Bill Clinton did not promote the "legitimacy" of the pre-emptive strike.
If they strike, it will be because they percieve a "legitimate" reason. And are acting "legitimately" according to current doctrine espoused by this country.
You did not do the math. You are comparing present value... but, there is not a problem right now.
So, we have to figure the future value of the money till the time that there is a problem.
$500 Billion
30 years (projected time till problems become apparent, conservative value)
3.5% interest (paltry, conservative value)
= roughly 1.4 trillion dollars
---
If we use the time estimate that is currently being thrown about of 40 years, and bump the return rate to 5%... we get roughly 3.5 Trillion dollars.
I don't think projecting any more "favorably" than that is rational. So, I'll leave the calculation of "market average" returns to the interested reader. (but the number is truly huge...)
And, since this is a historical document maintained by the government... hopefully you will accept that it does indeed reflect the reality of the past.
If you look closely you will see positive numbers across the board for 1999, 2000 and 2001.
Bush took office in 2001 and the first budget from his tenure took affect "officially" that October. It has been down hill since then.
Re:If politicians really wanted to fix SS
on
State of the Union
·
· Score: 1
it just hasn't happened before the T-bills
It also hasn't been tried by so qualified a group before.
One of the protection mechanisms is that you have time and compounded interest on your side
And, when some drunk hobo steals a car... runs a red light... and cripples you next year...
Which system will be there for you.
Next year. Not 30 years... tomorrow.
This, IMHO, is the huge flaw in the Republican plan. They want to remove the progress we have made as a society and go back to "I got mine and fsck thine".
...creationism provides a better explanation of the beginning of the world than does evolution... I say this as someone with degrees in math and physics...
What part of astronomically large numbers of colliding molecules over astronomically large numbers of years is so hard for a mathematician and a physicist to comprehend?
I think the biggest part of the problem is that the Treasury department "handles" the money... making it too damn easy for the "party in power", which ever one it is... to get their grubby little hands on it.
What good is a lockbox if everyone has a key...
Of course, you could put your money here and pray that you don't have to retire during the third year.
And, while writing this post, Slashdot offers up this nugget of wisdom:
Life is a gamble at terrible odds, if it was a bet you wouldn't take it. -- Tom Stoppard, "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead"
There are things like medical costs and social security taxes that are hidden from you.
I doubt it. I'm self employed.
Time to put aside your obvious bias, and actually apply some business thought to this.
Man... that is so funny.
Especially since I've been filling out a Form C and paying both parts for five years now.
So tell me. What is so "obvious" about my bias, and how would that change if I had a "regular" job?
The facts are very simple. Right now there is a guaranteed benefit from SS.
Right NOW I can put away 4% of my own money in any investment I want. Actually, as a self employeed person I can put away more than that. But, any person not covered by a 401k can put up to $4000 in an IRA for the 2005 tax year.
Bush's plan does away with the guaranteed benefit.
It adds no value.
its coming out of lower gross wages for the employees
No, it is coming out of profits.
I can have revenue of a billion dollars and not pay one cent to SS IF I DON'T MAKE A PROFIT. (This is for a self employeed person with no employees... I'll leave figuring out how to get the billion in revenue as an exercise to the reader. Point is, it is only figured on profit for a self employeed person.)
Go check what happens for companies with employees. There are plenty of companies that did NOT make a profit last year. But, every one of them still paid SS taxes for their employees. When something has to give, it is jobs or profits. But, contrary to "popular" belief... rarely wages.
Not paying a living wage does not work for very long. There is not a lot of elasticity in the floor. So, the money has to come from somewhere else.
I would suggest instead that you stop drinking the kool-aid. It isn't about you. (Chabces are) You did not contribute (significant ammounts of) money to the compaign. Any benefit to you is secondary to the True Goal (TM) and totally of little consequence in what will actually be done.
Money you invest in an IRA will grow far more than doubling.
I did not say that it would not double. I said it will take a hell of a long time.
Yet, under the current system it happens immediately.
Do the math. Assume the bonds accrue 3% and your stock market investment accrue 10%.
Start with $2000 for the bonds, and $1000 for the stocks.
Q: How long before both are worth the same dollar value.
Assuming "retirement" at 65 years of age...
Q: What would the difference between the two be for someone that is now 54 (the oldest person "caught" by the Bush plan).
Q: What would the difference between the two be for someone that is now 20.
Q: How do the above numbers compare to the current system, assuming no reduction in benefits.
Q: Which system has zero guarantee of future benefits.
---
I find it more than irritating that the amount of future benefits closely coincides with the amount added by the employer. That would make me believe that if the employer contribution remained... the benefit would... REMAIN THE SAME.
You do realize that with the current system you get a 100% match from your employer, right?
Bet you it will take a hell of a long time for you to make up for that with your own investments.
(You don't actually think this is about you do you. The entire point of SS "reform" is to provide an immediate cost reduction to business by eleminating their portion of the cost.)
If it is so "fundamental" then why in the hell do I have to ask that question?
I don't see any moral problem here.
And... if the destruction of life is so f*scking "immoral"... what about that whole Iraq thing? Why in the hell are we using taxpayer dollars for that?
Slashdot Mirror
Seriously folks, if that was the case, wouldn't you expect the OIL prices to go DOWN?
Only if you assume competence in the ability to lead, plan and meet goals.
I'm not willing to assume that with the characters at hand...
If you assume that the players are stunningly incompetent, you end up with exactly what we have today.
Bill Clinton did not promote the "legitimacy" of the pre-emptive strike.
If they strike, it will be because they percieve a "legitimate" reason. And are acting "legitimately" according to current doctrine espoused by this country.
the upshot of it was that the M models had PostScript, and that was the only difference
Another difference... the little round port on the back for connecting to the Mac.
Actually... I believe the 'P' designation was for postscript, and the 'M' designation was for the Mac port. (but I could be wrong about the 'P')
I'd go with an oldie if possible.
I have a laserjet 4MP and just love it. (you mentioned one of the 4 series and I've found them to be quite reliable)
So... how about something used?
Here is one and there is an optional duplexing unit on the bottom of the page.
McD's is a pretty economical choice
Even after factoring in the health cost?
BTW, you can also use these numbers to determine the "true cost" of the war.
Since it was "financed" thru deficit spending.
One day the bill will be due. This is how much.
Can you say: BIRTH TAX?
You did not do the math. You are comparing present value... but, there is not a problem right now.
So, we have to figure the future value of the money till the time that there is a problem.
$500 Billion
30 years (projected time till problems become apparent, conservative value)
3.5% interest (paltry, conservative value)
= roughly 1.4 trillion dollars
---
If we use the time estimate that is currently being thrown about of 40 years, and bump the return rate to 5%... we get roughly 3.5 Trillion dollars.
I don't think projecting any more "favorably" than that is rational. So, I'll leave the calculation of "market average" returns to the interested reader. (but the number is truly huge...)
I believe the parent is talking about the year to year budget surplus Bush was handed when Clinton left office.
That would be The positive numbers in the first two data columns.
And, since this is a historical document maintained by the government... hopefully you will accept that it does indeed reflect the reality of the past.
If you look closely you will see positive numbers across the board for 1999, 2000 and 2001.
Bush took office in 2001 and the first budget from his tenure took affect "officially" that October. It has been down hill since then.
it just hasn't happened before the T-bills
It also hasn't been tried by so qualified a group before.
How in the hell do you think we got where we are today?
Yeah, I wonder how long the current system would last if they had just took all the "Iraq" money and pumped it directly into SS...
Someone must have confused it with inciteful.
Seeing that this is currently modded as 'Flamebait'... I think the same person must have missed the 'Funny' mod.
They both start with 'F'... maybe they aren't getting past the first letter.
One of the protection mechanisms is that you have time and compounded interest on your side
And, when some drunk hobo steals a car... runs a red light... and cripples you next year...
Which system will be there for you.
Next year. Not 30 years... tomorrow.
This, IMHO, is the huge flaw in the Republican plan. They want to remove the progress we have made as a society and go back to "I got mine and fsck thine".
...creationism provides a better explanation of the beginning of the world than does evolution... I say this as someone with degrees in math and physics...
What part of astronomically large numbers of colliding molecules over astronomically large numbers of years is so hard for a mathematician and a physicist to comprehend?
;-)
I think the biggest part of the problem is that the Treasury department "handles" the money... making it too damn easy for the "party in power", which ever one it is... to get their grubby little hands on it.
What good is a lockbox if everyone has a key...
Of course, you could put your money here and pray that you don't have to retire during the third year.
And, while writing this post, Slashdot offers up this nugget of wisdom:
That additional social security would either be used to pay you more, or pay someone else more.
False dichotomy, unless you consider "someone else" to be the company.
One word.
Profit.
You won't see a penny of it as an employee.
There are things like medical costs and social security taxes that are hidden from you.
I doubt it. I'm self employed.
Time to put aside your obvious bias, and actually apply some business thought to this.
Man... that is so funny.
Especially since I've been filling out a Form C and paying both parts for five years now.
So tell me. What is so "obvious" about my bias, and how would that change if I had a "regular" job?
The facts are very simple. Right now there is a guaranteed benefit from SS.
Right NOW I can put away 4% of my own money in any investment I want. Actually, as a self employeed person I can put away more than that. But, any person not covered by a 401k can put up to $4000 in an IRA for the 2005 tax year.
Bush's plan does away with the guaranteed benefit.
It adds no value.
its coming out of lower gross wages for the employees
No, it is coming out of profits.
I can have revenue of a billion dollars and not pay one cent to SS IF I DON'T MAKE A PROFIT. (This is for a self employeed person with no employees... I'll leave figuring out how to get the billion in revenue as an exercise to the reader. Point is, it is only figured on profit for a self employeed person.)
Go check what happens for companies with employees. There are plenty of companies that did NOT make a profit last year. But, every one of them still paid SS taxes for their employees. When something has to give, it is jobs or profits. But, contrary to "popular" belief... rarely wages.
Not paying a living wage does not work for very long. There is not a lot of elasticity in the floor. So, the money has to come from somewhere else.
I would suggest instead that you stop drinking the kool-aid. It isn't about you. (Chabces are) You did not contribute (significant ammounts of) money to the compaign. Any benefit to you is secondary to the True Goal (TM) and totally of little consequence in what will actually be done.
You obviously don't understand IRAs.
Far more than you give me credit for.
Money you invest in an IRA will grow far more than doubling.
I did not say that it would not double. I said it will take a hell of a long time.
Yet, under the current system it happens immediately.
Do the math. Assume the bonds accrue 3% and your stock market investment accrue 10%.
Start with $2000 for the bonds, and $1000 for the stocks.
Q: How long before both are worth the same dollar value.
Assuming "retirement" at 65 years of age...
Q: What would the difference between the two be for someone that is now 54 (the oldest person "caught" by the Bush plan).
Q: What would the difference between the two be for someone that is now 20.
Q: How do the above numbers compare to the current system, assuming no reduction in benefits.
Q: Which system has zero guarantee of future benefits.
---
I find it more than irritating that the amount of future benefits closely coincides with the amount added by the employer. That would make me believe that if the employer contribution remained... the benefit would... REMAIN THE SAME.
That, to me... is a contrived "crisis".
You do realize that with the current system you get a 100% match from your employer, right?
Bet you it will take a hell of a long time for you to make up for that with your own investments.
(You don't actually think this is about you do you. The entire point of SS "reform" is to provide an immediate cost reduction to business by eleminating their portion of the cost.)
But... But... If you don't use a Windows box you won't get frequent security updates!
;-)
without crossing a fundamental moral line
What line would that be?
And...
If it is so "fundamental" then why in the hell do I have to ask that question?
I don't see any moral problem here.
And... if the destruction of life is so f*scking "immoral"... what about that whole Iraq thing? Why in the hell are we using taxpayer dollars for that?
Q: Was there funding at some point in time?
If so...
Q: Is the funding less now than it was at some point in time?
If so...
Q: Who reduced the funding?
You don't watch the news much, do you.
Name one company guaranteed to be in existence 40 years from now.
That is the first step towards figuring out *where* to invest your money... you have to give it to someone else.
I'll be the first to admit that I scan this site.
But, the first time I read the title... I swear... I thought it said two tons.
That would be a hell of a meal!
Make up your mind.
Is the sticker an issue of "fact" or "acceptance".
You say one thing and mean the other.
That is why removing it was the right thing to do. The words used were "technically" correct, and gave a completely different meaning in context.