The George Bush Lock Box Thread
I think by now we're mostly growing tired of every thread devolving into a Bush bash. I'm one of the biggest offenders so I thought I needed to come up with a solution. Here it is, every time you want to crack on Bush but in your heart you know its off topic post it here where we can enjoy it unencumbered by a long thread on another topic.
I'll go first. We damn near missed the school bus today and its the fault of George Bush.
Lady Sidhe got a flat tire while driving my car friday and we went to get in her van this morning and the battery was dead.
If he could actually pronounce nuclear, the world would be a better place.
Fuck him to hell.
There ya go. :D
Fuck him to hell.
There ya go. :D
I can't decide if it's ironic or pathetic that you can't stay on topic in a thread designed to be off topic.
I guess I should have posted my "George Bush is a bedwetter" comment here. No excuse, really.
I can't decide if it's ironic or pathetic that you can't stay on topic in a thread designed to be off topic.
Aren't you going off topic by criticizing someone else for going off topic? And BTW, that's George Bush's fault too.
This looks like a job for ThreadHijackMan...
Hey, don't we have a Thread Hijacking Monitor now? Or is it the Thread Hijacking Police?
No...its the Compassion Police, I think, although the Chief may have resigned.
Aren't you going off topic by criticizing someone else for going off topic? And BTW, that's George Bush's fault too.
I stand corrected, no thanks to his "No Child Left Behind" program. :)
I posted the GWB comment to the peeing in the shower thread on purpose. The Dubya made me do it.
George Bush broke my seatpost.
It not just George... its the evil administration, they have given me cramps. Its become a pattern. damn them.
George bush makes me stink. especially when i fart.
It's George Bush's fault that whistleblowers on torture get forcibly
locked up as delusional. (link fixed)
Not far off it. More an issue of poor corperate governance. It's the job of the board to keep renumeration reasonable to maxamise profit for shareholders (at least in a public company).
I blame Dubya for jag's mis-underUtilization of the word remuneration.
;)
I blame Dubya for jag's mis-underUtilization of the word remuneration.
;)
I blame Bush's horrid syllabication for people's unwillingness to hear words of that magnitude.
Because of George Bush I am able to have long nights of untroubled sleep.
Hmmm.
That's not what you were looking for, was it.
Bad link HM.
Bush's fault! :D
I bought a bunch of clothes with a tractor theme for my nephew for xmas and I just need a toy tractor to finish him up. Went to Toysrus (because Fao Schwarz is gone, thanks Walmart) to find one and they didn't have any. Tons of guns and tanks of every make and model, but not one tractor. Of course I blame that bastard Bush...
I bought a bunch of clothes with a tractor theme for my nephew for xmas and I just need a toy tractor to finish him up. Went to Toysrus (because Fao Schwarz is gone, thanks Walmart) to find one and they didn't have any. Tons of guns and tanks of every make and model, but not one tractor. Of course I blame that bastard Bush...
Perhaps once the war on terror is over you can hammer those guns into plowshares. :rolleyes:
"Oh, and I'm *not* going to mention the election, OK? God ordained he should win, it's as simple as that - he freely admitted it. (Bush, that is. Not God.) (And, apparently, at time of writing, Bush still acknowledges there's a distinction between the two.)"
- Mil Millington
The Christmas gift-giving chores are George Bush's fault. So is Needless-Markup valet parking at the Mall. So are the crowds at the mall, and Internet companies who lie about ship times.
Bah Humbug
--- E.T. Scrooge
I knew I wouldn't have to wait long for Amy Goodman to blame GW for the Tsunami. I was interested in how she would acheive it. It seems the 35 mill or whatever the US has pledged is approximately what GWs owners are spending on the inaugural...
You know, I honestly don't get the inaugural hoopla for second term presidents. Granted, I hate Bush and will bash him over nothing, but I didn't get it for Clinton either.
I work near the White House. When the weather is nice, I go for a stroll around the Elipse and White House. They have been working on the viewing stand where Bush will sit for two months now. They are using HUGE steel girders to support the roof. These girders are sized to hold up an entire 12 story office building, but they are only being used to hold up a roof. Even if they make the roof out of inch thick steel (which they very well could be doing, I haven't been by in a few weeks) these beams are way oversized.
They could have built an actual house or two with the effort that is going into a viewing stand that will hold the president for 45 minutes to watch a parade. It just seems like a tremendous waste.
I think the country as a whole wouldn't care if the inauguration was held inside, behind closed doors, and broadcast on TV. You could still have the parade outside without the Prez. It's not like he actually pays attention to it anyway.
Is it possible folks who go for this 2nd inaugural stuff are all thinking about the famous actor on the balcony in this shot?
I was going to say something similar, but you said it more eloquently ...
The sturdiness of the construction serves a security purpose.
Is it possible folks who go for this 2nd inaugural stuff are all thinking about the famous actor on the balcony in this shot?
I don't understand your point. If it is a reference to a need for tight security, then I still don't know what that has to do with having a big party for a 2nd term Prez.
My point is simply that a lot of money and effort is being spent to commemorate nothing. Bush was president, and will continue to be president. There is no change. There is nothing new or different. There is no need to mark this particular date as being momentous, because it will be just like the day before. It is not momentous.
I fully understand and agree with the idea of throwing a party when a new president comes in. But second term presidents are not new. I don't think it calls for a party, and this one is more extravagant than the last one.
Private funds pay for all the balls, but the Federal Government shuts down for the day. All the employees get a paid day off. The streets are closed for the parade, and security costs go through the roof as every cop in DC gets put on overtime, and all Secret Service agents do too. Expensive stands are built. Planning sessions are made. Etc. Etc. The Federal Government spends a lot of money to mark the passage from Bush to Bush.
I felt the same way for Clinton, but was less strongly opposed back then, because I got the day off, and I voted for the guy.
This hoopla should only be for 1st term presidents.
So lets put all this into perspective. That viewing stand with all its security costs about the same amount sent to how many millions of Tsunami victims? Numbers are easy to fathom. Which is more important?
The perspective is correct: if we are going to say the US Gov is responsible for saving and protecting the entire fucking earth, then it is not that long a stretch to want to throw a big party when we elect one into office.
That viewing stand with all its security costs about the same amount sent to how many millions of Tsunami victims?
[font=Arial Narrow][size=4]YYYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWW[/size][/font][font=Arial Narrow][size=4]WWWWWWWWWWNNNNNNNNN...[/size][/font]
The first thing the people need are food/water/medicine, help burying the deceased and
credit. Having a C-130 full of $100 bills there the next day doesn't accomplish a damn thing. The rest of the planet couldn't carry our jock strap when it comes to international aid and that includes aid granted under Bush so take a break from re-counting Ohio ballots and chill.
Anyone see The Daily Show last night? Bush had some interesting quotes on privatizing Social Security:
A personal savings account which will compound over time, and grow over time. A personal savings account which can't be used to bet on the lottery or, ya know, a dice game.
Ya know, like poor people do.
Instead, we'll let 'em move some of their social security, currrently in treasury bonds, into the stock market, and tell them not to retire in a down year.
And secondly the interesting there's a there's a, you know, African American males die sooner than other males do, which means the system is inherently unfair to a certain group of people. [turns to an African American male who has been seated next to him, who makes a startled looking noncommittal nonverbal response] And, that needs to be fixed!
I've got no witty response for that one.
Whites live longer than blacks and women live longer than men. The average life expectancy of a black male (about 66 I think?) ensures they will spend a lifetime paying into the system they can't afford, and then die before they collect anything. It's one of the regressive aspects of the system.
Bah--I bet that statistic includes all the 16- to 25-year-old black males who die violently. What's the average life expectancy of a black male who's already made it to, say, 50?
They don't produce that number as far as I can tell. They do produce the number for people who've made 65. White females age 65 can expect to live 19.5 more years. Black males can expect to live 14.6 more years. (White males, 16.6 more years; black females, 18.0 more years.)
Also, I would not discount the effects on a 15% tax on employment wages on the chances that a young black male will be violently killed.
Instead, we'll let 'em move some of their social security, currrently in treasury bonds, into the stock market, and tell them not to retire in a down year.
The social security fund is heavily invested in T-Bills and returns a paltry 2-3% annually. The stock market returns, on average, 11-12% per year (which includes down years, btw).
So, here is a chart of the two alternatives: A person who has $10,000 in his or her SS acct at age 30. Look what happens to that 10k (with NO additional money contributed) by the time the person is 65. Even if the stock market took a plunge in any of the last ten years the stock market option still kicks the living crap out of the paltry T-Bill return that SS gets.
I will say, however, that the stock option is only good for people with at least 20 years ahead of them. That is more than long enough to substantially increase the odds of actually achieving a return close to the historical average.
The social security fund is heavily invested in T-Bills and returns a paltry 2-3% annually. The stock market returns, on average, 11-12% per year (which includes down years, btw).
That's average. If everyone in the US made the average salary, we would need no safety net. Whats the comparison of the
minimum return for an individual in T-bills and stocks? That's what Social Security is for - a guaranteed minimum to live on.
Also, I would not discount the effects on a 15% tax on employment wages on the chances that a young black male will be violently killed.
Someone who dies young doesn't contribute much to Social Security in the first place. Once one reaches retirement age, I'd guess that most of the death-age discrepancy is more aligned to prosperity than race.
That's average. If everyone in the US made the average salary, we would need no safety net. Whats the comparison of the minimum return for an individual in T-bills and stocks? That's what Social Security is for - a guaranteed minimum to live on.
That argument is completely devoid of logic.
No one earns exactly the "average" salary of all wage earners. But
everyone who invests in the stock market earns the average return over the long run and that average return is remarkably stable. Why should I be penalized because you are terrified of the stock market. I can turn 10k into 450k while your 10k turns into 21k. But, in your world, I am prohibited because "its not fair to you." How so?? How does what I do with my money affect what you do with yours?
Also, please provide a scenario where a long term investment in T-Bills has outperformed the same investment in the stock market over a 35-year span.
And as for your point that SS provides a minimum amount to live on, let's see you do it. SS income is inadaquate - that's the reason alternatives are being proposed. And the whole basis of the SS system is that there be enough people paying into the system to cover those drawing from the system. That requirement is about to go out the window when the retiring baby boomers outnumber wage earners by a substantial margin. Prepare for even more cuts in benefits or, allow me to take more risk than you are willing to take to and earn (historically speaking) five times more than you and I'll help cover your deficit. If you do nothing, the system will not survive. What's your alternative solution?
That requirement is about to go out the window when the retiring baby boomers outnumber wage earners by a substantial margin.
Tiny nitpick--the baby boomer retirees won't specifically outnumber workers. The coming crisis is because the baby-boomers will reduce the worker-to-retiree ratio to 3-to-1 (whereas when the system was started the ratio was 16-to-1.) Still a crisis in financial terms, though, and I agree with everything else you've said. :)
They don't produce that number as far as I can tell.
actually it is all charted to the greatest detail by insurance industry. that is how they determine life insurance rates. i believe they are called the actuarial tables.
But everyone who invests in the stock market earns the average return over the long run and that average return is remarkably stable.
No they do not, as you admit later on:
Prepare for even more cuts in benefits or, allow me to take more risk than you are willing to take to and earn (historically speaking) five times more than you
What risk are you speaking of, if everyone earns the average? The fact is, people can and do lose their life savings on the market. Every fund is not a winner.
and I'll help cover your deficit.
That's not how it works, unless that's a personal promise from you to me, in which case it hardly solves the greater problem.
If you do nothing, the system will not survive. What's your alternative solution?
If we do nothing, the benefits eventually fall to 80% of the current levels, (adjusted for inflation). The simplest fix is to adjust the maximum taxable earnings based on the needs of the system.
The simplest fix is to adjust the maximum taxable earnings based on the needs of the system
can you expand on that HM?
***************
personally, i like an idea that would never get passed because it would be political suicide. but i would say that for anyone under 18 on 1 January 20xx there will be no social security check to look forward to. they have their entire lives to plan for their retirement and invest. for those 18-30, cut their benefit to 60%, for those 31-40 80%, for those 41-50 95%, for those of 51 on 1january 20xx they continue to receive their expected check until death.
in the beginning everyone would have to continue to pay SS tax, but that would be scaled down until there was no SS tax.
if you are 18 and know that there won't be any handout at age 62, you are a little more likely to put some money away for the future. and if you don't, tough s**t, i hope your family saved enough for the both of you.
how we got to a point where we expect our government to give us money for retirement is beyond me.
can you expand on that HM?
There is a maximum level of contribution per year. If there aren't enough funds, that level can be raised.
are you saying that if there isn't enough money to pay for SS then we should increase the tax for SS?
Of course. It is currently a regressive tax, because we can afford to make it so. It can start to approach a flat tax, if needed. The majority of taxpayers would see no difference, as the rate would remain constant.
if you raise a tax, someone will see the difference. break down the details on how you see this working, and why it would be better.
There are no extra details compared to the current system. One number gets raised in the formula. People who are above the current maximum will pay the tax on the difference, and receive the resulting increase in benefits after retiring.
ok, so you are saying that if John Q makes above $X00,000 annual, he will start receiving a smaller paycheck. and if the SS system is still around he will get more money back at retirement. money that he could have invested to much more effectively himself.
On the other hand, the SS system WILL still be around, for EVERYONE, not just john Q. It will provide a guaranteed amount, based on the formula, for EVERYONE, not just the people who know the market.
That is what Social Security is all about. Not everyone ends up better off individually than they theoretically could have, but everyone gets a no-risk guaranteed benefit, and society benefits.
if i'm the guy that sees my taxes go up so that someone who isn't responsible enough to handle his own retirement plan can have more money, i'm not real happy about it. i say that as a person who is watching my parents work through their retirement because his pension and SS don't go as far as he thought it would.
it wouldn't be right to tax high wage earners more to subsidize my father's retirement. if anyone is going to subsidize him, it should be his own family - me.
You may not like the fundamental theory of social security, but that's what it is. Not everyone has someone to fall back on in times of trouble.
we're not talking about "hard times" programs here. we're talking about an expected cash payout for everyone when they reach a certain age. social security has become akin to a pension in the eyes of many.
So what? If you begrudge the difference between the SS benefit and the amount you might have otherwise made, would you feel better if wealthy people got nothing back?
That would be another way to deal with the (eventual) SS deficit, but I don't think you'd be too happy with that one either.
we're not talking about "hard times" programs here. we're talking about an expected cash payout for everyone when they reach a certain age. social security has become akin to a pension in the eyes of many.
It's called entitlement, a promise from Uncle sam to pay me in return for the years I've paid him. It didn't matter if I liked the plan or not, I wasn't allowed to opt out, so as far as I'm concerned, neither is he. :eyebrow:
This is an ironic highjacking.
On the other hand, the SS system WILL still be around, for EVERYONE, not just john Q. It will provide a guaranteed amount, based on the formula, for EVERYONE, not just the people who know the market.
If you're under 50, and you believe that, I have this nice bridge to sell you...
The current system, with no changes, will go down to 80% of scheduled (not current, scheduled are higher than current) benefits at worst, several decades from now. That's not a crisis, and it is easy to make up that difference, if the government is willing. And it will be willing when the AARP is all Baby Boomers.
if the government is willing
if the government is willing to do what? tax me more to take care of people who didn't plan for their own futures? i'm sure they are willing to do that.
Bruce - i'm not talking about cutting benefits to people already in the system and dependent on the income, i'm talking about telling those that are just starting out to take care of themselves because the handouts are going to stop. it would be unfair to stop the benefits of those who have lived their whole lives counting on it, but it would be imprudent to raise future generations to be equally dependent on it.
tax me more to take care of people who didn't plan for their own futures?
People who can't take care of their present may or may not have planned for their future, and they may or may not have been successful, and it may or may not be their fault.
and it may or may not have anything to do with me.
Well, I'm not going to try to convice you that helping the elderly is a good thing for society as a whole, if that's what you're asking for. I guess that's just something you agree with or not. Just don't try to justify it by saying that anyone who needs it didn't plan for their future, so it's their own fault.
You know, if the shit somehow hits the fan and you, though no fault of your own, lose most of your savings, you might appreciate it a bit more. Sure, lots of people fuck up but lots of people just have bad luck, you might be one of them, you should know as well as anyone that financial markets are capricious beasts and the economic stability of the recent decades is, in the scheme of things, an anomaly.
... And it will be willing when the AARP is all Baby Boomers.
Now there's another good reason to abandon America. The free-riding whiner generation is about to flower. On the other hand, Republicans need to remember that they no longer have the moral authority to make the fiscal responsibility argument.
HM, this is not about taking something away from people who are counting on it. i am talking about telling new generations as they come up that A) your taxes are going to be lower B) save it, invest it, blow it, it's your choice and your future.
if people have 40+ working years of their lives with the idea that they have to save if they want to retire someday, then they have plenty of time to do it. there will be some people who are through no fault of their own may run into problems. there are ways to help them without an all encompassing national retirement system. what we have now is a system that says "we don't think you going to plan ahead so we'll make sure you have a check." that completely removes choices from those who do plan, and removes accountability from those who don't.
Republicans need to remember that they no longer have the moral authority to make the fiscal responsibility argument.
absolutely right, the republican party has whored itself out and sold out those committed to fiscal responsibility just as much as the democratic party has sold out those who think they stand for the working people.
they both give great lip service but little else.
HM, this is not about taking something away from people who are counting on it. i am talking about telling new generations as they come up that A) your taxes are going to be lower B) save it, invest it, blow it, it's your choice and your future.
We tried that, and felt the need to create Social Security to fix it. None of my arguments rely on any distinction between "taking something away from people who are counting on it" and phasing it out for future generations. Both result in people who, through no fault of their own, need money to live on. Pre-Social-Security, people worked 40+ years of their life, knowing they had to provide for their retirement, and it didn't always work out. If we take away Social Security, people will still work 40+ years of their life, knowing they have to provide for their retirement, and it still won't always work out. The fundamental justifications for Social Security have not disappeared.
In any case, what you're arguing for is the elimination of Social Security, which is something that Bush pretends not to be doing. He prefers to to bleed it to death through the mouths of stockbrokers.
This thread ROCKS!
George Bush sucks cocks
he's evil, he's ugly,
makes me just want to hurl,
a hypocrite, an asshole,
He makes my toenails curl
If you voted for him, I think you're a fool,
The people who voted for Kerry are cool,
He sent us to war and killed innocent folks,
tonight while he's sleeping, I hope that he croaks.
Gay people can't be on their lover's health plan,
and all these abortions that he wants to ban,
will cause all the crackheads to reproduce more,
the poor and the underage, unemployed whores,
they'll all be the moms of our next generation,
The world hates us now and I see no cessation,
The french think we're stupid, the U.N lost it's "u"
And medical research can't cure what they want to,
so if you have cancer spreading through your tush,
they won't find a cure, and you can thank 'ol george Bush
yes, you're right. i am talking about ending social security. i think society would do just fine with SS being phased out. i also know that will never happen as long as people understand they can vote for entitlements. SS wasn't originally viewed as a long term retirement plan for all of society. it was a depression era feel-good. when created, few were expected to live on it very long. since its creation, people have become accustomed to counting that as part of their retirement savings and have become dependent on it. programs to help those on hard times could be built and run more efficiently than a broad based everybody-in national retirement system. IMO.
Bush is talking about setting up individual retirement accounts funded with the money that is currently just going into the big pot which is completely outside of the individual's control.
if the individual has the ability to invest their retirement money into the buckets of money they choose they can build their own retirement plan. from what i understand this would look something like the TSP's that are currently out there. the only difference is that instead of one large pool of money invested in treasuries, there will be many different accounts invested in various options. as long as the individual can't pull the money out to buy a house or car or candy bar, i don't really have a problem with it. it wouldn't be as efficient (compared to no program at all) for those that do plan for themselves, but it would allow for greater opportunity for growth while providing the safety net that you think people need. The difference is that i think most people can make better choices for their money than the government can.
************very simple math follows, i know there are variables, but there is no need to get more specific.********************
A) an individual starts saving $100/month at age 25 and does that until they are 65 (40 years)
B) if their investment choice averages only:
- 4% avg they will have $118,590 at age 65
- 7% avg they will have $264,012 at age 65
- 9% avg they will have $471,643 at age 65
those are just hypothetical numbers. if we take it a step further and see what a 40 year period in the market looks like it gets more interesting. What i am going to enter here is not a balanced portfolio or an exceptional one. it is a relatively middle of the road, growth and income oriented mutual fund. i would not recommend this one fund for someone's retirement plan, it is only a reference point for this discussion.
if a person saved $100 per month into this fund for 40 years it would looked like this:
40 year period ending:
2004 - 12.5% avg return total saved = $1.138million
1994 - 11.99% avg = $987,695
1984 - 11.72% avg = $914,940
1974 - 10.31% avg = $614,879
Those are 40 year numbers. $100/month. i know that contributions would vary based on income level, but if X% of your income HAD to go into your retirement plan, just like it does now, it would work. keep in mind that the individual who doesn't make enough money to contribute $100/month isn't exactly accustomed to a lifestyle that would require $1,000,000 in the bank.
Let's take this a step further. If an individual today gets roughly $1300/month from SS, would they be winning or losing by this plan? i don't think i would see the elderly roaming the streets fighting stray cats for garbage scraps.
*******************
edit: to be fair, not everyone has the inclination to be in equities so.
if you had put $100/month into a run of the mill bond fund from 1974-2004 (only 30 years, not 40)
the average return would have been 9% and there would be $173,396 in the account. again, not a number to shrug off.
i also forgot to mention that all of those numbers take into account commissions and operating expenses, so a system run similarly would not only be self-sustaining, it would be profitable so that it can help fund programs for those who are less fortunate.
and i almost forgot what thread this is, so... George Bush smells really bad and sticks his tongue out at old ladies.
when created, few were expected to live on it very long.
That's not really true. While the average lifespan wasn't much past 65, the average lifespan for people who reached 65 wasn't much lower than it is now.
programs to help those on hard times could be built and run more efficiently than a broad based everybody-in national retirement system. IMO.
Perhaps, but at least with everybody in, there's no dispute over who qualifies.
Bush is talking about setting up individual retirement accounts funded with the money that is currently just going into the big pot which is completely outside of the individual's control.
That money is therefore NOT going into the SS fund, and is not available to pay benefits for people who do not opt for the new system. Therefore, the money to make that up has to come from the general fund, exacerbating Bush's deficit much faster than the current system.
The current trend is away from pensions and towards 401k's. If Social Security is put into the stock market, most people will have all their eggs in that basket, and a downturn in the market at the time they plan to retire will be devastating. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. On the other hand, if the US defaults on its treasury bills, people would have been better off investing their retirement in canned goods.
i'm talking about telling those that are just starting out to take care of themselves because the handouts are going to stop.
Are you also telling those people that they don't have to pay in? :eyebrow:
bruce, to a limited degree yes. i don't know what the numbers would really look like, but it seems reasonable that the amount paid in should be able to be decreased until it reaches zero as the amount paid out decreases based on normal attrition. no matter which path is followed, when it comes to SS, at least one generation is going to get hosed over on SS benefit vs. amount paid in. better sooner than later.
but like i said, no career minded politician would ever support such a plan.
HM, did you even look at the numbers i entered? if an individual only paid $100/month into the new SS system they would have very substantial amounts of money to fund their retirements not even counting the 401K that most people also fund to some extent. If they retired in 2004 with @$1,000,000 and the next year experienced a 40% drop in the value of their individual account, they would still possess $600,000. If it dropped another 20% the next year they would still have $480,000. How many months of $1300 (what the average SS payment i see looks like) payments would $480,000 be good for?
at no time in the history of this country has a 40 investment in treasuries outperformed the market. past performance is not indicative of future results is the mantra of my business, but with all due respect, if we ever see a time period where the markets behaved like that, the world has a lot bigger problems than what Mrs Olsen down the street has in her retirement account.
at no time in the history of this country has a 40 investment in treasuries outperformed the market.
Not all funds perform as well as the market, and not everybody gets the average. For example, just over a quarter of the funds available in my 401k lost money this year (including 3 of the four that I have money in). Now, if I got discouraged with my choices and moved my money into other funds, the ones I moved into could easily do the same next year. If the average return is, say, 12%, there is a bell curve of people's actual returns centered on that.
Most of the funds available on my 401k are less than 10 years old, never mind 40, so most peoples money will have to be transferred between funds as poor funds are terminated, which means that those people will be selling at a point that the fund has been losing money, and probably buying a fund that is currently doing well. Most people will not have the advice of stockbrokers, and will be pretty much flying blind.
does it ever bother you that all you do is look for reasons ideas work, instead of trying to fidn a way to make them work?
....no matter which path is followed, when it comes to SS, at least one generation is going to get hosed over on SS benefit vs. amount paid in.
That already happened to my parents, they were notch babies. My Dad paid in the MAXIMUM, from the day SS was instituted in 1935 until he retired in 1983 but was penalized a third of his benefits.
.....if we ever see a time period where the markets behaved like that, the world has a lot bigger problems than what Mrs Olsen down the street has in her retirement account.
Not to Mrs Olsen. It's hard to see the "big picture" when you're hungry. :(
One of the earliest American advocates of a plan that could be recognized as modern social insurance was Theodore Roosevelt. In 1912, Roosevelt addressed the convention of the Progressive Party and made a strong statement on behalf of social insurance:
"We must protect the crushable elements at the base of our present industrial structure...it is abnormal for any industry to throw back upon the community the human wreckage due to its wear and tear, and the hazards of sickness, accident, invalidism, involuntary unemployment, and old age should be provided for through insurance." TR would succeed in having a plank adopted in the Progressive Party platform that stated: "We pledge ourselves to work unceasingly in state and nation for: . . .The protection of home life against the hazards of sickness, irregular employment, and old age through the adoption of a system of social insurance adapted to American use."
You tell 'em Teddy. :)
The current system, with no changes, will go down to 80% of scheduled (not current, scheduled are higher than current) benefits at worst, several decades from now. That's not a crisis, and it is easy to make up that difference, if the government is willing. And it will be willing when the AARP is all Baby Boomers.
So would you like the Brooklyn bridge, the Ben Franklin bridge, or the Golden Gate? Buy all three and I'll throw in the Woodrow Wilson (really, no one else wants it)
You seem to have bought them already. Don't try to unload 'em on me.
Here you go.
(edit) And Here (/edit)Though, to be fair, the 80% number seems to be "best guess". The pessimistic estimate turns out to be 70%. So my "at worst" phrase wasn't quite accurate. I'm guessing that that's not what russotto was getting at, though.
Ironic...
Forty-nine percent of 1,007 adult Americans said in phone interviews they believe Bush is a "uniter," according to the CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll released Wednesday. Another 49 percent called him a "divider," and 2 percent had no opinion.
I hope Dubya gets an incurable case of ass cancer and has to live out the remainder of his days with a colostomy bag. I would also like to see someone give him the same poison they gave that Russian guy so we can see him turn into one of those withered apple faces. Mostly I would love to see that self-satisfied smirk wiped off his face.
I think you kind of missed the spirit of this thread ... you're supposed to be blaming dubya for your own ass cancer ...
I think you kind of missed the spirit of this thread ... you're supposed to be blaming dubya for your own ass cancer ...
It's
[font=Courier New][size=5]W[/size][/font][font=Verdana][size=2] 's fault [/size][/font][font=Courier New][size=5][font=Verdana][size=2]that undone fucked up!
[font=Courier New][color=DimGray][Charleton Heston][/color][/font]
Damn the man they call [/size][/font][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=5]W[/size][/font][font=Courier New][size=5][font=Verdana][size=2]
[font=Courier New][size=5]![/size][/font] Damn him to
hell![/size][/font][/size][/font][font=Courier New][color=DimGray][size=5][font=Verdana][size=2][font=Courier New][/Heston][/font][/size][/font][/size][/color][/font]
I think you kind of missed the spirit of this thread ... you're supposed to be blaming dubya for your own ass cancer ...
Oh, goodie! I was wondering when we'd be getting around to this! It's not that I hate dubya, it's just that this ass cancer is making it real hell to sit on my polo pony.
Goddamned Dubya, It has to be his fault that Hunter S. shot himself to death.
Goddamned Dubya, It has to be his fault that Hunter S. shot himself to death.
Not as far fetched as you might think...
George W Bush infected my computer with a virus to make me lose my mind and throw it like a rubber ball into a big pile of refined white sugar.
He had his goons break into my car yesterday and rigged the horn to blow when I got in it.
His goons also rigged the car's battery to go dead overnight from a short circuit after the horn was smashed off the steering wheel because it wouldnt stop going off.
He had them get under the hood and break my spark wires in the cold weather knowing that I wouldnt have a clue what the problem was and that I would eventually go crazy, start talking to and then beating the car furiously.
George W Bush drove by me as I walked home in -40 degree cold from beating the crap out of my car. He would circle the block that I was walking on and ask me if I needed a ride, then when I walked toward the Limo, it would speed off with him laughing.
George W Bush decided to screw around with my 50+ year old heating system so that it broke down and that it seemed warmer outside than sitting in my front room.
George W Bush had a meeting with the entire engineering staff at AC* about not using any standards for anything created or changed in UG so that "the frozen, twitchy contractor" would just give up trying to make anything usable and ride his bicycle home to Pa.
Geoge W Bush decided that the permissions should be set that anyone can file to any directory not directly owned by another user....and that the save command for your specific part trips a save for that entire assembly, regardless of whether you created or ever changed that part.
George W Bush decided that no file management system is required for a group of 50 users, and that everyone would talk to each other and would "just know" when every one of the 45,000 files is under revision or undergoing other directory juggling.
George W Bush limits my network connection which is normally a gig, down to 100mb at AC because I'm a contractor and he doesnt think it's really needed for me to have the best or even average grade equipment.
George W Bush talked with the security dumbasses at AC and instructed them to program the access card to let me OUT into the proto lab, but not back IN.
George W Bush instructed the maintenance staff to strip the paint off the floor on my normal route through the plant to my desk and to take the "this area is closed" tape from the doorway that leads to this floor area, so that I would dance briskly and nearly bust my ass walking on it when I came into work that day.
George W Bush lost the paperwork to have my phone and voice mail activated...and when his goons finally created the account, some other asshat came by trying to fix the computer and broke the phone jack out of the wall.
George W Bush decided that I didnt need internet access at work and that I am the ONLY ONE IN ENGINEERING that doesnt have it.
George W Bush sees to it that my computer is moved every two weeks and that the dumbass that moves it, doesnt even check it to see that it's working before he leaves me a note requesting that I kiss his ass for doing this and that I should be happy.
George W Bush has the VP circle my desk when I work after hours when he doesnt normally even come into that section of the building.
George W Bush forced AC to use that stupid assed vending scheme with the cards to eliminate any coin transactions and he put the machine that charges the card on the other side of the plant.
George W Bush has my boss come into the office and ask me "is it done yet?" about every 2 hours and gets pissed off when I tell him, "your data files are spanked and disorganized....see me sometime next week for an update"
George W Bush bought the computer that I had set aside at Radio Shack right out from under me, and the only other place with a reasonably priced computer was 60 miles away.
George W Bush decided that there is no need for stops signs in this neighborhood, even though the roads are always dangerously slippery and has nearly as much snowmobile traffic as automobile traffic.
George W Bush had the electrical outlets in this house replaced with units so worn out that they wont hold a plug in place and you have to duct tape them in or slide something in front of the plug to hold it in place or your computer or radio with blink on and off.
George W Bush assures me that I am "part of the team" and encourages me to sign up to take an 05 snowmobile for a weekend numerous times, then after I do and my weekend comes up tells me they dont sign them out to contractors.
Jesus Christ this guy George W Bush is a pain in my ass!!
* - Arctic Cat Snowmobiles, Thief River Falls, MN.
Jesus Christ this guy George W Bush is a pain in my ass!!
I didn't realize that anal cancer was that complex.
Jesus Christ this guy George W Bush is a pain in my ass!!
On the other hand, he did let you go back to work. ;)
George W Bush sneaks into my house late at night and dumps the CoffeeMate out.
And I hate him for it.
I didn't realize that anal cancer was that complex.
It's not anal cancer, it's an alien hubajube.
via righty humorist
Iowahawk