Rednecks don't need religion to hate gays. The only reason the outrage was "sudden" was because somebody tried to get laws changed.
Lots of secular people care a great deal about homosexuality when we're talking about creating another group of Americans with differing sets of rights/penalties/privledges.
I think you are hearing what you want to hear when you claim that Bush invokes the Lord's name shamelessly in his speeches.
I just looked at his speech in January. I can only find three occurances of the word "GOD". The first is actually part of a quote from Abraham Lincoln. The second was in a line explaining that the path of freedom lies with the deeds of man. It specifically denies that the actions in Iraq were as a result of some devine directive. And the third reference was in a standard speech closing, "May God bless you and watch over America."
Of course GWB is pushing for "Tort Reform" to eliminate class action lawsuits in the United States.
It doesn't require a tin foil hat to see why this is such a priority for him when a major ally to his campaign is clearly in the sites for such a lawsuit.
Bullshit. We've been hearing about tort reform being a major platform issue since the mid eighties. But, since the congress is perenially made up of ex trial lawyers, nothing ever gets done. Maybe this president has enough clout/influence with the Republican congress, that something might actually get done.
In my experience, this is so wrong. Most of the people I know are Republican. I can't think of more than one that goes to church (any church) more than three times a year.
That seems backwards. During the boom, people were lured to IT because of the money/perks. Now that the money and perks are not what they used to be, I would guess that only the people that really liked it bothered to hang on.
Almost all the security solutions that I have seen that involve a biometric have been multi factor systems. For example, a smart card would have a security token on it that is submitted when the card is inserted into a reader. You then would have to type in or submit some validating data, like a pin number.
Verisign has an interesting product that looks like it might hold some promise. I'm sure there are others out there that do similar things. The real trick would be to find a multi-factor system that is ubiquitous so it can be used in multiple systems without those systems needing to know anything about each other.
Wasn't that what the Liberty Alliance was supposed to be working on?
I find that Evil Empire III works better for my organization. The Ewoks wrote tighter code before they were purchased. Of course there is no GUI, but at least it wasn't integrated into the operating system.
Of course, I've seen quite a few OTS accounting implementations go down the tubes, too. How many times have we read about some 2 year SAP implementation that had to be scrapped because the organization couldn't change it's culture enough to work with the program?
I can't see how applications like SAP, Seibel, et.al. can be considered COTS software. To me, Commercial Off The Shelf implies that the product is used by most customers without modification.
I seem to remember hearing Larry Ellison claiming that Oracle Financials was going to move in that direction. He was trying to sell the idea that businesses should change the way they operate to match the software's processes. I guess he didn't like the idea of all that consulting money getting made without getting a cut. We all laughed.
Besides, if Ford would just switch to Quickbooks, all their software problems would go away. They'd also save a ton on salaries. Quickbooks even says on the box "no account knowledge necessary". Think of all the accountants they could downsize.
I think you and I probably agree on more things than are apparent in our discussion. I'm sure we both have the best interest of Americans at heart. I would like to see a system that is both fair and effective.
With that in mind, could you clarify a few items for me in your previous post?
The real motivation behind privatization, though, is a desire to weaken the program in preparation for eliminating it. Their problem is that the program is popular, effective, and cost-efficient, so they cannot overtly advocate its demise. It must be done gradually and privatization is the first step.
I'd really like to know what made you arrive at this conclustion about privatization. Why would the republicans even bother to mention the issue? What motivation could they have that would make them want to eliminate sucha successful program. They are risking alienating one of the largest and most politically active demographic groups in the country.
When you use the term privatization, does that mean personalized accounts of some sort that are managed by non-government entities? Or would you include the possibility of governmentally maintained personal accounts where the funds are invested in non-government debt and securities?
They say that it is only a collection of "worthless IOU's", ignoring the fact that ALL bonds are IOU's. And as I said before, Treasury bonds are the least risky bonds that exist.
The problem as I see it isn't that the borrowing of the Social Security surplus is recorded with treasury bills, it's that the government is borrowing from itself. (And paying interest to itself is just rediculous)
Each election, my state floats about 5 or 6 bond issues targeted to fund some capital project like school construction or bridge repair. If they are approved, they get dumped into the market and the proceeds finance the project. Imagine if the government could make the state department of educatino buy the bonds. All it does is reallocate funds between agencies. It doesn't raise any capital and the interest is a wash.
Transition costs will be massive, at a time when the deficit and public debt are at record levels. 1-2 trillion dollars is going to have to be borrowed over the next 10 years alone.
Wouldn't the bulk of this new debt be used to pay off old debt? It is essentially calling in the old loans and allowing the government to issue new debt to cover it. It's like getting a loan to pay your baloon payment.
There is nothing that says the transition to a new system has to happen all at once. Many projections regarding SS go out as much as 50 years. If a new system were phased in over a sufficiently long period, I think the transition costs would be relatively easily absorbed. You'd also have the program migrated in less than a generation. Some sort of sliding participation system could make the transition work.
Personally, I haven't seen an actual plan for the new program(s) being discussed or considered. I'd be grateful if you could point me to one of the programs you looked at while you were doing your research. If some sort of radical, self serving program is being contemplated, I'll certainly be against it.
For being only 2 classes away from a degree in accounting, it's hard to believe that you don't know the FASB is not a government agency and it has almost no impact on taxes for most industries.
The trust fund is not real. It is an accounting gimmick used by the federal government to mislead the general public. At one point it was even referred to as a "lock box". Rediculous. The fact that the balance of funds used in the general budget each year is tracked by setting aside treasury bonds just complicates the accounting to the point where very few people can follow it. If the federal government is responsible for paying both principal and interest on its bonds, how can interest be earned in the trust fund?
The government would recognize and interest revenue in the trust fund and a corresponding interest expense in the general fund. It's a wash. The trust fund dosen't earn anything, it's just a method the government uses to make it sound like it's being responsible.
Let me make this point clear: I never meant to imply that the US government would deliberately plan to default on it's debt. Neither would they allow a default due to any type of negligence.
I find it interesting that you state that "Only the US and UK have never defaulted on a debt payment." I'm not sure if that's true, but I'll take your word for it. That being said, how can you then go on to talk about risk free rates of return when every country on the planet except two have defaulted on some government obligation? Doesn't sound very risk free to me.
There really is no such thing as a risk free rate of return. While US treasury bonds are extremely low risk, there is still a small element of risk involved. If there were no risk, there wouldn't be any interest paid on them.
If the government felt it needed to default on some of it's debt, it certainly would shake things up. China would get hammered since they own a huge portion of the US debt. The rest of the world would probably move very quickly to the yen, euro and gbp. You would definitely see some winners and losers in a US debt default situation, but I doubt you would see a worldwide economic collapse.
As far as being deliberately misleading, I don't think that's a fair statement. I'm just trying to follow the money. I have no direct ties to either political party, the social security administration or any other branch of the federal or any state governments. What possible motive would I have for deliberately misleading slashdot readers? You might want to check your tinfoil hat for small punctures.
As far as being misinformed, that's certainly possible. That's one of the reasons I welcome the debate on the subject as long as it's a serious discussion that stays on topic. The left wing whacos and the right wing zealots can both stay out of it if you ask me. Unforturnately that knocks out about 80% of the slashdot community:)
I don't want to wait until there is a crisis before anything is done. Imagine if there hadn't been an enormous mobilization of talent for the y2k bug. I count that one as a crisis averted. It would be great if the same could be done for Social Security.
It's my opinion that the current program is doomed because of it's basic structure. We should be pointing the finger at our grandparents and crying foul for allowing such a system to be created in the first place.
How could they have been so short-sighted as to think that our country, finite in size and resources as it is, could run a system that requires a constantly increasing population?
It is feasible that we could wind up with a situation where only one or fewer workers exist for every retiree. The social security system did not take into account changes in longevity or economics.
Can the current system be converted entirely to a pay your own way system? No. There would still have to be a provision to help those people on Social Security that are never able to pay into the system. Also, an individualized system could still be overwhelmed by a quantum leap in longevity.
The idea of being able to earn a return on the money I pay into the system and being able to leave it to my family if I die early I find very attractive. Even if the government has to take a portion of that money to help people that haven't been able to pay into the system.
Lets get something straight. There is no "trust fund" for social security. It's a marketing gimmick to make people feel like the program is safe. The social security tax revenues go into the general fund. As long as their is a federal debt, their is no money sitting in an account somewhere waiting to be spent on social security entitlements. Currently, social security revenues less social security payments are a net plus on the federal revenue stream.
The trust fund reminds me of the briefcase full of money in the movie Dumb and Dumber. If you open it up (even today) all you're going to find are a bunch of IOUs. "This one is for the war on terror. I'd hang on to that one."
I think the real debate about SS should be more focused on wether we have the right system for the type of country we have now and into the future.
Should we have a pay as you go system (like we have now) or should we have a some sort of savings and investment system.
Personally, I think the pay as you go system is a flawed design. It was an easy political sell when they system was created since retirees could immediately draw on the full promised benefits of the system. It it was sold as an investment system, look how hard it would have been to convince people that it was worth doing. Retirees would receive next to nothing out of the program when it was launched and it would have felt like a massive tax increase on the workers at that time.
Basically, the politicians of that time took the political high road of providing for the elderly, but punted on the problem of requiring a constantly increasing workforce to the future.
Moving the system to a personlized system (notice I didn't say privatized, they're not the same thing) will be painful for lots of people. I think that it fits our society better, though. You pay for your own retirement benefit over the course of your working years. As long as the transition is started soon and spread out over many years, it may not be that bad. It would eventually get the social security monkey off the government's back and let it concentrate on it's many other functions.
There are many positive aspects of moving toward zero population growth for our country. Consumption of natural resources, environmental issues, employment opportunites, etc. are all helped by lowering the growth of our population. Social Security currently isn't one of them.
No matter how you feel about Bush, at least he is opening up the discussion.
Slashdot Mirror
Rednecks don't need religion to hate gays. The only reason the outrage was "sudden" was because somebody tried to get laws changed.
Lots of secular people care a great deal about homosexuality when we're talking about creating another group of Americans with differing sets of rights/penalties/privledges.
I think you are hearing what you want to hear when you claim that Bush invokes the Lord's name shamelessly in his speeches.
I just looked at his speech in January. I can only find three occurances of the word "GOD". The first is actually part of a quote from Abraham Lincoln. The second was in a line explaining that the path of freedom lies with the deeds of man. It specifically denies that the actions in Iraq were as a result of some devine directive. And the third reference was in a standard speech closing, "May God bless you and watch over America."
Of course GWB is pushing for "Tort Reform" to eliminate class action lawsuits in the United States.
It doesn't require a tin foil hat to see why this is such a priority for him when a major ally to his campaign is clearly in the sites for such a lawsuit.
Bullshit. We've been hearing about tort reform being a major platform issue since the mid eighties. But, since the congress is perenially made up of ex trial lawyers, nothing ever gets done. Maybe this president has enough clout/influence with the Republican congress, that something might actually get done.
It sure would have helped if they knew the information for the 45,000 people had been encrypted.
I already refuse to buy music because of drm. I just listen to CSPAN now.
Don't blame me, I voted for KODOS.
By planning ahead, does that make this a preemptive troll post?
In my experience, this is so wrong. Most of the people I know are Republican. I can't think of more than one that goes to church (any church) more than three times a year.
... I don't know why. Greed probably.
Wow, a typo. Could some troll please correct my grammer?
we should probably just mod the original artical off-topic.
That seems backwards. During the boom, people were lured to IT because of the money/perks. Now that the money and perks are not what they used to be, I would guess that only the people that really liked it bothered to hang on.
Developers should switch to FlashPaper.
Almost all the security solutions that I have seen that involve a biometric have been multi factor systems. For example, a smart card would have a security token on it that is submitted when the card is inserted into a reader. You then would have to type in or submit some validating data, like a pin number.
Verisign has an interesting product that looks like it might hold some promise. I'm sure there are others out there that do similar things. The real trick would be to find a multi-factor system that is ubiquitous so it can be used in multiple systems without those systems needing to know anything about each other.
Wasn't that what the Liberty Alliance was supposed to be working on?
You can prove anything with made up statistics. 87% of the people know that.
Yeah! I'm in the US and we've been privledged to see Aussie rules football this past year on some public broadcasting stations.
Aussie rules rocks. Incredible athletes, non-stop action and no time for stupid soft drink and automobile commercials.
Except China pegs the value of their currency to the US dollar when it should be inflating like crazy.
I find that Evil Empire III works better for my organization. The Ewoks wrote tighter code before they were purchased. Of course there is no GUI, but at least it wasn't integrated into the operating system.
Wow, Peachtree and MAS90 must be owned by the same company. They have the same product design philosophy.
Of course, I've seen quite a few OTS accounting implementations go down the tubes, too. How many times have we read about some 2 year SAP implementation that had to be scrapped because the organization couldn't change it's culture enough to work with the program?
I can't see how applications like SAP, Seibel, et.al. can be considered COTS software. To me, Commercial Off The Shelf implies that the product is used by most customers without modification.
I seem to remember hearing Larry Ellison claiming that Oracle Financials was going to move in that direction. He was trying to sell the idea that businesses should change the way they operate to match the software's processes. I guess he didn't like the idea of all that consulting money getting made without getting a cut. We all laughed.
Besides, if Ford would just switch to Quickbooks, all their software problems would go away. They'd also save a ton on salaries. Quickbooks even says on the box "no account knowledge necessary". Think of all the accountants they could downsize.
I think you and I probably agree on more things than are apparent in our discussion. I'm sure we both have the best interest of Americans at heart. I would like to see a system that is both fair and effective.
With that in mind, could you clarify a few items for me in your previous post?
The real motivation behind privatization, though, is a desire to weaken the program in preparation for eliminating it. Their problem is that the program is popular, effective, and cost-efficient, so they cannot overtly advocate its demise. It must be done gradually and privatization is the first step.
I'd really like to know what made you arrive at this conclustion about privatization. Why would the republicans even bother to mention the issue? What motivation could they have that would make them want to eliminate sucha successful program. They are risking alienating one of the largest and most politically active demographic groups in the country.
When you use the term privatization, does that mean personalized accounts of some sort that are managed by non-government entities? Or would you include the possibility of governmentally maintained personal accounts where the funds are invested in non-government debt and securities?
They say that it is only a collection of "worthless IOU's", ignoring the fact that ALL bonds are IOU's. And as I said before, Treasury bonds are the least risky bonds that exist.
The problem as I see it isn't that the borrowing of the Social Security surplus is recorded with treasury bills, it's that the government is borrowing from itself. (And paying interest to itself is just rediculous)
Each election, my state floats about 5 or 6 bond issues targeted to fund some capital project like school construction or bridge repair. If they are approved, they get dumped into the market and the proceeds finance the project. Imagine if the government could make the state department of educatino buy the bonds. All it does is reallocate funds between agencies. It doesn't raise any capital and the interest is a wash.
Transition costs will be massive, at a time when the deficit and public debt are at record levels. 1-2 trillion dollars is going to have to be borrowed over the next 10 years alone.
Wouldn't the bulk of this new debt be used to pay off old debt? It is essentially calling in the old loans and allowing the government to issue new debt to cover it. It's like getting a loan to pay your baloon payment.
There is nothing that says the transition to a new system has to happen all at once. Many projections regarding SS go out as much as 50 years. If a new system were phased in over a sufficiently long period, I think the transition costs would be relatively easily absorbed. You'd also have the program migrated in less than a generation. Some sort of sliding participation system could make the transition work.
Personally, I haven't seen an actual plan for the new program(s) being discussed or considered. I'd be grateful if you could point me to one of the programs you looked at while you were doing your research. If some sort of radical, self serving program is being contemplated, I'll certainly be against it.
For being only 2 classes away from a degree in accounting, it's hard to believe that you don't know the FASB is not a government agency and it has almost no impact on taxes for most industries.
The trust fund is not real. It is an accounting gimmick used by the federal government to mislead the general public. At one point it was even referred to as a "lock box". Rediculous. The fact that the balance of funds used in the general budget each year is tracked by setting aside treasury bonds just complicates the accounting to the point where very few people can follow it. If the federal government is responsible for paying both principal and interest on its bonds, how can interest be earned in the trust fund?
:)
The government would recognize and interest revenue in the trust fund and a corresponding interest expense in the general fund. It's a wash. The trust fund dosen't earn anything, it's just a method the government uses to make it sound like it's being responsible.
Let me make this point clear: I never meant to imply that the US government would deliberately plan to default on it's debt. Neither would they allow a default due to any type of negligence.
I find it interesting that you state that "Only the US and UK have never defaulted on a debt payment." I'm not sure if that's true, but I'll take your word for it. That being said, how can you then go on to talk about risk free rates of return when every country on the planet except two have defaulted on some government obligation? Doesn't sound very risk free to me.
There really is no such thing as a risk free rate of return. While US treasury bonds are extremely low risk, there is still a small element of risk involved. If there were no risk, there wouldn't be any interest paid on them.
If the government felt it needed to default on some of it's debt, it certainly would shake things up. China would get hammered since they own a huge portion of the US debt. The rest of the world would probably move very quickly to the yen, euro and gbp. You would definitely see some winners and losers in a US debt default situation, but I doubt you would see a worldwide economic collapse.
As far as being deliberately misleading, I don't think that's a fair statement. I'm just trying to follow the money. I have no direct ties to either political party, the social security administration or any other branch of the federal or any state governments. What possible motive would I have for deliberately misleading slashdot readers? You might want to check your tinfoil hat for small punctures.
As far as being misinformed, that's certainly possible. That's one of the reasons I welcome the debate on the subject as long as it's a serious discussion that stays on topic. The left wing whacos and the right wing zealots can both stay out of it if you ask me. Unforturnately that knocks out about 80% of the slashdot community
I don't want to wait until there is a crisis before anything is done. Imagine if there hadn't been an enormous mobilization of talent for the y2k bug. I count that one as a crisis averted. It would be great if the same could be done for Social Security.
It's my opinion that the current program is doomed because of it's basic structure. We should be pointing the finger at our grandparents and crying foul for allowing such a system to be created in the first place.
How could they have been so short-sighted as to think that our country, finite in size and resources as it is, could run a system that requires a constantly increasing population?
It is feasible that we could wind up with a situation where only one or fewer workers exist for every retiree. The social security system did not take into account changes in longevity or economics.
Can the current system be converted entirely to a pay your own way system? No. There would still have to be a provision to help those people on Social Security that are never able to pay into the system. Also, an individualized system could still be overwhelmed by a quantum leap in longevity.
The idea of being able to earn a return on the money I pay into the system and being able to leave it to my family if I die early I find very attractive. Even if the government has to take a portion of that money to help people that haven't been able to pay into the system.
Lets get something straight. There is no "trust fund" for social security. It's a marketing gimmick to make people feel like the program is safe. The social security tax revenues go into the general fund. As long as their is a federal debt, their is no money sitting in an account somewhere waiting to be spent on social security entitlements. Currently, social security revenues less social security payments are a net plus on the federal revenue stream. The trust fund reminds me of the briefcase full of money in the movie Dumb and Dumber. If you open it up (even today) all you're going to find are a bunch of IOUs. "This one is for the war on terror. I'd hang on to that one." I think the real debate about SS should be more focused on wether we have the right system for the type of country we have now and into the future. Should we have a pay as you go system (like we have now) or should we have a some sort of savings and investment system. Personally, I think the pay as you go system is a flawed design. It was an easy political sell when they system was created since retirees could immediately draw on the full promised benefits of the system. It it was sold as an investment system, look how hard it would have been to convince people that it was worth doing. Retirees would receive next to nothing out of the program when it was launched and it would have felt like a massive tax increase on the workers at that time. Basically, the politicians of that time took the political high road of providing for the elderly, but punted on the problem of requiring a constantly increasing workforce to the future. Moving the system to a personlized system (notice I didn't say privatized, they're not the same thing) will be painful for lots of people. I think that it fits our society better, though. You pay for your own retirement benefit over the course of your working years. As long as the transition is started soon and spread out over many years, it may not be that bad. It would eventually get the social security monkey off the government's back and let it concentrate on it's many other functions. There are many positive aspects of moving toward zero population growth for our country. Consumption of natural resources, environmental issues, employment opportunites, etc. are all helped by lowering the growth of our population. Social Security currently isn't one of them. No matter how you feel about Bush, at least he is opening up the discussion.