We were running a surplus. The increase in the debt was caused by interest on the huge debt that Republicans left after exiting office
Interesting idea - perhaps you should handle your own finances that way, and see how it works. Figure out how much of your mortgage, and car note, and whatever other interest you pay is.
Then subtract that out of your current debt, as if it weren't there. Pay only the principle on all outstanding loans, and whatever you have left after that, spend every dime of it.
Tell your wife that you're running a surplus, and that she needn't worry. When your creditors start insisting that you pay the interest, just borrow more.
Let me know how long it lasts.
Sorry, it's not a surpus if you have MORE debt at the end of the day than the beginning - for everyone but the Federal Government, that's called a deficit.
Can't forget the concept of "entitlement" - the concept is part of Federal law. Some programs are defined as "entitlements" - what that means is that the budget for those programs is, by definition, a best guess. What the actual outlays of the program are is whatever it is required to be to pay for the "entitlements". Which always seems to be more than planned, interestingly....
Now, the question of whether there SHOULD be entitlements is a whole 'nother issue. But you can't pretend they're not there until the laws are changed. And you can't overlook the possibility that, even if the definition were removed from law, a new definition of entitlement might not be inserted at some later date.
Both the major parties are equally guilty here. Neither has what it takes to fix things, and either would screw things up just to win a couple of seats in the next election.
True enough. If the Dems were in power, I would have written the sentence you quoted with Reps/Dems reversed.
That said, there is no special reason to believe that any Third Party would change anything. Platforms are fictions, at best, so they can't be counted on. The voters have gotten a taste of "bread & circuses", or "voting themselves largess from the public treasury" (if you prefer a newer description of the endemic problem of democracy), and they won't lightly let go.
Until and unless the government drops back to its Constitutionally mandated functions (and I don't believe that will ever happen, even if we have a revolution - where would we find our George Washington, to prevent a "meet the new boss, same as the old boss" situation), entitlements are going to be with us - they will increase pretty regularly, and eventually our society will collapse under their weight. Then it gets ugly.
Same is true of Europe, of course. Not soon, in either case, but not so far our in time as to be unforeseeable.
Because we're the ones who have to pay the extra taxes to redeem them? You DO realize that when those T-Bills are redeemed, starting in 2018, that YOUR taxes will go up some amount to pay for them, right? And a bit more the following year, when they have to redeem rather more of them. And so on, out to eternity.
The fact is, there is 0 chance the Trust Fund will be thrown into default by the government, yet precisely this is the only sense, I argue, in which the canard "The Trust Fund does not exist (exclamation mark)" can have any meaning.
You're right, it won't default. The government will raise our taxes (as I said) to pay them off. And if there were NO Trust Fund, not even the current legal fiction, what would the government do in 2018?
They'd raise our taxes to pay for the extra Social Security costs incurred that year.
Isn't that amazing? They'd do the same thing, at the same time, whether it existed or not! Sounds like the "Trust Fund" doesn't really exist, to me.
that its bonds are worthless and should not be redeemed
Never said they should be defaulted upon. I said that whether they exist or not, the government must do EXACTLY THE SAME THING - raise taxes.
Personally, when I consider my own finances, I can't help but consider the interest I'm paying (on my home mortgage, for instance) part of my budget. If the Federal Government doesn't do so, they're fudging the books just a tad.
Probably so they can claim a surplus when they know better....
There is NO Trust Fund! The "Trust Fund" consists of a bunch of IOU's from the government. They take the money out of their left pocket, put an IOU in that pocket, and put the money into their right pocket. Then they spend the money in their right pocket.
If you treat the "Trust Fund" as non-existant, you get exactly the same results in terms of extra revenues needed to pay the bills as you do if you assume that the "Trust Fund" exists.
2053 is meaningless. 2018 is what counts. At that point, we have to spend every bit of SS revenue every year, and start redeeming those IOU's at an increasing rate every year. Which we can only do be increasing taxes or cutting expenditures, or some combination.
Social security was envisioned as, and functions as, an insurance of last resort against the cruel twists of fate that lead to destitution. It is part of the social contract that we have adopted as a nation, and that helps realize our core values. In so far that it has problems, these problems are actuarial as opposed to philosophical in nature
Umm, no. Social Security was envisioned as a means of keeping old people from starving in the streets during the Depression. It was not intended then (or now) to be "an insurance of last resort".
Unfortunately. If it were seen as "an insurance of last resort", people would, in general, be planning for their own retirement WITHOUT SS, as opposed to the current method (where retirement plans generally include SS as part of the financial picture).
It is true that much of the problem is actuarial in nature. The system was designed so that you did not become eligible until you were at the average age of death at the time the system was put into place. Alas, the average age of death has been pushed back quite a long ways, and the SS retirement age hasn't (been pushed back quite a ways).
Right now, if your SS taxes were increased to cover the current deficit (it's all the same pile of money - the SS Trust Fund is a myth), your SS taxes would increase by ~$1500 per person in your household. Mine would go up by rather more than 50%, but your mileage may vary.
This year. It would increase again next year, as more people reach retirement age. And the year after. And the year after....
The system will require some fairly drastic reshuffling of national priorities to maintain in anythng like its current semblance - reducing our military to pre-WW2 levels will fix the problem this year, but afterwards, we'd still need more revenue to pay the bills every year than the year before. And I doubt the Europeans (or anyone else) would thank us for reducing our military to the point that they needed to INCREASE their militaries to their traditional (pre-WW2) levels to maintain the security that we've been providing.
Long run solution: there is none, other than the possibility of castly increased prosperity, which prosperity increase would have to be skillfully siphoned off in the form of higher taxes before we raised our standard of living using that extra prosperity. Unlike what's been happening the last 20 years, where we've increased our standard of living just as fast as technology and industry allowed....
Those seniors have a reasonable expectation that the system they pay into is going to provide for them when they need it; they would not have contributed had it been suggested that they would be no benefits.
Social Security isn't an investment into a retirement fund, it's a TAX! Just like the rest of the taxes you pay, the money gets tossed into a big bag, then spent any way Congress deems desirable to ensure their re-election goes off without a hitch.
That said, killing Social Security would be a bad thing. I'm in favour of the private investment accounts, but want to see current beneficiaries, and near-future beneficiaries, get their full current entitlement.
Then, in the longer term, the benefits should be prorated down to whatever the revised level is expected to be. About half of current benefits? Something like that, with the private investment accounts making up the difference.
Of course, Congress is essentially cowardly - they don't take on serious issues, because serious issues get them kicked out of office. Only time Congress addresses a serious issue is when they're not bright enough to realize that the issue is serious. So they won't pass this "reform".
If they ARE bullied into passing this, just as soon as the Dems get back in power, they will repeal the "reform" (right after they pass laws to guarantee that Republicans never get elected to any Federal office again).
Which will leave us right where we are now. With an increasing deficit (that SS money is being spent as fast as it comes in, and the demand on that money goes up every year), and nothing in sight which suggests that the deficit growth will reverse itself - it can't until we change the nature of SS, since SS wasn't designed to function with a couple of workers supporting each retiree for 20 years or so (it was designed for a dozen or so workers per retiree, for a couple years on average).
Note that Social Security is failing because it has turned into something it was not meant to be - a general retirement income. Originally, Social Security retirement age was set at the average life expectancy, and so half the population didn't live to collect at all, and most of the ones who did collect only collected for a few years.
Now, unfortunately, MOST of the population lives to collect, and the majority of them collect for rather more than ten years.
So, the fundamental basis for the idea is too expensive for the current tax rates. And will continue to be so, as long as average life-expectancy continues to increase.
it hasn't been generated much interest on it's massive surpluses
No, that's not quite the issue - if you had invested the money paid into SS on your behalf (as if it really was the retirement account it has been billed as since the New Deal), you'd be getting a better return than your monthly SS check. Even if you just bought T-Bills with it, much less if you invested it halfway wisely.
Bush's plan is basically one of the many alternatives floated over the years to SS. It is intended to shift SS more toward that "retirement account" (that it is advertised as) and away from that "Ponzi scheme" (that it really is). The weaning away WILL be painful. Perhaps as painful as leaving SS alone for the politicians in 2018 to deal with (and it must be dealt with by then - its surpluses are being used to finance the government now, and they'll go away then - so new taxes to pay for what now comes from SS surpluses, as well as increasing (annually) new taxes to pay for Social Security as its surpluses become increasingly large deficits.
Myself, I don't think Bush's reform plan will happen - Congress is essentially cowardly. They won't vote to do something unpopular and expensive that can be put off till the next Congress. And the next. And the next....
That said, I doubt Bush's plan is especially bad. The alternatives all involve raising Social Security and Income taxes. Quite a lot. And right now, SS taxes are most of the Federal taxes that MOST Americans pay (when the employer's share is included, and don't think it's not part of what the employer considers when salary time comes around - it's part of doing business).
Ultimately, it is part and parcel of the deficit. Which everyone (except Congress) dislikes. Evidence is that Congress will spend every dime they can get their hands on. So raising taxes won't make the deficit go away (more tax revenue just means more to spend, historically). The government tightening its belt might, but there seems to be no way to make them do that, other than a hypothetical Balanced Budget Amendment. And I'm willing to bet that the escape clause such an Amendment must have (to deal with unpleasantness like war and such) will be invoked every year, regular as clockwork, to go beyond "balanced" and into deficit.
At least until the dollar stops being the reference currency for the world. Then we'll have a nice long depression while we re-adjust to NOT being the biggest borrower on the planet (because people won't be willing to lend)....
Umm, no. From the Volstead Act (the enabling legislation for Prohibition):
But it shall not be unlawful to possess liquors in one's private dwelling while the same is occupied and used by him as his dwelling only and such liquor need not be reported, provided such liquors are for use only for the personal consumption of the owner thereof and his family residing in such dwelling and of his bona fide guests when entertained by him therein;
People used to drink also. They drank before prohibition, they drank during prohibition, and they drank after prohibition. The law didn't really change much, other than the fact that the same people went from being law abiding citizens, to criminals who supported the Kaiser (the same old Communist/Terrorist enemy tactic used forever) back to law abiding citizens.
Umm, no. It was NOT illegal to drink liquor during Prohibition. It was illegal to buy, sell, and make it, of course. But it was legal to possess in your own home, so long as you didn't distribute it to the public.
The TRUTH is that Social Security is fully funded until 2042 (according to the Social Security Administration. The Congressional Budget Office thinks it can go until 2052). At that point its trust fund runs out, and benefits will have to be reduced, taxes increased, or a combination of both
Umm, no. The Social Security Trust Fund consists of a bunch of T-Bills. That is, the government lent the money to itself, and then spent it.
When Social Security revenues drop below outlays (2018, in current projections), the government must begin borrowing more, or raising taxes, or a combination, so it can pay off the IOU's it wrote to itself.
2042, when the "Trust Fund" is bankrupt marks the point when those IOU's run out, NOT the point when taxes must be raised, or deficit must increase to cover Social Security outlays.
In other words, the Social Security Trust Fund is a MYTH! It never has existed. Social Security was described originally as a "retirement fund" that everyone "invested" in. This to convince Americans (who at the time weren't too happy accepting "charity" - it used to be embarrassing, according to my Father-in-Law, who grew up in the Great Depression).
But it was ALWAYS structured as a Ponzi Scheme - we pay to support the current recipients, in hopes that when our turn to be a recipient comes, new suckers will be found to pay for our share.
Roman Census data was, at least, originally, similar to our original Census data - an enumeration of the populace for tax purposes. It did, in fact, like our own Census data, include the name of the head of household, and at least the number and type (adult, child, slave, free, etc) of the members of the household.
So, it is not unreasonable to suppose we might see such data. No doubt much was lost during various sackings of Rome.
You won't find my name even in modern U.S. census records, even though I have been counted
Oh? I have been part of five Census's now. For three of them, I was an adult, and enumerated in my own right (as oppsed to being a child as part of my father's household). I don't pay too much mind to what is asked on Census forms these days, but I seem to recall being required to list my children's names.
Now, I know that early US Census did not require that - name of head of household, number of household was sufficient. Are you young enough that you've nevr been enumerated as an adult? Or did you just decline to provide more than the minimum information required? Just curious.
It is certainly true that only a small fraction of Romans have any personal information about them known today. Nontheless, Jesus was big news even in his own lifetime. There is every reason to believe that records of his life would be at least as complete as Julius Caesar's, who lived a couple of generations earlier.
WHile I don't read latin, and haven't seen the bases, I refer you to:
Tenney Frank, "Roman Census Statistics from 508 to 225 B.C.," American Journal of Philology 51 (1930) 313-324.
for a start (assuming you read latin, and want to go over the original documents, assuming they are available to you), that might be a place to look.
Now, we must remember that the primary purpose of Roman Census (Censii?) were for purposes of registering taxpayers. And that they were more applicable to Roman Citizens (Paul of Tarsus was one, Jesus of Nazareth was not).
As to a "commoner's life"...Spartacus certainly counts. Big July mentioned many contemporary commoners by name in his own books. Surely SOME contemporary of Jesus Christ would have written it down somewhere.
On the other hand: Christianity was officially frowned upon for many years, both during and after Jesus' life. That sort of thing could lend one impetus to NOT mention him under conditions you might otherwise choose to do so. So it's not like absence of specific records of Jesus were Proof of Jesus' absence. It is merely one of the curiousities of that particular place and period of history.
By the same token, on 10 SEP 2001, it was a truthful statement that:
"Noone has ever crashed a plane into the World Trade Center."
I don't know much about this particular case, since I decided rather deliberately to ignore the news this week in favour of sensationalism and raving lunacy (in other words, I'm catching up on/. after the holidays), but I won't go so far as to say that a plane couldn't be brought down with a laser pointer.
I will, however, agree that it hasn't happened yet.
Something else, like pointing out constilations to his daughter.
With a laser pointer?? Last I looked, you had to have a lot of smog (hence no constellations) to see the beam. So he and his daughter were waiting the many years for the light from his pointer to reach out to a nearby star, which they would then see some years later?
Makes no sense at all. You can't point out constellations with a laser pointer, unless you're inside a planetarium.
Flavius Josephus lived after Jesus. He was born a few years after the crucifixion. Where's the documentary evidence? Where's the Census records? At least one such was performed during Jesus' lifetime, after all.
Mind you, I don't doubt his existence. His historicity is questionable, though, considering that there are so many places records of his existence should exist. And they pretty much don't exist in those places.
No doubt a good part of the ambiguity about the historicity of Jesus is based on the fact that Christianity was always a focal point for extreme measures - early on, even admitting to Christianity could get you in a world of hurt, while later on the reverse was true....
Again, not even entirely true. The Arian Heresy (stamped out by the Church quite a long time ago) was a once popular form of Christianity that assigned no divinity to Jesus. It was not considered necessary that he be divine, just that his message be divinely inspired.
I confess to a bit of Arian leanings in my own faith. I haven't seen where the divinity or lack of same of Jesus Christ (Christ, for those who don't know, is a title, not a name, and does not, in and of itself, imply divinity) is all that terribly important a question.
It's well-established that a man named Jesus of Nazareth existed. The debate is whether or not he is divine.
Really? Alright, can you show me copies of the relevant Roman and Jewish records of his existance? I seem to be unable to find any.
Surely the Sermon on the Mount must have produced some official record, given the number of people present, in what was, we must remember, a Roman Province of questionable stability.
Or, for that matter, the Crucifixion. The Romans kept detailed records of that sort of thing as well, but I've never heard mention of anyone finding a record of one like that. Which, we must remember, was performed in a quite unusual fashion - nailing people to the cross in that way was not normal Roman practice. When a Roman crucifixion took place, nailing someone to the cross was optional (more often, they were just tied), but the nails were put in wrists, as opposed to the palms of the hands (too easy for someone's weight to just rip the hand asunder and drop the victim from the cross if the nails were in the hands.
One might also keep in mind that "messiah" and "divine" are not synonymous.
Ahh. A matter of Law is NOT a Right. The local laws may require something, or allow something, without it being a question of Rights.
That said, it's not hard to change a law.
Election laws tend to be a bit harder, because the people elected under one set of rules don't like changing rules in such a way as to increase the chances they will not be re-elected. As I recall from the last time this discussion (WA election laws) came up on/., your state legislature includes no "minor Party" members, so you can pretty solidly bet that any law that makes it less likely that a Rep/Dem will be elected will be quietly stifled.
Unless, of course, your local legislators aren't bright enough to anticipate the changes that a new law will bring. You might be surprised how often that happens. On the other hand, you might read newspapers, and NOT be surprised at all.
I see this doesn't actually point to the "Exceptions, covered by another law" mentioned. I'm slightly curious, but not enough to try to learn Swedish to find out.
The problem with a top two primary is that although we get to vote on the person, not the party, each party has a right to be represented in the general election.
Why do you assume we are voting for a Party in an election? I generally vote for a Person, myself.
And why do you believe that every Party has a right to be represented in the election? If I found my own Party, consisting of myself and my immediate family, do I have a Right to have the CrimsonAvenger Party on every ballot? If I do not, then how is this a Right? If I do, will you enjoy ballots with hundreds, if not thousands of names?
And if by some weird happening, two Democrats or two Republicans went onto the general election for a given race, I'm a bit curious about campaign money and issues like that.
Happens in Lousisiana all the time. There's never been an issue with it, so far as I know. Of course, we don't do public financing of elections, and the Parties have a lot less influence than they'd like (though the State Republican Party seems to be pretty good at the whole "kiss of death" endorsement - I don't think any Republican they've endorsed has ever won, though many Republicans do win).
Also, for the primary, what prevents vote splitting? Hypothetically speaking, let's say 15 Democrats run for a given race. If we use the plurality system, they may as well have a worse chance at advancing than a total of 3 Republicans running.
Nothing at all. One of the big complaints by the Parties that have too many Prima Donnas is that they don't like to have to run against each other.
Nonetheless, the system works pretty well down here in Louisiana. We get candidates who are willing to stand up for things, as opposed to candidates who try their best to offend noone by being neither for nor against anything. The People seem to be pretty happy with the system, thugh the major Parties like to whine a lot about the EVIL of a system that doesn't guarantee them a victory (in any election, the losing "major Party" will claim that they lost due to the system, rather than because their best guy was a complete loser - noone takes them seriously)
Slashdot Mirror
Interesting idea - perhaps you should handle your own finances that way, and see how it works. Figure out how much of your mortgage, and car note, and whatever other interest you pay is.
Then subtract that out of your current debt, as if it weren't there. Pay only the principle on all outstanding loans, and whatever you have left after that, spend every dime of it.
Tell your wife that you're running a surplus, and that she needn't worry. When your creditors start insisting that you pay the interest, just borrow more.
Let me know how long it lasts.
Sorry, it's not a surpus if you have MORE debt at the end of the day than the beginning - for everyone but the Federal Government, that's called a deficit.
Can't forget the concept of "entitlement" - the concept is part of Federal law. Some programs are defined as "entitlements" - what that means is that the budget for those programs is, by definition, a best guess. What the actual outlays of the program are is whatever it is required to be to pay for the "entitlements". Which always seems to be more than planned, interestingly....
Now, the question of whether there SHOULD be entitlements is a whole 'nother issue. But you can't pretend they're not there until the laws are changed. And you can't overlook the possibility that, even if the definition were removed from law, a new definition of entitlement might not be inserted at some later date.
Both the major parties are equally guilty here. Neither has what it takes to fix things, and either would screw things up just to win a couple of seats in the next election.
True enough. If the Dems were in power, I would have written the sentence you quoted with Reps/Dems reversed.
That said, there is no special reason to believe that any Third Party would change anything. Platforms are fictions, at best, so they can't be counted on. The voters have gotten a taste of "bread & circuses", or "voting themselves largess from the public treasury" (if you prefer a newer description of the endemic problem of democracy), and they won't lightly let go.
Until and unless the government drops back to its Constitutionally mandated functions (and I don't believe that will ever happen, even if we have a revolution - where would we find our George Washington, to prevent a "meet the new boss, same as the old boss" situation), entitlements are going to be with us - they will increase pretty regularly, and eventually our society will collapse under their weight. Then it gets ugly.
Same is true of Europe, of course. Not soon, in either case, but not so far our in time as to be unforeseeable.
Because we're the ones who have to pay the extra taxes to redeem them? You DO realize that when those T-Bills are redeemed, starting in 2018, that YOUR taxes will go up some amount to pay for them, right? And a bit more the following year, when they have to redeem rather more of them. And so on, out to eternity.
The fact is, there is 0 chance the Trust Fund will be thrown into default by the government, yet precisely this is the only sense, I argue, in which the canard "The Trust Fund does not exist (exclamation mark)" can have any meaning.
You're right, it won't default. The government will raise our taxes (as I said) to pay them off. And if there were NO Trust Fund, not even the current legal fiction, what would the government do in 2018?
They'd raise our taxes to pay for the extra Social Security costs incurred that year.
Isn't that amazing? They'd do the same thing, at the same time, whether it existed or not! Sounds like the "Trust Fund" doesn't really exist, to me.
that its bonds are worthless and should not be redeemed
Never said they should be defaulted upon. I said that whether they exist or not, the government must do EXACTLY THE SAME THING - raise taxes.
Probably so they can claim a surplus when they know better....
Funny thing about that "surplus" - while the deficit was (supposedly) negative, our National Debt was still increasing.
For historical purposes, here's the National Debt during Clinton's terms in office:
09/29/2000 - $5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 - $5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 - $5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 - $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 - $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 - $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 - $4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 - $4,411,488,883,139.38
Notice that it got larger EVERY year, even the ones where we were running a "Surplus"?
There is NO Trust Fund! The "Trust Fund" consists of a bunch of IOU's from the government. They take the money out of their left pocket, put an IOU in that pocket, and put the money into their right pocket. Then they spend the money in their right pocket.
If you treat the "Trust Fund" as non-existant, you get exactly the same results in terms of extra revenues needed to pay the bills as you do if you assume that the "Trust Fund" exists.
2053 is meaningless. 2018 is what counts. At that point, we have to spend every bit of SS revenue every year, and start redeeming those IOU's at an increasing rate every year. Which we can only do be increasing taxes or cutting expenditures, or some combination.
Umm, no. Social Security was envisioned as a means of keeping old people from starving in the streets during the Depression. It was not intended then (or now) to be "an insurance of last resort".
Unfortunately. If it were seen as "an insurance of last resort", people would, in general, be planning for their own retirement WITHOUT SS, as opposed to the current method (where retirement plans generally include SS as part of the financial picture).
It is true that much of the problem is actuarial in nature. The system was designed so that you did not become eligible until you were at the average age of death at the time the system was put into place. Alas, the average age of death has been pushed back quite a long ways, and the SS retirement age hasn't (been pushed back quite a ways).
Right now, if your SS taxes were increased to cover the current deficit (it's all the same pile of money - the SS Trust Fund is a myth), your SS taxes would increase by ~$1500 per person in your household. Mine would go up by rather more than 50%, but your mileage may vary.
This year. It would increase again next year, as more people reach retirement age. And the year after. And the year after....
The system will require some fairly drastic reshuffling of national priorities to maintain in anythng like its current semblance - reducing our military to pre-WW2 levels will fix the problem this year, but afterwards, we'd still need more revenue to pay the bills every year than the year before. And I doubt the Europeans (or anyone else) would thank us for reducing our military to the point that they needed to INCREASE their militaries to their traditional (pre-WW2) levels to maintain the security that we've been providing.
Long run solution: there is none, other than the possibility of castly increased prosperity, which prosperity increase would have to be skillfully siphoned off in the form of higher taxes before we raised our standard of living using that extra prosperity. Unlike what's been happening the last 20 years, where we've increased our standard of living just as fast as technology and industry allowed....
Social Security isn't an investment into a retirement fund, it's a TAX! Just like the rest of the taxes you pay, the money gets tossed into a big bag, then spent any way Congress deems desirable to ensure their re-election goes off without a hitch.
That said, killing Social Security would be a bad thing. I'm in favour of the private investment accounts, but want to see current beneficiaries, and near-future beneficiaries, get their full current entitlement.
Then, in the longer term, the benefits should be prorated down to whatever the revised level is expected to be. About half of current benefits? Something like that, with the private investment accounts making up the difference.
Of course, Congress is essentially cowardly - they don't take on serious issues, because serious issues get them kicked out of office. Only time Congress addresses a serious issue is when they're not bright enough to realize that the issue is serious. So they won't pass this "reform".
If they ARE bullied into passing this, just as soon as the Dems get back in power, they will repeal the "reform" (right after they pass laws to guarantee that Republicans never get elected to any Federal office again).
Which will leave us right where we are now. With an increasing deficit (that SS money is being spent as fast as it comes in, and the demand on that money goes up every year), and nothing in sight which suggests that the deficit growth will reverse itself - it can't until we change the nature of SS, since SS wasn't designed to function with a couple of workers supporting each retiree for 20 years or so (it was designed for a dozen or so workers per retiree, for a couple years on average).
Note that Social Security is failing because it has turned into something it was not meant to be - a general retirement income. Originally, Social Security retirement age was set at the average life expectancy, and so half the population didn't live to collect at all, and most of the ones who did collect only collected for a few years.
Now, unfortunately, MOST of the population lives to collect, and the majority of them collect for rather more than ten years.
So, the fundamental basis for the idea is too expensive for the current tax rates. And will continue to be so, as long as average life-expectancy continues to increase.
it hasn't been generated much interest on it's massive surpluses
No, that's not quite the issue - if you had invested the money paid into SS on your behalf (as if it really was the retirement account it has been billed as since the New Deal), you'd be getting a better return than your monthly SS check. Even if you just bought T-Bills with it, much less if you invested it halfway wisely.
Bush's plan is basically one of the many alternatives floated over the years to SS. It is intended to shift SS more toward that "retirement account" (that it is advertised as) and away from that "Ponzi scheme" (that it really is). The weaning away WILL be painful. Perhaps as painful as leaving SS alone for the politicians in 2018 to deal with (and it must be dealt with by then - its surpluses are being used to finance the government now, and they'll go away then - so new taxes to pay for what now comes from SS surpluses, as well as increasing (annually) new taxes to pay for Social Security as its surpluses become increasingly large deficits.
Myself, I don't think Bush's reform plan will happen - Congress is essentially cowardly. They won't vote to do something unpopular and expensive that can be put off till the next Congress. And the next. And the next....
That said, I doubt Bush's plan is especially bad. The alternatives all involve raising Social Security and Income taxes. Quite a lot. And right now, SS taxes are most of the Federal taxes that MOST Americans pay (when the employer's share is included, and don't think it's not part of what the employer considers when salary time comes around - it's part of doing business).
Ultimately, it is part and parcel of the deficit. Which everyone (except Congress) dislikes. Evidence is that Congress will spend every dime they can get their hands on. So raising taxes won't make the deficit go away (more tax revenue just means more to spend, historically). The government tightening its belt might, but there seems to be no way to make them do that, other than a hypothetical Balanced Budget Amendment. And I'm willing to bet that the escape clause such an Amendment must have (to deal with unpleasantness like war and such) will be invoked every year, regular as clockwork, to go beyond "balanced" and into deficit.
At least until the dollar stops being the reference currency for the world. Then we'll have a nice long depression while we re-adjust to NOT being the biggest borrower on the planet (because people won't be willing to lend)....
But it shall not be unlawful to possess liquors in one's private dwelling while the same is occupied and used by him as his dwelling only and such liquor need not be reported, provided such liquors are for use only for the personal consumption of the owner thereof and his family residing in such dwelling and of his bona fide guests when entertained by him therein;
Umm, no. It was NOT illegal to drink liquor during Prohibition. It was illegal to buy, sell, and make it, of course. But it was legal to possess in your own home, so long as you didn't distribute it to the public.
Umm, no. The Social Security Trust Fund consists of a bunch of T-Bills. That is, the government lent the money to itself, and then spent it.
When Social Security revenues drop below outlays (2018, in current projections), the government must begin borrowing more, or raising taxes, or a combination, so it can pay off the IOU's it wrote to itself.
2042, when the "Trust Fund" is bankrupt marks the point when those IOU's run out, NOT the point when taxes must be raised, or deficit must increase to cover Social Security outlays.
In other words, the Social Security Trust Fund is a MYTH! It never has existed. Social Security was described originally as a "retirement fund" that everyone "invested" in. This to convince Americans (who at the time weren't too happy accepting "charity" - it used to be embarrassing, according to my Father-in-Law, who grew up in the Great Depression).
But it was ALWAYS structured as a Ponzi Scheme - we pay to support the current recipients, in hopes that when our turn to be a recipient comes, new suckers will be found to pay for our share.
Don't recall where I read it, but Michael Chrichton was an MD before he turned to writing.
I'll tell you what - if you want to "obey your masters", go right ahead. I think I'll pass on that particular option for human happiness.
Well, no. 2.68 fewer/B? microseconds per day. We'll lose a leap-second every millenium or so.
So, it is not unreasonable to suppose we might see such data. No doubt much was lost during various sackings of Rome.
You won't find my name even in modern U.S. census records, even though I have been counted
Oh? I have been part of five Census's now. For three of them, I was an adult, and enumerated in my own right (as oppsed to being a child as part of my father's household). I don't pay too much mind to what is asked on Census forms these days, but I seem to recall being required to list my children's names.
Now, I know that early US Census did not require that - name of head of household, number of household was sufficient. Are you young enough that you've nevr been enumerated as an adult? Or did you just decline to provide more than the minimum information required? Just curious.
It is certainly true that only a small fraction of Romans have any personal information about them known today. Nontheless, Jesus was big news even in his own lifetime. There is every reason to believe that records of his life would be at least as complete as Julius Caesar's, who lived a couple of generations earlier.
Tenney Frank, "Roman Census Statistics from 508 to 225 B.C.," American Journal of Philology 51 (1930) 313-324.
for a start (assuming you read latin, and want to go over the original documents, assuming they are available to you), that might be a place to look.
Now, we must remember that the primary purpose of Roman Census (Censii?) were for purposes of registering taxpayers. And that they were more applicable to Roman Citizens (Paul of Tarsus was one, Jesus of Nazareth was not).
As to a "commoner's life"...Spartacus certainly counts. Big July mentioned many contemporary commoners by name in his own books. Surely SOME contemporary of Jesus Christ would have written it down somewhere.
On the other hand: Christianity was officially frowned upon for many years, both during and after Jesus' life. That sort of thing could lend one impetus to NOT mention him under conditions you might otherwise choose to do so. So it's not like absence of specific records of Jesus were Proof of Jesus' absence. It is merely one of the curiousities of that particular place and period of history.
"Noone has ever crashed a plane into the World Trade Center."
I don't know much about this particular case, since I decided rather deliberately to ignore the news this week in favour of sensationalism and raving lunacy (in other words, I'm catching up on /. after the holidays), but I won't go so far as to say that a plane couldn't be brought down with a laser pointer.
I will, however, agree that it hasn't happened yet.
With a laser pointer?? Last I looked, you had to have a lot of smog (hence no constellations) to see the beam. So he and his daughter were waiting the many years for the light from his pointer to reach out to a nearby star, which they would then see some years later?
Makes no sense at all. You can't point out constellations with a laser pointer, unless you're inside a planetarium.
Flavius Josephus lived after Jesus. He was born a few years after the crucifixion. Where's the documentary evidence? Where's the Census records? At least one such was performed during Jesus' lifetime, after all. Mind you, I don't doubt his existence. His historicity is questionable, though, considering that there are so many places records of his existence should exist. And they pretty much don't exist in those places. No doubt a good part of the ambiguity about the historicity of Jesus is based on the fact that Christianity was always a focal point for extreme measures - early on, even admitting to Christianity could get you in a world of hurt, while later on the reverse was true....
Again, not even entirely true. The Arian Heresy (stamped out by the Church quite a long time ago) was a once popular form of Christianity that assigned no divinity to Jesus. It was not considered necessary that he be divine, just that his message be divinely inspired.
I confess to a bit of Arian leanings in my own faith. I haven't seen where the divinity or lack of same of Jesus Christ (Christ, for those who don't know, is a title, not a name, and does not, in and of itself, imply divinity) is all that terribly important a question.
Really? Alright, can you show me copies of the relevant Roman and Jewish records of his existance? I seem to be unable to find any.
Surely the Sermon on the Mount must have produced some official record, given the number of people present, in what was, we must remember, a Roman Province of questionable stability.
Or, for that matter, the Crucifixion. The Romans kept detailed records of that sort of thing as well, but I've never heard mention of anyone finding a record of one like that. Which, we must remember, was performed in a quite unusual fashion - nailing people to the cross in that way was not normal Roman practice. When a Roman crucifixion took place, nailing someone to the cross was optional (more often, they were just tied), but the nails were put in wrists, as opposed to the palms of the hands (too easy for someone's weight to just rip the hand asunder and drop the victim from the cross if the nails were in the hands.
One might also keep in mind that "messiah" and "divine" are not synonymous.
That said, it's not hard to change a law.
Election laws tend to be a bit harder, because the people elected under one set of rules don't like changing rules in such a way as to increase the chances they will not be re-elected. As I recall from the last time this discussion (WA election laws) came up on /., your state legislature includes no "minor Party" members, so you can pretty solidly bet that any law that makes it less likely that a Rep/Dem will be elected will be quietly stifled.
Unless, of course, your local legislators aren't bright enough to anticipate the changes that a new law will bring. You might be surprised how often that happens. On the other hand, you might read newspapers, and NOT be surprised at all.
I see this doesn't actually point to the "Exceptions, covered by another law" mentioned. I'm slightly curious, but not enough to try to learn Swedish to find out.
Why do you assume we are voting for a Party in an election? I generally vote for a Person, myself.
And why do you believe that every Party has a right to be represented in the election? If I found my own Party, consisting of myself and my immediate family, do I have a Right to have the CrimsonAvenger Party on every ballot? If I do not, then how is this a Right? If I do, will you enjoy ballots with hundreds, if not thousands of names?
And if by some weird happening, two Democrats or two Republicans went onto the general election for a given race, I'm a bit curious about campaign money and issues like that.
Happens in Lousisiana all the time. There's never been an issue with it, so far as I know. Of course, we don't do public financing of elections, and the Parties have a lot less influence than they'd like (though the State Republican Party seems to be pretty good at the whole "kiss of death" endorsement - I don't think any Republican they've endorsed has ever won, though many Republicans do win).
Also, for the primary, what prevents vote splitting? Hypothetically speaking, let's say 15 Democrats run for a given race. If we use the plurality system, they may as well have a worse chance at advancing than a total of 3 Republicans running.
Nothing at all. One of the big complaints by the Parties that have too many Prima Donnas is that they don't like to have to run against each other.
Nonetheless, the system works pretty well down here in Louisiana. We get candidates who are willing to stand up for things, as opposed to candidates who try their best to offend noone by being neither for nor against anything. The People seem to be pretty happy with the system, thugh the major Parties like to whine a lot about the EVIL of a system that doesn't guarantee them a victory (in any election, the losing "major Party" will claim that they lost due to the system, rather than because their best guy was a complete loser - noone takes them seriously)