That is exactly what a Republican Senator said. Expect the tax cuts to be exapnded. Spending to INCREASE faster than revenue. And, a immediate additional $2 trillion in the projected strutural deficit due to private social security accounts.
This probably isn't the best place to give financial advice, but there are numerous very good reasons not to do this given current conditions. Future conditions could change this advice.
1) At say 6% interest, with an inflation rate of ~2% and another 2% of the interest deducted from taxes,the money for the house only really costs you about 2%. Therefore, the money you have sitting in the house if only giving you a true rate of return after inflation of 2%. Note, as the mortgage interest rates rise this is less appealing, but if your rate is fixed and interest rates rise, which usually corresponds with rising inflation. The cost of the loan could actually become negative.
2) Home equity is not terribly liquid. Even if the home is paid for, see if you can get a home equity line of credit. I don't know your age, but this is especially smart to do shortly prior to retirement or any event that might result in your income going down. You will qualify for more oney, and have an emergency fund that is much larger.
3) Finally, opportunity cost. What about the lost appreciation from acquiring the property sooner than you would if you waited to have a 100% payment. What if the cost of the property you want increases more than the interest rate of the money you would have had to borrow. Paying cash would have cost you money.
I can think of a few more reasons, but a lot depends on your priorities. Oh and I really don't know your financial situation, so paying all cash may not tie up a significant portion of your assets. But, you would still be getting a pretty poor return. Now, I am not suggesting 100% financing is a great idea either, but a happy medium might be prudent. Especially, right now with interests rates fairly low, if you can get a good fixed rate loan.
I suppose all those hundreds of thousands of Tons of explosives aren't dangerous.
Dangerous to whom? Not the US. Why would a terrorist go through all the trouble of trying to smuggle explosives from Iraq, when he can build his own with materials easily available in the U.S?
Ah, that old dodge, one of the more entertaining ways to dance around the question, I'll grant you. It basically boils down to "A" was wrong because I think "B" should have been a higher priority, completely dancing around the issue of "A", and "B" for that matter, and instead focusing on a external matter of queueing.
Sort of. But, regardless of where on the list Iraq, and North Korea are my problem is that we have created a list. The foreign policy that Bush followed to justify preemptive invasion of Iraq, means there are a bunch of other countries that need to be invaded. I really don't think the US needs to be invading every country we don't like.
Now maybe he really doesn't think that we should premptively invade any country that might be a threat. But, is not that worse to put forth a policy to justify one invasion, but not really mean it because there is a different reason for that invasion?
This is what concerns me where does the invasion of other countries stop?
Finally, my last problem with Bushes policy and means. He already had a war going on in Afghanistan, actually in many ways it is still going on because that country is not stable. There is a war in Iraq going on (regardless of what the adminstration currently calls it). I think of this.
"Only an idiot fights a war on two fronts. Only a madman fights a war on 3 fronts."
And, that is the problem. I have decided in a sense to punt on abortion.
1) The government should not make abortion illegal.
2) I think most reasonable people agree abortions are a bad thing. So, reducing abortions is a good thing. But, it is not the governments job to change it by making abortion illegal.
3) Therefore, I support cheap, reliable birth control!! If there is no unwanted baby in the first place there is no abortion. That would only leave rape and save the mother abortions.
I figure we should split this off from Iraq because this is something that should be able to be figured out.
It is a crappy idea. Social Security has a huge funding gap that will only be fixed by reducing benefits and raising taxes. Individual Accounts can only work if the money removed form the Social Security revenue stream by these accounts is either accounted for by reducing benefits, or raising taxes.
So throwing more money at it will fix it huh? Yeah. Ok. NOT.
No, the point is neither candidate is looking realistically at how to "save" social security. Kerry doesn't have a plan, so our heads stay in the sand and later benefits will be cut more drastically, and taxes raised even more.
Bushes plan removes money from the Social Security revenue stream and puts it in the private accounts. Combined with a benefit reduction for those participating in that program, it MIGHT fix the long term structural problems with Social Security while maintaining the benefit level. But, it doesn't really help the baby boomer problem because they will not benefit significantly from the private accounts, so benefit level will not be able to be maintained, i.e. the benefit from the private account will not allow a sufficient reduction in Social Security payments to make up for the retiring baby boomers.
My other problem with the private accounts will depend on the details. If the government chooses the investments, then that choice can have a significant impact on the economy, and what investments are available could become a political tool. Even government offering a variety of investments would result in too much influence over the economy. Alternatively, we allows everyone to choose any investment. Now you get the problem of people being dumb, taking too many risks, and loosing the money, which is at least as bad as social security. My main concern is how to you offer these accounts in such a way as the account holders will really benefit, but the government doesn't end up being able to use the choice of investments as a political tool. This program could actually have a much bigger impact on the ecoonomy than any tax cut, spending program, or Federal Reserve action.
The other alternative, which I think could work is to make social security NOT an entitlement, but truly insurance. Insurance for what? Insurance against poverty in old age. This would require some kind of means testing be added to the program where the benefit is proportional to a persons means, in which case the wealthy make the payments, but don't receive a benefit. So, let's say you have a lot of assets and retirement income , you will end up not getting a social security payment. But, let's say a your wife get's sick and the medical bills pretty much eat up all of your assets. That is when social security kicks in. The key would be to make sure the means test leave an incentive to save for retirement. i.e. the payment is graduated in such a way that the income gained from each dollar of retirement savings is greater than the income lost from social security. It should also be graduated in such a way that working into retirement is not punished significantly.
It would be complicated, but could do the trick.
It could be possible to privatize this as it is roughly like an annuity with a special provision for when it kicks in. In the private situation, a couple of things would have to happen. The Federal Government will need to provide some kind of backup insurance sort of like the FDIC just in case an insurer goes out of business. There would need to be licensing criteria in order for an insurer to enter the business i.e. sufficient reserves, etc. The goverment would need to set the minimum policy and payment schedule for the policy, and some ground rules for better policies. While this would not have the return of a retirement account, that isn't the point it is an insurance policy. What return do you get from car insurance, home insurance, etc...
Hogwash. We invaded Iraq for our own security. We gave Saddam yet another chance to work with the UN. He failed. Would you propose to keep a openly hositle country with a track recorded of launching Missles at Israel, and invading other countries, to continue to operate? I suppose you'd want to do something AFTER Saddam launched a couple of missles at the US?
North Korea is openly hostile, and actually HAS missiles that can hit the US. Why didn't we invade North Korea first?
Someone had to do what the UN FAILED TO DO for 11 plus years. It only took a handful of terrorists to kill thousands of US citizens. If you have a whole country, with the backing of it's government, doing that.....
And... there is no evidence that Iraq ever funded terrorist attacks on US soil or interests. If you want to go after a country that is training terrorists try Paksitan, as that is what the Madrasas near the Afghan border are doing. And, where do you think Osama Bin Laden is holed up right now, and Musharaf won't let us go in and get him. Not that Bush is making that a priority.
We were not out to "make him pay". We were out to make him play. Play by the rules which the UN set up. How freaking simple was it to allow inspectors to go around and look for weapons? And this guys didn't let them do it. Insane.
He kicked the UN out for a number of years. I mean, where do you draw the line guy? You have a guy, with a history of missle attacks, invasions, gassing his people, not following UN resolutions, and being allowed to continue basically giving the bird to the UN.
Ummm... We didn't make him play. He no longer holds power and is a prisoner. That sounds like making him pay.
How freaking simple was it to allow inspectors to go around and look for weapons? And this guys didn't let them do it. Insane.
Excellent question. I always thought this was incredibly stupid. I am guessing two possible reasons: 1) His scientists actually were lying to him that they had real weapons programs and potential weapons, therefore he was trying to keep the UN from finding imaginary WMDs. 2) He knew there were no WMDs, but stupidly thought that if the US thought he had them, we would not invade.
He kicked the UN out for a number of years. I mean, where do you draw the line guy? You have a guy, with a history of missle attacks, invasions, gassing his people, not following UN resolutions, and being allowed to continue basically giving the bird to the UN.
Yes, he has a history of missle attacks, which he got invaded for already. Gassing his own people, why the hell do we care about that now, we didn't do anything about it when it happened. So, the only relevant reason is ignoring UN resolutions and giving the Bird to the UN. Last, I checked the US give sthe brd to the UN all the time, so let's not count that one.:-) It still only leaves us with UN resolutions.
Iraq was not a real threat, nor was he going to become a real threat anytime soon. Shoot the ease of invasion proved that Iraq was not a threat now, and the investigation after showed the were not an imminent threat either. So, who cares, maintain the stranglehold on him from the last 11 years. If we find any actual progress towards becoming a threat, then invade. He will probably be dead before Iraq becomes a credible threat.
The real problem is Hussein wasn't deposed afer the 1991 invasion. While there were good reasons for not marching on Baghdad, they are just as relevant when applied to the current invasion. The mistake was allowing Saddam to fly helicopter gunships after that, and put down the Shiite uprising with the helicopters after encouraging the Shiites to rise up was pretty stupid. His military was in disarray after Kuwait, without the air support Saddam would have been deposed.
My state didn't raise my tax. The interest on the goverment debt is less then the interest I get by investing my tax savings. Long run I come out ahead. I'd honestly rather the goverment cut some BS agencies and programs to save the money though.
Couple items.
Give it a couple years and mortgage rates should be at least a.25 to.5 percent higher due to the extra debt. Or, $250-$500/year per $100,000 of mortgage. If you buy a home in that time frame you will not come out ahead in the long run. That extra half a percent will also stifle business investment. So, their will be a drag on the economy also.
Personally, I wish politicians would quit messing around with taxes. The pre-Bush taxes and economy resulted in a surplus. This would suggest that given current spending priorities taxes were about right. A neat rule would be to fix the taxes as is. Then, if Congress and/or the President wants to give a "tax cut" make it a rebate of any surplus, and only surpluses could be rebated. This would be a great incentive for politicians to actually figure out how to reduce spending. Because a great campaign spot would be "last year I gave you $500, and next year my policies ill allows me to return $550."
Another reason why I don't like Democrats. You pander being the party that is inclusive, yet look at your statements. You probably a card carrying member of the Ku Klux Klan.
If you statements cannot be found to be consistent with your actions, what mentla defect should I use.
I was pissed off at some one who cannot see the inconsistency of a stated policy. If the policy should lead to a different set of action than the one performed, then there must be a different reason for performing that action. Every policy stated by the administration to justify invading Iraq, should have put other coutnries higher on the list. Therefore, the policies statements for invading Iraq were not the real reason.
Ah, but they have not invaded another country, lost, and agreed to things to end the hostility. Saddam didn't do what he said. So, when do you say "enough is enough"??
This is really the only reason for invading Iraq. And, the disagreement here is that it is kind of a stupid reason. His butt was kicked out of Kuwait. Any attempt to invade another country would have resulted in invasion of Iraq. Are you saying we invaded because we didn't think he was doing the things he told the UN he would do? Is that really the United States job to enforce UN resolutions against the wishes of the UN. American soldiers, Iraqi Soldiers, and Iraqi civilians deserved to die because of Saddam wasn't obeying UN resolutions, and we decided it was our job to make him pay?
It's not government-run health care, it's government-sponsored, similar to how your company gets a group plan with insurance companies to get lower rates.
This is important because the way health insurance works is that you put a pool of people together and they pay into the insurance pool. Those that get sick or injured ge their care paid for, and those that are healthy get thhe peace of mind that if they get sick or injured their sickness or injury is covered. If the pool is made larger their is a good chance it will include more healthy people that want the peace of mind thus reducing the per person cost of healthcare in that pool.
The onyl issue with any healthcare plan is the way things are paid for. HMOs, insurers, and medicare pay a fraction of list price for various procedures, yet most doctors and hospitals actually make money on this. Why? The reason I guess is that the list is set so that the proportion that is paid by the insurer is profitable. If you don't have insurance and go get medical care, try negotiating a lower price for paying cash. You might be surprised at how much lower the doctor will go.
Think of the Republican Party as the Catch-All Party. What happens when a school budget doesn't pass? They use last year's budget again, by default. This is considered safe and fair. Likewise, politcally, many people "default" to conservativism. Anything outside of that is considered new and unstable.
I have a different slant. Vote whatever it takes to have the Congressional majority a different party from teh President. That is the most conservative choice. Because, nothing should get accomplished and therefore we end up with little change.
I don't think government should be involved in all it does, and Kerry wants to expand it. Government Health Care?
Bush and his party voted in an unfunded Medicare prescription drug benefit. What's the difference?
Bush's plan about individual Social Security accounts is a great idea. But what that basically is is a sort of "retirement plan", which everyone should do anyways. Why do we all think we are "entitled" to all these things?
It is a crappy idea. Social Security has a huge funding gap that will only be fixed by reducing benefits and raising taxes. Individual Accounts can only work if the money removed form the Social Security revenue stream by these accounts is either accounted for by reducing benefits, or raising taxes.
I don't agree on Bush on everything, but I think giving the Iraq people the chance of freedom is priceless.
You and Bush are hypocrits. If freeing people form tyranny through force is a good foreign policy, we need to invade Pakistan where a military dictator is in charge who overthru the democratically elected government. Oh, and China, and North Korea, much of Africa, and most of the rest of the Middle East.
By the way according to the reasoning for invading Iraq because Saddam is developing or maybe has weapons of mass destruction is also hypocritical. China HAS weapons of mass desctruction, Pakistan HAS weapons of mass desctruction, and neither is a democracy. Why have we not invaded both of those countries, if Bush believes in his policies. Because he is a BULLY and a COWARD who will only fight against those that are incapable of fighting back.
War in Iraq is not fast nor easy. But it is the right thing to do.
It is not the right thing to do because by the justification for war in Iraq the United States must be invading a lot more contries. If you agree that the US should invade the countries I described above, plus more I cannot think of now, then maybe your opinion is internally consistent. As is you are probably insane.
You don't have *any* clue what you're talking about. Check the administrative costs. You're totally full of shit. Hey, California's costs are entirely on-line. You can look it up by district if you want.
Then, where the hell is the money going?!? I found one place that put per pupil spending for K-12 in California at ~$7000. That includes all money in addition to the prop 98 money. Take a 25 student class size and you get $175,000/classroom. Teachers cost maybe $80,000 including benefits and overhead. So, where does the other $95,000 go.
30x30ft 900sqft classroom at $100/sqft financed with Muni's at 4% for 20 years fully amortixed would be ~$6500/year. $88,500 left. Let's add another $6500 for maintenance and utilities. $82000 left. 8 subjects, new books every 5 years, 25 students. 400books $90/book, say $288/student/year, 25 students, $7,200 make it $8000 so the math is easier. $74000 left. Let's give the class $4000 for whatever. $70,000 left.
So, that takes care of direct classroom costs. Now, library, bathrooms, PE fields, cafeteria/multipurpose room, parking lots, janitor closets, etc... and maintenance and staff (not already accounted for (librarian, cafeteria) for said areas. $1,000,000 for a school of 1000 students. Or, $1000/student or $25,000 for the class. $45,000 left. Insurance... $500/student, $500,000 or $12,500/class. $32,500 left per class room.
40 25 student classes in a 1000 student school. $1,300,000 left for administration. Let's see... Give the pricipal $200,000, vice principal $150,000, two counselors $200,000, 3 desk workers $200,000. $750,000 for local adminstration for 1000 students or $750/student or 18,750/class. $13,750 left per class.
District adminstration for say 5 schools. We have $550,000 left per school or $2,750,000 to for upstream adminstration per district this size.
Now, note my school has things few to no real school has:
1) New books every 5 years. 2) A library with librarians. 3) 25 students per class. 4) $4,000 slush fund/class 5) Money allocated for new facilities every 20 years.
And, is missing things real schools do have: 1) No special education. 2) No metal detectors and security guards.
I think my model above is interesting not necessarily fo rthe numbers which are mostly pulled for my A**, but for the concept. If you charged education expenses against a per classroom it might be interesting to see what is really spent educating and providing a place to educate the students versus central facilities, security guards, counselors, principals, sports facilites, insurance, etc. etc. Then, you can actually take a look at means of shifting more of that money to the classroom instead of the other facilities.
Look, my undergrad is CS, I can pick up a new language in a second, no question. But if I was looking for work as and people wanted Java/.Net experience, and I couldn't land a job, going to a community college for 3 months to take a Java course and a.Net course wouldn't be a bad idea.
First, of all I have a job and am doing just fine thank you very much. I have continued to expand my skill set, so that wouldn't be a problem. But, that is not what Bush was talking about. He was talking about getting the skills for the 21st century by going to community college. That sounds mor elike retraining for a completely different field, and taking a step down in education for some new field by going to community college just doesn't make sense. That is a, "there a very few 21st century technology jobs left in this country, so I have to take a step down in education level in a different field in order to get a job in this country."
Also move out of overpriced U.S. cities and eventually out of the U.S. all together so you can live cheap, underbid your U.S. counterparts and be on the winning end of outsourcing.
Too bad India won't let foreigner's immigrate for jobs.
Blaming a President for your lack of job is about as brite as claiming one got you a job.
Nope, I blame the president for being an idiot suggesting that people with 4 year degrees whose jobs get outsourced should go to community college to get AA degrees.
Last I read, AMD was 6 to 12 months behind Intel in switching fabs over.
That is right, on the other hand switching to 90nm didn't seem to help Intel that much. The 90nm Prescott uses as much power as its larger sibling. I expect AMD will have dealt with that issue by spending the extra six months. Although, from what I read the power problems on Prescott are caused by leakage at the feature size, which is reduced by SOI which AMD has been using on 130nm, and is carrying over to 90nm. The reduced leakage also reduces heat.
Now it may be involved in the "war on terror" only because you made it a big fucking terror magnet that it wasn't before! Good job!
I was thinking about this. Bush said somethign like we are fighting the war on terror overseas so we don't have to fight it here. And, my thought was he is saying Kerry is disrespectful of our troops by saying the war was wrong. But, Bush called all the soldiers and civilians in Iraq "Bait".
Oops. There goes that argument -- and, very probably, any chance for a summary judgement.
Nope. Because SCO made a critical error. They stated the language of the contract was plain and unambiguous. Which IBM also stated. This means the judge can ignore the depositions, and just rule on what the plain and unambiguous language of the contract means.
Additionally, IBM also says that SCO's interpretation has ridiculous consequences that indicate that the license cannot mean what SCO says. And, they support it with case law that says if an interpretation of a contract leads to ridiculous consequences that interpretation cannot be valid. (Yes, I can't remember the exact wording.)
Basically, those witnesses were just a tiny part of IBM's argument for PSJ. IBM presented at least 4 or 5 legal arguments for why SCO's interpretation cannot be correct, notwithstanding the testimony of every individual involved in signing the licensing agreement.
Finally, as others have said that testimony was about trade secrets in the USL vs BSD sealed case. Which means SCO could be in big trouble even bringing it up.
at about $2 US, for a ml of heavy water at 99.99% pure, it will be a while for this to power our cars. At least there is an 'interesting effect' to watch for.
But, since fusion reactions result in something like a million times the energy per unit of fuel than chemical reactions. It is the equivalent energy of about 1000L of gasoline.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe Bush would like to expand the taxcuts.
That is exactly what a Republican Senator said. Expect the tax cuts to be exapnded. Spending to INCREASE faster than revenue. And, a immediate additional $2 trillion in the projected strutural deficit due to private social security accounts.
Just wondering, if by some highly improbable miracle the provisional ballots give Ohio to Kerry does the concession really mean anything?
Also when I buy my house, I intend to pay cash
This probably isn't the best place to give financial advice, but there are numerous very good reasons not to do this given current conditions. Future conditions could change this advice.
1) At say 6% interest, with an inflation rate of ~2% and another 2% of the interest deducted from taxes,the money for the house only really costs you about 2%. Therefore, the money you have sitting in the house if only giving you a true rate of return after inflation of 2%. Note, as the mortgage interest rates rise this is less appealing, but if your rate is fixed and interest rates rise, which usually corresponds with rising inflation. The cost of the loan could actually become negative.
2) Home equity is not terribly liquid. Even if the home is paid for, see if you can get a home equity line of credit. I don't know your age, but this is especially smart to do shortly prior to retirement or any event that might result in your income going down. You will qualify for more oney, and have an emergency fund that is much larger.
3) Finally, opportunity cost. What about the lost appreciation from acquiring the property sooner than you would if you waited to have a 100% payment. What if the cost of the property you want increases more than the interest rate of the money you would have had to borrow. Paying cash would have cost you money.
I can think of a few more reasons, but a lot depends on your priorities. Oh and I really don't know your financial situation, so paying all cash may not tie up a significant portion of your assets. But, you would still be getting a pretty poor return. Now, I am not suggesting 100% financing is a great idea either, but a happy medium might be prudent. Especially, right now with interests rates fairly low, if you can get a good fixed rate loan.
It still doesn't make it practical to smuggle them into the US vs. make your own even with the size difference.
Kerry used this phrase to describe his position on abortion.
Actually, I think Clinton and Gore used it before that. And, it is entirely likely it predates them as well.
I suppose all those hundreds of thousands of Tons of explosives aren't dangerous.
Dangerous to whom? Not the US. Why would a terrorist go through all the trouble of trying to smuggle explosives from Iraq, when he can build his own with materials easily available in the U.S?
Ah, that old dodge, one of the more entertaining ways to dance around the question, I'll grant you. It basically boils down to "A" was wrong because I think "B" should have been a higher priority, completely dancing around the issue of "A", and "B" for that matter, and instead focusing on a external matter of queueing.
Sort of. But, regardless of where on the list Iraq, and North Korea are my problem is that we have created a list. The foreign policy that Bush followed to justify preemptive invasion of Iraq, means there are a bunch of other countries that need to be invaded. I really don't think the US needs to be invading every country we don't like.
Now maybe he really doesn't think that we should premptively invade any country that might be a threat. But, is not that worse to put forth a policy to justify one invasion, but not really mean it because there is a different reason for that invasion?
This is what concerns me where does the invasion of other countries stop?
Finally, my last problem with Bushes policy and means. He already had a war going on in Afghanistan, actually in many ways it is still going on because that country is not stable. There is a war in Iraq going on (regardless of what the adminstration currently calls it). I think of this.
"Only an idiot fights a war on two fronts. Only a madman fights a war on 3 fronts."
Well, at least Bush isn't a madman.
There would still be ethical delimnas, though.
And, that is the problem. I have decided in a sense to punt on abortion.
1) The government should not make abortion illegal.
2) I think most reasonable people agree abortions are a bad thing. So, reducing abortions is a good thing. But, it is not the governments job to change it by making abortion illegal.
3) Therefore, I support cheap, reliable birth control!! If there is no unwanted baby in the first place there is no abortion. That would only leave rape and save the mother abortions.
I figure we should split this off from Iraq because this is something that should be able to be figured out.
It is a crappy idea. Social Security has a huge funding gap that will only be fixed by reducing benefits and raising taxes. Individual Accounts can only work if the money removed form the Social Security revenue stream by these accounts is either accounted for by reducing benefits, or raising taxes.
So throwing more money at it will fix it huh? Yeah. Ok. NOT.
No, the point is neither candidate is looking
realistically at how to "save" social security. Kerry doesn't have a plan, so our heads stay in the sand and later benefits will be cut more drastically, and taxes raised even more.
Bushes plan removes money from the Social Security revenue stream and puts it in the private accounts. Combined with a benefit reduction for those participating in that program, it MIGHT fix the long term structural problems with Social Security while maintaining the benefit level. But, it doesn't really help the baby boomer problem because they will not benefit significantly from the private accounts, so benefit level will not be able to be maintained, i.e. the benefit from the private account will not allow a sufficient reduction in Social Security payments to make up for the retiring baby boomers.
My other problem with the private accounts will depend on the details. If the government chooses the investments, then that choice can have a significant impact on the economy, and what investments are available could become a political tool. Even government offering a variety of investments would result in too much influence over the economy. Alternatively, we allows everyone to choose any investment. Now you get the problem of people being dumb, taking too many risks, and loosing the money, which is at least as bad as social security. My main concern is how to you offer these accounts in such a way as the account holders will really benefit, but the government doesn't end up being able to use the choice of investments as a political tool. This program could actually have a much bigger impact on the ecoonomy than any tax cut, spending program, or Federal Reserve action.
The other alternative, which I think could work is to make social security NOT an entitlement, but truly insurance. Insurance for what? Insurance against poverty in old age. This would require some kind of means testing be added to the program where the benefit is proportional to a persons means, in which case the wealthy make the payments, but don't receive a benefit. So, let's say you have a lot of assets and retirement income , you will end up not getting a social security payment. But, let's say a your wife get's sick and the medical bills pretty much eat up all of your assets. That is when social security kicks in. The key would be to make sure the means test leave an incentive to save for retirement. i.e. the payment is graduated in such a way that the income gained from each dollar of retirement savings is greater than the income lost from social security. It should also be graduated in such a way that working into retirement is not punished significantly.
It would be complicated, but could do the trick.
It could be possible to privatize this as it is roughly like an annuity with a special provision for when it kicks in. In the private situation, a couple of things would have to happen. The Federal Government will need to provide some kind of backup insurance sort of like the FDIC just in case an insurer goes out of business. There would need to be licensing criteria in order for an insurer to enter the business i.e. sufficient reserves, etc. The goverment would need to set the minimum policy and payment schedule for the policy, and some ground rules for better policies. While this would not have the return of a retirement account, that isn't the point it is an insurance policy. What return do you get from car insurance, home insurance, etc...
Hogwash. We invaded Iraq for our own security. We gave Saddam yet another chance to work with the UN. He failed. Would you propose to keep a openly hositle country with a track recorded of launching Missles at Israel, and invading other countries, to continue to operate? I suppose you'd want to do something AFTER Saddam launched a couple of missles at the US?
:-) It still only leaves us with UN resolutions.
North Korea is openly hostile, and actually HAS missiles that can hit the US. Why didn't we invade North Korea first?
Someone had to do what the UN FAILED TO DO for 11 plus years. It only took a handful of terrorists to kill thousands of US citizens. If you have a whole country, with the backing of it's government, doing that.....
And... there is no evidence that Iraq ever funded terrorist attacks on US soil or interests. If you want to go after a country that is training terrorists try Paksitan, as that is what the Madrasas near the Afghan border are doing. And, where do you think Osama Bin Laden is holed up right now, and Musharaf won't let us go in and get him. Not that Bush is making that a priority.
We were not out to "make him pay". We were out to make him play. Play by the rules which the UN set up. How freaking simple was it to allow inspectors to go around and look for weapons? And this guys didn't let them do it. Insane.
He kicked the UN out for a number of years. I mean, where do you draw the line guy? You have a guy, with a history of missle attacks, invasions, gassing his people, not following UN resolutions, and being allowed to continue basically giving the bird to the UN.
Ummm... We didn't make him play. He no longer holds power and is a prisoner. That sounds like making him pay.
How freaking simple was it to allow inspectors to go around and look for weapons? And this guys didn't let them do it. Insane.
Excellent question. I always thought this was incredibly stupid. I am guessing two possible reasons: 1) His scientists actually were lying to him that they had real weapons programs and potential weapons, therefore he was trying to keep the UN from finding imaginary WMDs. 2) He knew there were no WMDs, but stupidly thought that if the US thought he had them, we would not invade.
He kicked the UN out for a number of years. I mean, where do you draw the line guy? You have a guy, with a history of missle attacks, invasions, gassing his people, not following UN resolutions, and being allowed to continue basically giving the bird to the UN.
Yes, he has a history of missle attacks, which he got invaded for already. Gassing his own people, why the hell do we care about that now, we didn't do anything about it when it happened. So, the only relevant reason is ignoring UN resolutions and giving the Bird to the UN. Last, I checked the US give sthe brd to the UN all the time, so let's not count that one.
Iraq was not a real threat, nor was he going to become a real threat anytime soon. Shoot the ease of invasion proved that Iraq was not a threat now, and the investigation after showed the were not an imminent threat either. So, who cares, maintain the stranglehold on him from the last 11 years. If we find any actual progress towards becoming a threat, then invade. He will probably be dead before Iraq becomes a credible threat.
The real problem is Hussein wasn't deposed afer the 1991 invasion. While there were good reasons for not marching on Baghdad, they are just as relevant when applied to the current invasion. The mistake was allowing Saddam to fly helicopter gunships after that, and put down the Shiite uprising with the helicopters after encouraging the Shiites to rise up was pretty stupid. His military was in disarray after Kuwait, without the air support Saddam would have been deposed.
As a social liberal and fiscal conservative, the Libertarian Party represent most of my viewpoints.
Which is why I am voting Democrat for President and Republicans for Congress. That way nothing gets done unless there is broad based support.
My state didn't raise my tax. The interest on the goverment debt is less then the interest I get by investing my tax savings. Long run I come out ahead. I'd honestly rather the goverment cut some BS agencies and programs to save the money though.
.25 to .5 percent higher due to the extra debt. Or, $250-$500/year per $100,000 of mortgage. If you buy a home in that time frame you will not come out ahead in the long run. That extra half a percent will also stifle business investment. So, their will be a drag on the economy also.
Couple items.
Give it a couple years and mortgage rates should be at least a
Personally, I wish politicians would quit messing around with taxes. The pre-Bush taxes and economy resulted in a surplus. This would suggest that given current spending priorities taxes were about right. A neat rule would be to fix the taxes as is. Then, if Congress and/or the President wants to give a "tax cut" make it a rebate of any surplus, and only surpluses could be rebated. This would be a great incentive for politicians to actually figure out how to reduce spending. Because a great campaign spot would be "last year I gave you $500, and next year my policies ill allows me to return $550."
You probably a card carrying member of the Ku Klux Klan.
Well, at least I won't have to invoke Godwin's Law, and end the thread... Oh wait... Damn, I just did it. Crap... Ignore this post...
Another reason why I don't like Democrats. You pander being the party that is inclusive, yet look at your statements. You probably a card carrying member of the Ku Klux Klan.
If you statements cannot be found to be consistent with your actions, what mentla defect should I use.
I was pissed off at some one who cannot see the inconsistency of a stated policy. If the policy should lead to a different set of action than the one performed, then there must be a different reason for performing that action. Every policy stated by the administration to justify invading Iraq, should have put other coutnries higher on the list. Therefore, the policies statements for invading Iraq were not the real reason.
Ah, but they have not invaded another country, lost, and agreed to things to end the hostility. Saddam didn't do what he said. So, when do you say "enough is enough"??
This is really the only reason for invading Iraq. And, the disagreement here is that it is kind of a stupid reason. His butt was kicked out of Kuwait. Any attempt to invade another country would have resulted in invasion of Iraq. Are you saying we invaded because we didn't think he was doing the things he told the UN he would do? Is that really the United States job to enforce UN resolutions against the wishes of the UN. American soldiers, Iraqi Soldiers, and Iraqi civilians deserved to die because of Saddam wasn't obeying UN resolutions, and we decided it was our job to make him pay?
It's not government-run health care, it's government-sponsored, similar to how your company gets a group plan with insurance companies to get lower rates.
This is important because the way health insurance works is that you put a pool of people together and they pay into the insurance pool. Those that get sick or injured ge their care paid for, and those that are healthy get thhe peace of mind that if they get sick or injured their sickness or injury is covered. If the pool is made larger their is a good chance it will include more healthy people that want the peace of mind thus reducing the per person cost of healthcare in that pool.
The onyl issue with any healthcare plan is the way things are paid for. HMOs, insurers, and medicare pay a fraction of list price for various procedures, yet most doctors and hospitals actually make money on this. Why? The reason I guess is that the list is set so that the proportion that is paid by the insurer is profitable. If you don't have insurance and go get medical care, try negotiating a lower price for paying cash. You might be surprised at how much lower the doctor will go.
Think of the Republican Party as the Catch-All Party. What happens when a school budget doesn't pass? They use last year's budget again, by default. This is considered safe and fair. Likewise, politcally, many people "default" to conservativism. Anything outside of that is considered new and unstable.
I have a different slant. Vote whatever it takes to have the Congressional majority a different party from teh President. That is the most conservative choice. Because, nothing should get accomplished and therefore we end up with little change.
I don't think government should be involved in all it does, and Kerry wants to expand it. Government Health Care?
Bush and his party voted in an unfunded Medicare prescription drug benefit. What's the difference?
Bush's plan about individual Social Security accounts is a great idea. But what that basically is is a sort of "retirement plan", which everyone should do anyways. Why do we all think we are "entitled" to all these things?
It is a crappy idea. Social Security has a huge funding gap that will only be fixed by reducing benefits and raising taxes. Individual Accounts can only work if the money removed form the Social Security revenue stream by these accounts is either accounted for by reducing benefits, or raising taxes.
I don't agree on Bush on everything, but I think giving the Iraq people the chance of freedom is priceless.
You and Bush are hypocrits. If freeing people form tyranny through force is a good foreign policy, we need to invade Pakistan where a military dictator is in charge who overthru the democratically elected government. Oh, and China, and North Korea, much of Africa, and most of the rest of the Middle East.
By the way according to the reasoning for invading Iraq because Saddam is developing or maybe has weapons of mass destruction is also hypocritical. China HAS weapons of mass desctruction, Pakistan HAS weapons of mass desctruction, and neither is a democracy. Why have we not invaded both of those countries, if Bush believes in his policies. Because he is a BULLY and a COWARD who will only fight against those that are incapable of fighting back.
War in Iraq is not fast nor easy. But it is the right thing to do.
It is not the right thing to do because by the justification for war in Iraq the United States must be invading a lot more contries. If you agree that the US should invade the countries I described above, plus more I cannot think of now, then maybe your opinion is internally consistent. As is you are probably insane.
You don't have *any* clue what you're talking about. Check the administrative costs. You're totally full of shit. Hey, California's costs are entirely on-line. You can look it up by district if you want.
/class
Then, where the hell is the money going?!? I found one place that put per pupil spending for K-12 in California at ~$7000. That includes all money in addition to the prop 98 money. Take a 25 student class size and you get $175,000/classroom. Teachers cost maybe $80,000 including benefits and overhead. So, where does the other $95,000 go.
30x30ft 900sqft classroom at $100/sqft financed with Muni's at 4% for 20 years fully amortixed would be ~$6500/year. $88,500 left. Let's add another $6500 for maintenance and utilities. $82000 left. 8 subjects, new books every 5 years, 25 students. 400books $90/book, say $288/student/year, 25 students, $7,200 make it $8000 so the math is easier. $74000 left. Let's give the class $4000 for whatever. $70,000 left.
So, that takes care of direct classroom costs. Now, library, bathrooms, PE fields, cafeteria/multipurpose room, parking lots, janitor closets, etc... and maintenance and staff (not already accounted for (librarian, cafeteria) for said areas. $1,000,000 for a school of 1000 students. Or, $1000/student or $25,000 for the class. $45,000 left. Insurance... $500/student, $500,000 or $12,500/class. $32,500 left per class room.
40 25 student classes in a 1000 student school. $1,300,000 left for administration. Let's see... Give the pricipal $200,000, vice principal $150,000, two counselors $200,000, 3 desk workers $200,000. $750,000 for local adminstration for 1000 students or $750/student or 18,750/class. $13,750 left per class.
District adminstration for say 5 schools. We have $550,000 left per school or $2,750,000 to for upstream adminstration per district this size.
Now, note my school has things few to no real school has:
1) New books every 5 years.
2) A library with librarians.
3) 25 students per class.
4) $4,000 slush fund
5) Money allocated for new facilities every 20 years.
And, is missing things real schools do have:
1) No special education.
2) No metal detectors and security guards.
I think my model above is interesting not necessarily fo rthe numbers which are mostly pulled for my A**, but for the concept. If you charged education expenses against a per classroom it might be interesting to see what is really spent educating and providing a place to educate the students versus central facilities, security guards, counselors, principals, sports facilites, insurance, etc. etc. Then, you can actually take a look at means of shifting more of that money to the classroom instead of the other facilities.
Look, my undergrad is CS, I can pick up a new language in a second, no question. But if I was looking for work as and people wanted Java/.Net experience, and I couldn't land a job, going to a community college for 3 months to take a Java course and a .Net course wouldn't be a bad idea.
First, of all I have a job and am doing just fine thank you very much. I have continued to expand my skill set, so that wouldn't be a problem. But, that is not what Bush was talking about. He was talking about getting the skills for the 21st century by going to community college. That sounds mor elike retraining for a completely different field, and taking a step down in education for some new field by going to community college just doesn't make sense. That is a, "there a very few 21st century technology jobs left in this country, so I have to take a step down in education level in a different field in order to get a job in this country."
Also move out of overpriced U.S. cities and eventually out of the U.S. all together so you can live cheap, underbid your U.S. counterparts and be on the winning end of outsourcing.
Too bad India won't let foreigner's immigrate for jobs.
Blaming a President for your lack of job is about as brite as claiming one got you a job.
Nope, I blame the president for being an idiot suggesting that people with 4 year degrees whose jobs get outsourced should go to community college to get AA degrees.
Last I read, AMD was 6 to 12 months behind Intel in switching fabs over.
That is right, on the other hand switching to 90nm didn't seem to help Intel that much. The 90nm Prescott uses as much power as its larger sibling. I expect AMD will have dealt with that issue by spending the extra six months. Although, from what I read the power problems on Prescott are caused by leakage at the feature size, which is reduced by SOI which AMD has been using on 130nm, and is carrying over to 90nm. The reduced leakage also reduces heat.
Now it may be involved in the "war on terror" only because you made it a big fucking terror magnet that it wasn't before! Good job!
I was thinking about this. Bush said somethign like we are fighting the war on terror overseas so we don't have to fight it here. And, my thought was he is saying Kerry is disrespectful of our troops by saying the war was wrong. But, Bush called all the soldiers and civilians in Iraq "Bait".
Oops. There goes that argument -- and, very probably, any chance for a summary judgement.
Nope. Because SCO made a critical error. They stated the language of the contract was plain and unambiguous. Which IBM also stated. This means the judge can ignore the depositions, and just rule on what the plain and unambiguous language of the contract means.
Additionally, IBM also says that SCO's interpretation has ridiculous consequences that indicate that the license cannot mean what SCO says. And, they support it with case law that says if an interpretation of a contract leads to ridiculous consequences that interpretation cannot be valid. (Yes, I can't remember the exact wording.)
Basically, those witnesses were just a tiny part of IBM's argument for PSJ. IBM presented at least 4 or 5 legal arguments for why SCO's interpretation cannot be correct, notwithstanding the testimony of every individual involved in signing the licensing agreement.
Finally, as others have said that testimony was about trade secrets in the USL vs BSD sealed case. Which means SCO could be in big trouble even bringing it up.
at about $2 US, for a ml of heavy water at 99.99% pure, it will be a while for this to power our cars. At least there is an 'interesting effect' to watch for.
But, since fusion reactions result in something like a million times the energy per unit of fuel than chemical reactions. It is the equivalent energy of about 1000L of gasoline.