Just like its impossible for most people to consistently land airplanes without crashing. In air travel, 99.9% of those people are weeded out of pilot programs.
I take it you've never tried. It's actually more like...if you can drive a car, you can learn to land a plane with about 10-20 hrs of training. I solo'ed with 11, and never saw anyone get "weeded out".
Maybe not luxury to you, but it is for the vast majority of the population. But luxury is a relative term, and purchasing a $40k+ vehicle IS a luxury for most.
You should sell that shit to Hollywood. Best fiction ever, though I think the odds against it occurring in our lifetimes is about the same as the sun going nova.
Well, now that simply depends on your view of economics. Mine is based mostly upon my own life experiences, having grown up with several family members who were small business owners. I know they're all anecdotal, but it becomes very real to you when you live it. All of them started with very little...
My grandfather started a small tool & die shop in Detroit near the end of WWII. Nothing big, but it was good enough to support a housewife and six kids.
My dad (not biological, but he raised me) started a specialty box company in the Detroit suburbs, making them for the auto industry. By the time he shut it down just a few years ago, he was living very comfortably...and passed from cancer just about a year ago.
Dad's lifelong friend from his days in the 82nd airborne, started a business and became a large distributor for Sharp down in FL.
My youngest uncle, a CPA by training, also ended up being a majority owner of a business that got bought up, making him rather wealthy.
And finally, there's myself. Coming out of the Air Force (we didn't have enough money for college) in the middle of one of the worst recorded recessions in '81, and about $1k to my name. I've done pretty well for a kid from the inner city.
So, go ahead and tell me about the poor and their lack of opportunities. I understand them, and can sympathize with a few who have it really hard, but most...not so much. I understand that we need safety nets...I have to help my own mother (she got nothing when dad passed...they weren't married, he left now will (his biological kids got everything), and MI has no common law marriage) and mother-in-law, both of whom live on their SS checks of about $1k/month. I've argued with others who would call it poor planning on their part, maybe so, but I understand that their chances to make it have passed...both are in their late 70s now. I understand that regulation is necessary for society to protect workers. I also understand a bit about over regulation, and that's where I agree with Rand.
Yeah, unfortunately she'd be living out of range for us to help her around the house. It's a trade off.
Your evaluation of her lack of planning is baseless. Her husband was the primary partner in an architecture firm here. He's living nicely in retirement now...we still see him occasionally. She got screwed in the divorce process...rules vary wildly from state to state...I've been through it too (single dad after buying out my ex). He helped develop this "swanky area" back in the 70s and 80s. It wasn't so swanky back then when the divorce occurred. I think it's a bit much to ask for a working single woman to move away from an area where her two children live, and quit her job, only to hope to start fresh in a new area. One of the reasons I decided to move here in the early 80s was because I know that I'd make more income in a high cost area, and would retire into a low cost one....we've been planning that for a while. Oh, and trust me, we have given her money...my wife just wrote her a nice check last weekend because she's been putting off cataract surgery due to the cost. But all this aside, we can afford to help her, and yeah I'll retire later because of it, but there are plenty of people in much more dire circumstances, and without family to help them. Those are the ones who really need the safety net.
$1k in Fairfax County VA, where my mother-in-law is, won't get much at all, and she can't afford to move without help. My mom is in the Detroit suburbs, so somewhat better, but still needs help from me financially. If I didn't have to worry about them, I'd probably be able to retire right now.
I agree there's a fine line, and it should be based upon where you live, and what resources you have. As for them preparing, both are divorcees who got squat from former husbands. Mother-in-law worked into her 70s as a psychiatric nurse, but on her post divorce income couldn't really save anything. Nobody's hiring old nurses these days, though she's still able to do volunteer work, and gets some minor benefits from that. Mom, 75 and with a high school education, worked as a real estate agent, and still does occasionally, but the housing market in the Detroit area is crap, and most people don't want to deal with an old lady agent. Other work opportunities for her are next to nil.
Well, now you've changed who we're discussing from "Republicans" to "Republicans core". I've got my own complaints about the way the party has been run for the last 15 or so years, but I still consider myself to be a fiscal conservative. I know plenty of Republicans who don't fit your statement, but then they wouldn't likely be part of the "core". I have a mother and mother-in-law living on their SS checks with no other sources of income (beside help from me). So, I completely understand that there needs to be a safety net for those in dire need. On the other hand, I see so much waste in government that it makes me want to puke, and yet they want more money???...F them. There are plenty of things to cut first. Put some money to work on infrastructure (one area i agree with Obama on), that will stimulate jobs and business. Obviously, more defense cuts need to occur, and I say that as a defense contractor. And, Congress needs to stop funding shit that the military doesn't want...Global Hawk for example. We could go on and on, but I think we're mostly in agreement, no?
The cost of living adjustments are flexible and political, to say the least. In reality, they are updated to higher and higher standards of living over time, which simply could get stopped.
Not sure what you mean, as they haven't kept up with inflation, and thus put people into lower standards of living. My mother and mother-in-law are living on payments of about $1k/month...both divorcees with no additional income. Now, I'd be okay with lowering the amounts for people with other income sources (savings, pensions, etc.) like myself, but I do believe we need a safety net for those who really can't fend for themselves.
Okay, it looks like you're only referring to gold now, where in your earlier post you were speaking about the dollar being required to be accepted as legal tender. My previous response was to point out that the dollar is not required to be accepted.
You make it sound as if LM is involved in creating the requirements changes. Have you ever seen a Statement of Work from a federal agency? I've dealt with many, and they suck. And, unless you're on a sole source contract, you don't get to drive the direction of requirements.
It's funny that the area hasn't voted blue since the 40s. I've worked in the industry for 37 years, and never once heard of such a thing as any contractor being "forced by politicians to create a bill as high as possible". That's the kind of thing that you can't simply hide under the rug...there are too many audits, and too many potential whistle blowers. So, until someone shows some evidence, this is nothing but tin-foil hat conspiracy theory.
no matter if it were a republican (low tax, low spend)
Ha, you're funny. As this article demonstrates, Republicans can spend (and/or waste) just as much, if not more than, Democrats. They just don't want to spend any of it on poor people or minorities.
Yeah, you were correct, right there until the last sentence, and then you had to go all MSNBC on it. It's funny to see people stereotype while pointing the finger at others.
Just a note on your comment regarding legal tender. Consider this, from Wikipedia...
There is, however, no federal statute that a private business, a person, or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise. For example, a bus line may prohibit payment of fares in cents or dollar bills. In addition, movie theaters, convenience stores and gas stations may refuse to accept large denomination currency (usually notes above $20) as a matter of policy.[26]
The idea that if you had 2% wage growth along with 2% inflation everywhere else things would remain even ignores the fact that peoples savings are devalued.
This depends upon what you do with your savings. If it's under your mattress, or in a savings account, you're probably correct. If you're not afraid of some volatility, then an index fund (S&P for example), would have kept you ahead of it.
A quadrupling of price is not a 400% increase. It's the original price, plus 300%. Also, it would take much less than 40 years. "Simple math" doesn't include compounding. Someone please correct this if I'm wrong, but I believe the actual answer would be a bit over 14 years via the Rule of 72.
Agreeing with parent on this. I keep two credit cards (different types since not all merchants take certain ones), and pay them off every month. I charge pretty much everything, getting points on one, and cash back on the other. Getting money back from paying my kids $120k education was a bonus.
Slashdot Mirror
Just like its impossible for most people to consistently land airplanes without crashing. In air travel, 99.9% of those people are weeded out of pilot programs.
I take it you've never tried. It's actually more like...if you can drive a car, you can learn to land a plane with about 10-20 hrs of training. I solo'ed with 11, and never saw anyone get "weeded out".
Oh please yourself. Nevermind, you're obviously already a troll.
I take it you haven't heard the term "standoff". Welcome to the 70s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
Maybe not luxury to you, but it is for the vast majority of the population. But luxury is a relative term, and purchasing a $40k+ vehicle IS a luxury for most.
Got my private ticket training in 152 and 172s back in '87, at a total cost of around $3k. My how prices have climbed.
Ditto, right next to the PADI card I haven't used in 20+ years.
You should sell that shit to Hollywood. Best fiction ever, though I think the odds against it occurring in our lifetimes is about the same as the sun going nova.
Well, now that simply depends on your view of economics. Mine is based mostly upon my own life experiences, having grown up with several family members who were small business owners. I know they're all anecdotal, but it becomes very real to you when you live it. All of them started with very little...
My grandfather started a small tool & die shop in Detroit near the end of WWII. Nothing big, but it was good enough to support a housewife and six kids.
My dad (not biological, but he raised me) started a specialty box company in the Detroit suburbs, making them for the auto industry. By the time he shut it down just a few years ago, he was living very comfortably...and passed from cancer just about a year ago.
Dad's lifelong friend from his days in the 82nd airborne, started a business and became a large distributor for Sharp down in FL.
My youngest uncle, a CPA by training, also ended up being a majority owner of a business that got bought up, making him rather wealthy.
And finally, there's myself. Coming out of the Air Force (we didn't have enough money for college) in the middle of one of the worst recorded recessions in '81, and about $1k to my name. I've done pretty well for a kid from the inner city.
So, go ahead and tell me about the poor and their lack of opportunities. I understand them, and can sympathize with a few who have it really hard, but most...not so much. I understand that we need safety nets...I have to help my own mother (she got nothing when dad passed...they weren't married, he left now will (his biological kids got everything), and MI has no common law marriage) and mother-in-law, both of whom live on their SS checks of about $1k/month. I've argued with others who would call it poor planning on their part, maybe so, but I understand that their chances to make it have passed...both are in their late 70s now. I understand that regulation is necessary for society to protect workers. I also understand a bit about over regulation, and that's where I agree with Rand.
Yeah, unfortunately she'd be living out of range for us to help her around the house. It's a trade off.
Your evaluation of her lack of planning is baseless. Her husband was the primary partner in an architecture firm here. He's living nicely in retirement now...we still see him occasionally. She got screwed in the divorce process...rules vary wildly from state to state...I've been through it too (single dad after buying out my ex). He helped develop this "swanky area" back in the 70s and 80s. It wasn't so swanky back then when the divorce occurred. I think it's a bit much to ask for a working single woman to move away from an area where her two children live, and quit her job, only to hope to start fresh in a new area. One of the reasons I decided to move here in the early 80s was because I know that I'd make more income in a high cost area, and would retire into a low cost one....we've been planning that for a while. Oh, and trust me, we have given her money...my wife just wrote her a nice check last weekend because she's been putting off cataract surgery due to the cost. But all this aside, we can afford to help her, and yeah I'll retire later because of it, but there are plenty of people in much more dire circumstances, and without family to help them. Those are the ones who really need the safety net.
$1k in Fairfax County VA, where my mother-in-law is, won't get much at all, and she can't afford to move without help. My mom is in the Detroit suburbs, so somewhat better, but still needs help from me financially. If I didn't have to worry about them, I'd probably be able to retire right now.
I agree there's a fine line, and it should be based upon where you live, and what resources you have. As for them preparing, both are divorcees who got squat from former husbands. Mother-in-law worked into her 70s as a psychiatric nurse, but on her post divorce income couldn't really save anything. Nobody's hiring old nurses these days, though she's still able to do volunteer work, and gets some minor benefits from that. Mom, 75 and with a high school education, worked as a real estate agent, and still does occasionally, but the housing market in the Detroit area is crap, and most people don't want to deal with an old lady agent. Other work opportunities for her are next to nil.
Well, now you've changed who we're discussing from "Republicans" to "Republicans core". I've got my own complaints about the way the party has been run for the last 15 or so years, but I still consider myself to be a fiscal conservative. I know plenty of Republicans who don't fit your statement, but then they wouldn't likely be part of the "core". I have a mother and mother-in-law living on their SS checks with no other sources of income (beside help from me). So, I completely understand that there needs to be a safety net for those in dire need. On the other hand, I see so much waste in government that it makes me want to puke, and yet they want more money???...F them. There are plenty of things to cut first. Put some money to work on infrastructure (one area i agree with Obama on), that will stimulate jobs and business. Obviously, more defense cuts need to occur, and I say that as a defense contractor. And, Congress needs to stop funding shit that the military doesn't want...Global Hawk for example. We could go on and on, but I think we're mostly in agreement, no?
The cost of living adjustments are flexible and political, to say the least. In reality, they are updated to higher and higher standards of living over time, which simply could get stopped.
Not sure what you mean, as they haven't kept up with inflation, and thus put people into lower standards of living. My mother and mother-in-law are living on payments of about $1k/month...both divorcees with no additional income. Now, I'd be okay with lowering the amounts for people with other income sources (savings, pensions, etc.) like myself, but I do believe we need a safety net for those who really can't fend for themselves.
Okay, it looks like you're only referring to gold now, where in your earlier post you were speaking about the dollar being required to be accepted as legal tender. My previous response was to point out that the dollar is not required to be accepted.
You make it sound as if LM is involved in creating the requirements changes. Have you ever seen a Statement of Work from a federal agency? I've dealt with many, and they suck. And, unless you're on a sole source contract, you don't get to drive the direction of requirements.
True, except for pivoting on her position. At first supporting, and then claiming she'd killed it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...
It's funny that the area hasn't voted blue since the 40s. I've worked in the industry for 37 years, and never once heard of such a thing as any contractor being "forced by politicians to create a bill as high as possible". That's the kind of thing that you can't simply hide under the rug...there are too many audits, and too many potential whistle blowers. So, until someone shows some evidence, this is nothing but tin-foil hat conspiracy theory.
http://www.americanthinker.com...
So, either the parent or this article are correct. I'd be interested in hearing arguments for or against it.
no matter if it were a republican (low tax, low spend)
Ha, you're funny. As this article demonstrates, Republicans can spend (and/or waste) just as much, if not more than, Democrats. They just don't want to spend any of it on poor people or minorities.
Yeah, you were correct, right there until the last sentence, and then you had to go all MSNBC on it. It's funny to see people stereotype while pointing the finger at others.
Except that you'd have to do away with the adjustments, and that's not likely to happen.
http://www.ssa.gov/cola/automa...
Just a note on your comment regarding legal tender. Consider this, from Wikipedia...
There is, however, no federal statute that a private business, a person, or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise. For example, a bus line may prohibit payment of fares in cents or dollar bills. In addition, movie theaters, convenience stores and gas stations may refuse to accept large denomination currency (usually notes above $20) as a matter of policy.[26]
The idea that if you had 2% wage growth along with 2% inflation everywhere else things would remain even ignores the fact that peoples savings are devalued.
This depends upon what you do with your savings. If it's under your mattress, or in a savings account, you're probably correct. If you're not afraid of some volatility, then an index fund (S&P for example), would have kept you ahead of it.
A quadrupling of price is not a 400% increase. It's the original price, plus 300%. Also, it would take much less than 40 years. "Simple math" doesn't include compounding. Someone please correct this if I'm wrong, but I believe the actual answer would be a bit over 14 years via the Rule of 72.
Agreeing with parent on this. I keep two credit cards (different types since not all merchants take certain ones), and pay them off every month. I charge pretty much everything, getting points on one, and cash back on the other. Getting money back from paying my kids $120k education was a bonus.
Secret != illegal
Not that I'm agreeing with what their doing, but I do believe there need to be secrets.l
So, will the newly printed version remove existing STDs?