ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part 4
Compound interest? Does that concept even apply anymore to today's financials?
Compound interest? Does that concept even apply anymore to today's financials?
USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
2012 Presidential Election Part 4
- Thread starter ericredaxe
- Start date
- Status
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part 4
You and Bob and Scooby need to sit down together and hash this out (PS I agree with you): how can the latter two be claiming that the beneficiaries take out "a lot more" than they put in while you (citing data I've seen elsewhere) be saying that the beneficiaries are getting a 2% return? Both can't be right!
From my own perspective, the biggest problems are (a) a program that was supposed to be a safety net for those with nothing else somehow became open to everyone, and (b) it was not indexed to retiree life expectancy. The retirement age should be around 72 today not 65 (I'm using representative numbers here because I don't want to dig through my archives, though I did look it up a few years ago for an article I wrote). In 1936 the life expectancy of a 65 year old was about 14 years, say, while today the life expectancy of a 65 year old is about 21 years, say. So the Social Security retirement age should be around age 71.3, something like that. *
and finally (c) the money paid in was supposed to be set aside exclusively for future use of participants, like a giant group annuity contract (the same kind of vehicle that funds private-sector defined benefit plans). Instead, the money has all been spent already, there are useless IOUs in its place. Had anyone in the private sector done the same thing, they'd be in jail. Instead they retire with fat government pensions. The illegitimate children of illegitimate parents!
* stop the "corrections" before they start: the most commonly-cited life expectancy statistic is for a newborn. as each cohort gets older, some people have already died along the way, so the life expectancy for the survivors gets longer and longer. The life expectancy for a 90 year old is something like 3.8 years. The old actuarial tables (1936, 1954, 1980) assumed that everyone died by age 100, the newest actuarial tables (2000) assume that everyone dies by age 120.
for a 65-year old in good health, there's about a 10% chance s/he'll live past age 100. that was unimaginable in 1936.
You and Bob and Scooby need to sit down together and hash this out (PS I agree with you): how can the latter two be claiming that the beneficiaries take out "a lot more" than they put in while you (citing data I've seen elsewhere) be saying that the beneficiaries are getting a 2% return? Both can't be right!
From my own perspective, the biggest problems are (a) a program that was supposed to be a safety net for those with nothing else somehow became open to everyone, and (b) it was not indexed to retiree life expectancy. The retirement age should be around 72 today not 65 (I'm using representative numbers here because I don't want to dig through my archives, though I did look it up a few years ago for an article I wrote). In 1936 the life expectancy of a 65 year old was about 14 years, say, while today the life expectancy of a 65 year old is about 21 years, say. So the Social Security retirement age should be around age 71.3, something like that. *
and finally (c) the money paid in was supposed to be set aside exclusively for future use of participants, like a giant group annuity contract (the same kind of vehicle that funds private-sector defined benefit plans). Instead, the money has all been spent already, there are useless IOUs in its place. Had anyone in the private sector done the same thing, they'd be in jail. Instead they retire with fat government pensions. The illegitimate children of illegitimate parents!
* stop the "corrections" before they start: the most commonly-cited life expectancy statistic is for a newborn. as each cohort gets older, some people have already died along the way, so the life expectancy for the survivors gets longer and longer. The life expectancy for a 90 year old is something like 3.8 years. The old actuarial tables (1936, 1954, 1980) assumed that everyone died by age 100, the newest actuarial tables (2000) assume that everyone dies by age 120.
for a 65-year old in good health, there's about a 10% chance s/he'll live past age 100. that was unimaginable in 1936.
Last edited:
St. Clown
Ideas Posted are Likely Not My Own
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part 4
The 2% figure is based upon the equivalent of an annualized interest your tax money would otherwise earn in the markets to get the same net benefit for your retirement. So, yes, retirees are getting out more than they put in to the 2% figure. The other people drawing SSI and minor children now receiving their parents' benefits when it was not originally designed that way are creating a much larger outflow of cash than was ever intended by FDR. In fact, if you look at the way FDR sold SSA, you wouldn't recognize it as the agency that exists today.
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part 4
Every time I see that phrase I'm reminded of the first episode of NYPD Blue, where Andy Sipowitz (still drinking and out of control) tells the ADA who would eventually become is wife: "Ipsa this, you prissy b*tch." I was hooked.
Every time I see that phrase I'm reminded of the first episode of NYPD Blue, where Andy Sipowitz (still drinking and out of control) tells the ADA who would eventually become is wife: "Ipsa this, you prissy b*tch." I was hooked.
Fighting Sioux 23
New member
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part 4
You're not taking into consideration Romney's secret weapon...
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/10/man-gets-romney-r-tattooed-on-his-face-for-15000/
Politics are funny stuff
You're not taking into consideration Romney's secret weapon...
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/10/man-gets-romney-r-tattooed-on-his-face-for-15000/
Politics are funny stuff
FlagDUDE08
Banned
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part 4
I didn't see the commercial, only heard a clip Jason Lewis played. Having seen this parody, it's funny as hell.
I didn't see the commercial, only heard a clip Jason Lewis played. Having seen this parody, it's funny as hell.
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part 4
All of this election stuff has just been going on so long that I am reminded of the movie line-James Garner (in Support Your Local Sheriff) speaking to Bruce Dern (Joe Danby)-"Joe, you just make me feel tired all over when you talk like that."
All of this election stuff has just been going on so long that I am reminded of the movie line-James Garner (in Support Your Local Sheriff) speaking to Bruce Dern (Joe Danby)-"Joe, you just make me feel tired all over when you talk like that."
Rimbaud
New member
G
Gurtholfin
Guest
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part 4
No, it's not.
As always, the left does a better job of parodying itself than the right ever does.
It wasn't funny, it was all tired cliche.
Go back and watch how SNL used to make fun of Slick Willy. THAT was funny.
This was tired.
No, it's not.
As always, the left does a better job of parodying itself than the right ever does.
It wasn't funny, it was all tired cliche.
Go back and watch how SNL used to make fun of Slick Willy. THAT was funny.
This was tired.
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part 4
Romney's charge to the center from the GOP primaries is turning out to be legendary. In the 90s, his positions were left of today's 'socialists' on this board. He was right of Rush during the GOP primaries, and now he's morphed into the identical twin of Obama.
In the end, I have no doubt he'd spend no less than Dems, subsidise his business interests...and push the GOP's primary plank - its social conservative views - which haven't been discussed in months, and if he mentioned it now, would torpedo any chance he'd have of getting elected.
Romney's charge to the center from the GOP primaries is turning out to be legendary. In the 90s, his positions were left of today's 'socialists' on this board. He was right of Rush during the GOP primaries, and now he's morphed into the identical twin of Obama.
In the end, I have no doubt he'd spend no less than Dems, subsidise his business interests...and push the GOP's primary plank - its social conservative views - which haven't been discussed in months, and if he mentioned it now, would torpedo any chance he'd have of getting elected.
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part 4
Serious question, totally apolitical....
Suppose this much-hyped Hurricane Sandy were to make landfall in the Northeast, not early this coming week, but the week after, on Election Day. Power is out, roads are impassible. Hardly anyone can get to the polls, and when they do, if the polls rely on electricity, the voting machines don't work (fwiw, our ballots are like the SAT where you fill in circles with a # 2 pencil, to get them counted in a timely way they are scanned, not counted manually; so we could in theory still vote but not report the vote totals right away).
Does state law govern what happens in each state? Do governors have a say at least indirectly, as to whether state law requires the governor to declare a state of emergency? or does federal law override?
I can just see the potential shock headlines in certain circumstances: "Romney scores surprise upset win in CT: urban voters deterred by snow and uncleared streets while determined suburban / rural voters with 4-wheel drive provide heavy turnout." Now, you can be sure the heavily Democrat mayors in the cities where all the <strike>voter fraud</strike> heavy D voting occurs would do whatever they could to clear the streets, etc., it is merely because said mayors are relatively incompetent at actually running the cities that such a scenario might occur.
Unless the responses are as woefully inadequate as last year, this won't occur. Nevertheless, it does make one curious.
Serious question, totally apolitical....
Suppose this much-hyped Hurricane Sandy were to make landfall in the Northeast, not early this coming week, but the week after, on Election Day. Power is out, roads are impassible. Hardly anyone can get to the polls, and when they do, if the polls rely on electricity, the voting machines don't work (fwiw, our ballots are like the SAT where you fill in circles with a # 2 pencil, to get them counted in a timely way they are scanned, not counted manually; so we could in theory still vote but not report the vote totals right away).
Does state law govern what happens in each state? Do governors have a say at least indirectly, as to whether state law requires the governor to declare a state of emergency? or does federal law override?
I can just see the potential shock headlines in certain circumstances: "Romney scores surprise upset win in CT: urban voters deterred by snow and uncleared streets while determined suburban / rural voters with 4-wheel drive provide heavy turnout." Now, you can be sure the heavily Democrat mayors in the cities where all the <strike>voter fraud</strike> heavy D voting occurs would do whatever they could to clear the streets, etc., it is merely because said mayors are relatively incompetent at actually running the cities that such a scenario might occur.
Unless the responses are as woefully inadequate as last year, this won't occur. Nevertheless, it does make one curious.
Fighting Sioux 23
New member
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part 4
The President has the authority to declare a federal state of emergency. The state does not have to do anything.
That being said, I'm sure almost every city has plans in place to prevent this from happening (i.e. clearing major streets in the cities before say rural route 9). I would actually think that this scenario would hurt elderly and rural voting more so than Urban voting.
The President has the authority to declare a federal state of emergency. The state does not have to do anything.
That being said, I'm sure almost every city has plans in place to prevent this from happening (i.e. clearing major streets in the cities before say rural route 9). I would actually think that this scenario would hurt elderly and rural voting more so than Urban voting.
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part 4
Perhaps that depends upon how many OWS people you've actually talked to in real life? I remember the infamous "Valley Girl" stereotype from the late '70s. If you had never met a "valley girl" in real life, you'd say "that portrayal is ridiculous; no one can really be like that, can they?" until you meet one or two, and then grudgingly admit, "okay, maybe so," and then you meet several more, and you wind up saying "wow!" and then laugh.
What struck me was the guy clearly had to work for a living and how much he resented the life of luxury that the young woman simply took for granted without even realizing how privileged she was! that struck a chord with me, being from a blue-collar middle-class midwestern background attending an "elite" eastern college heavily populated with "legacy" offspring of the 0.1%.
I remember the way Dan Akroyd used to skewer Jimmy Carter even more vividly. * "Inflation is our friend. Pretty soon we'll all be millionaires. You've always wanted to own a $5,000 suit, haven't you? well pretty soon you'll be able to."
* ych, Jimmy Carter was my "first time" and I'm not at all nostalgic about it.
I did vote for Clinton in '96 though and felt okay about that.
Perhaps that depends upon how many OWS people you've actually talked to in real life? I remember the infamous "Valley Girl" stereotype from the late '70s. If you had never met a "valley girl" in real life, you'd say "that portrayal is ridiculous; no one can really be like that, can they?" until you meet one or two, and then grudgingly admit, "okay, maybe so," and then you meet several more, and you wind up saying "wow!" and then laugh.
What struck me was the guy clearly had to work for a living and how much he resented the life of luxury that the young woman simply took for granted without even realizing how privileged she was! that struck a chord with me, being from a blue-collar middle-class midwestern background attending an "elite" eastern college heavily populated with "legacy" offspring of the 0.1%.
I remember the way Dan Akroyd used to skewer Jimmy Carter even more vividly. * "Inflation is our friend. Pretty soon we'll all be millionaires. You've always wanted to own a $5,000 suit, haven't you? well pretty soon you'll be able to."
* ych, Jimmy Carter was my "first time" and I'm not at all nostalgic about it.
I did vote for Clinton in '96 though and felt okay about that.Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part 4
Does the prospect of him losing the election qualify?
Does the prospect of him losing the election qualify?
Fighting Sioux 23
New member
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part 4
No, but I would imagine a hurricane would. Of course, as I said, I would think that terrible roads/weather and the like may actually be an advantage to Obama, especially in light of his perceived advantage in early voting.
Does the prospect of him losing the election qualify?
No, but I would imagine a hurricane would. Of course, as I said, I would think that terrible roads/weather and the like may actually be an advantage to Obama, especially in light of his perceived advantage in early voting.Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part 4
I remember one Ackroyd bit (as Bob Dole) where he threatened to "jam this pencil in your ear." IIRC, he was debating other Republican candidates.
Perhaps that depends upon how many OWS people you've actually talked to in real life? I remember the infamous "Valley Girl" stereotype from the late '70s. If you had never met a "valley girl" in real life, you'd say "that portrayal is ridiculous; no one can really be like that, can they?" until you meet one or two, and then grudgingly admit, "okay, maybe so," and then you meet several more, and you wind up saying "wow!" and then laugh.
What struck me was the guy clearly had to work for a living and how much he resented the life of luxury that the young woman simply took for granted without even realizing how privileged she was! that struck a chord with me, being from a blue-collar middle-class midwestern background attending an "elite" eastern college heavily populated with "legacy" offspring of the 0.1%.
I remember the way Dan Akroyd used to skewer Jimmy Carter even more vividly. * "Inflation is our friend. Pretty soon we'll all be millionaires. You've always wanted to own a $5,000 suit, haven't you? well pretty soon you'll be able to."
* ych, Jimmy Carter was my "first time" and I'm not at all nostalgic about it.
I remember one Ackroyd bit (as Bob Dole) where he threatened to "jam this pencil in your ear." IIRC, he was debating other Republican candidates.
- Status