you introduced that into the conversation; my original post was directed at all entitlement spending. I agree that Medicare (and actually the entire Federal "health care" apparatus) is a much much bigger problem.
If you're interested in some interesting debate on the PPACA and other health care stuff, check out: The Apothecary.
Boy is this the truth. My mortgage banker (and her company) were so ignorant of the risks of what they were doing that they couldn't comprehend why I was being such a difficult customer. I offered to come in and do some 'pro bono' security consulting for them after the deal closed but they had no interest.
Don't hold your breath expecting changes anytime soon either. After talking to quite a few people in the industry I'm learning that 99.999% of their customers just don't care. They (sign and) send whatever they're asked, however they're asked, to wherever they're asked with nary a protest or a hesitation. Often they do it without even reading the documents.
Our brokers were shocked when I told them I wanted to read all the documents. "No one does that!" and "It would take hours!" (Thankfully our title companies were a lot more clue-ful.) I found the entire experience a useful insight into the origins of the US financial crisis.
You're right, I did leave that option out and I was remiss in not explaining why: there is no amount of taxes that's going to make up for the shortfall in entitlements. There simply isn't enough money there.
Even limiting the discussion to SS: removing the tax cap doesn't fix the shortfall. If you removed the cap entirely you'd still have to limit benefits at about to rate for the current cap in order to actually fix the SS deficit. (Source: CRS. And that's just SS.
Raising tax rates also has the problem of diminishing returns. Historically tax rates have been all over the board but no matter what they've been set at we've never collected more than about 20% of GDP and we average about 18%.
The worst problem is that raising taxes, even if it would work, only continues to give the junkies their fix. Instead of attacking our serious SPENDING problems we want to keep putting off the pain of withdrawal with another tax hit (or inflation). Indeed if you look at lot of the commentary on the Internet on the idea of removing the SS tax caps it's inevitably followed by salivating over how all that extra money could be spent on more wish list items.
There is no such thing as a financial perpetual motion machine. I'm not optimistic that we're going to learn this any way other than the hard way.
The point of taxes is to pay for the commitments our governments have made to spend our money.
While I agree that anyone under 55 needs to plan on there being no SS benefits when they retire, we've already passed the point of expenditures exceeding revenues.
Here's the money shot:
"Social Security’s expenditures exceeded non-interest income in 2010 and 2011, the first such occurrences since 1983, and the Trustees estimate that these expenditures will remain greater than non-interest income throughout the 75-year projection period."
Source: SSA
Don't worry AC. Although we can't identify you here, you can rest easy knowing that the government is fully aware of the balance in both your 401(k) and Roth IRAs. When push comes to shove expect to start hearing serious talk about "nationalizing" your private savings plans.
"The people buying these T-bills are not idiots." Neither were the people buying mortgage backed securities. I, mean, until it turned out they were.
Just two little problems:
" They [Greece] owe actual value ..." Yes, ACTUAL VALUE, which Greece can't produce enough of in any currency compared to its current obligations, and
" as long as no one is bothered by that [inflation]..." Except that people WILL be bothered by that, people whose savings are suddenly not keeping up with the skyrocketing cost of living driving them towards poverty.
There is no such thing as a free lunch.
*facepalm* "Make the interest rates your banks pay negative, keep the deficit as high as it can go (15% interest on bonds is not fun, but if you control your own currency it is payable), etc."
So then the banks buy up all the 15% bonds instead of taking the fed bank rate and you've dug the hole that much deeper! Now you've got an entitlement problem AND a debt problem.
50 times in 2012 alone. Source: FDIC
And I think the current limit is $250K per account.
Eventually you have to pay the piper, Nic. The Republicrats and Democans can continue to pretend there's enough money to go around while the country burns down around them but all the hot air in Washington doesn't change the facts that:
1) The baby boomers are about to really start putting a load on our entitlement system.
2) We're already borrowing about 40% of every dollar the Fed spends.
3) There is no actual money in the SS "trust fund" or "lock box" or whatever euphemism you like.
4) All of our entitlement programs will be paying out more than they take in within the next 10 years.
5) The shortfall has to come from somewhere.
You can inflate the currency, you can reduce benefits, or you can do a little of both. What you can't do is have your cake and eat it too. We have some very tough decisions coming.
WSJ has a pretty good write up here but that may also be paywalled; don't have the time to test it out.
"The left lost the battle long ago, by imagining nightmares and creating religions out of them. I don't intend to challenge science here, but the battle in the political arena is hopeless because the rhetoric doesn't work anymore. If AGW is a fact, this is a fact too. "
Nice quote. +1 Uncomfortable Truth
I bought a used copy of the CD and ripped it years and years ago. I'm lazy enough I would have just bought it had it been available on iTunes. Net revenue for you $0.
I second Cederic's endorsement: create an account.
Yes, if you have no work history GPA is often used as a screening factor. Many intern, co-op, and new college hire jobs specify a minimum GPA.
+1
"Sure, it would be nice if we could tell conservative Americans that their anti-intellectual culture..."
Oh, have we been going easy on the conservatives and not telling them the hard truths? I know it's all coddling and cotton candy for them here on /. but I assumed _somebody_ was giving them honest feedback on their recent performance.
And speaking of being honest, let's be honest with ourselves here for a minute: this proposal is about as paternalistically racist as you can get. Condescending racism, however, isn't a trademark of the American right but of the American left. I think someone once referred to it as the "soft bigotry of low expectations;" a description that fits this initiative to a 'T'.
Why launder the money through Congress? Their 'convenience' fee would be better spent directly supporting your favorite organization.
Still can't use a Treaty to end run 'limited and enumerated' powers.
Except that you left out an important bit: "by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate". The President can, and often does, 'make' Treaties but without Congressional ratification they have no force.
Further Congress can't constitutionally ratify a treaty that exceeds its limited and enumerated powers.
In this case Art 1. Sec 4. provides for it.
Congress can't constitutionally ratify a treaty that exceeds its enumerated powers. Art. 1 Sec 4 does allow Congress to override local election law but it's not clear that the treaty in question specifically addresses how close monitors could be to the polls in which case Texas law would control.
Obviously I meant Article 1 Section 4....