« First « Previous Comments 193 - 232 of 251 Next » Last » Search these comments
For 26 points and a pound of oats...
Would this be Quaker Oats, your standard horse feed, or sweet feed (corn, barley & molasses)? If it's a sack of sweet feed, I'm a-googlin', baby!
What's the answer?
Waiting:
Sure, the main problems are structural. However, let's not forget that Medicare providers are all private and they have ways of scamming the system.
It's possible to do so and not get caught for years; workers are terrified of losing their jobs so no one tells. When state inspectors arrive, workers are watched to make sure that they don't spend too much time with them and are debriefed afterward (in the buildings where fraud occurs).
There needs to be more oversight and inspectors need to watch out for fraud.
Ellie --
Times are tough, we're going for whatever is cheap and at the supermarket....
For the answer, see the link to the LA Times above.
Ellie --
Times are tough, we're going for whatever is cheap and at the supermarket....
Peter at OurBroker.com
I'm currently paying about $17 for a 50 pound sack, so I'd say that's a good price. Not fit for human consumption, but times are tough...
Give me your address - I'll mail it in one of those flat rate boxes.
Let's see - $0.34 cents plus the flat rate box $9.80, plus the drive to the post office at the IRS mileage reimburement rate of 55.5 cents per mile (round trip) at $21.65; that doesn't count my time.
Still think it's a good deal?
We get 50 lb bags of organic rolled oats for $37.40 with shipping to the pickup point. (They have one place in each city where the truck comes to, and you have to go meet the truck to get your stuff.) That's from Azurestandard.com, which won't tell you the price unless you sign up -- which is a bit scammy, but the oats were good.
I'm currently paying about $17 for a 50 pound sack
How much for oats for human consumption, and organic? If the price is better than $37.40 for human-edible oats, here do you get it?
Back to topic, a great quote I just ran across:
It is the contention of the Republican Party that if the American worker would just work for a dollar a day in polluted factories with no benefits or rewards then the industry to which the political party bows could compete with Third World powers and they wouldn't have to ship those jobs overseas.
It is the contention of the Republican Party that if the American worker would just work for a dollar a day in polluted factories with no benefits or rewards then the industry to which the political party bows could compete with Third World powers and they wouldn't have to ship those jobs overseas.
I'm guessing you didn't find that quote in any actual GOP communication, website, statement, etc. In other words, it's the distorted view of some left winger.
This letter to the editor seems to be the oringal source of that quote:
http://www.mlive.com/opinion/muskegon/index.ssf/2011/10/letters_teapublicans_bent_on_r.html
This letter to the editor seems to be the oringal source of that quote:
http://www.mlive.com/opinion/muskegon/index.ssf/2011/10/letters_teapublicans_bent_on_r.html
Thanks. I guess that's what you call a straw man argument. And repeating a straw man argument, and apparently citing it for its brilliance, well ... that's getting pretty thin in the persuasive and logical argument dept.
Yes we all know that democrats used be the home of southern racist politicians. We also know that in the 70s and 80s those who used to be conservative (racist) southern politicians, migrated over to the republican party. With exceptions of those such as Byrd, who later renounced his earlier affiliation with the KKK>
Not only are republicans not who they were in the time of Lincoln, they aren't even the slightest bit like they were in the days of Eisenhower or Nixon. BOth would be labeled RINOs now and driven out of the party.
The Republican and Democratic parties are now essentially polar opposites than what they were prior to 1964 (when the Civil Rights Act was passed). Saying the Democrats of today are racist because they were racist in the 40s is simply not true.
why I am flushing my money down the SS toilet and am almost certain not to get it back because I will be means tested or die before I reach the ever-increasing eligibilty age. A ways back, the GOP had a reasonable suggestion to let THOSE WHO WANTED TO invest PART of their SS funds in private mutualy fund/IRA/401k like arrangements, to achieve a superior return versus what the money 'earns' now.
Social Security gets far better returns, especially for married people:
http://www.angrybearblog.com/2009/03/social-security-return-on-investment.html
There's also no real crisis for Social Security yet and anyone suggesting there is one is mostly playing politics. Based on projections, people are making predictions, but projections that far out aren't always right. If a few variables change, we could be in a completely different position.
A ways back, the GOP had a reasonable suggestion to let THOSE WHO WANTED TO invest PART of their SS funds in private mutualy fund/IRA/401k like arrangements, to achieve a superior return versus what the money 'earns' now.
Yes, I remember this proposal, and as I recall it was right before the market took a huge dive as the bubble burst.
Social Security is insurance, it is not an account where you are depositing "your funds". As others have mentioned it could be easily "fixed" to last forever. One of the worst things that we could do would be to expose it to the volatility, fraud, and risk of Wall Street.
>>>Social Security is insurance, it is not an account where you are depositing "your funds". As others have mentioned it could be easily "fixed" to last forever. One of the worst things that we could do would be to expose it to the volatility, fraud, and risk of Wall Street.
I agree with Leo. Besides, if Social Security accounts were handled by Wall Street there'd be a $5 monthly fee to receive a check....
>>>Social Security is insurance, it is not an account where you are depositing "your funds". As others have mentioned it could be easily "fixed" to last forever. One of the worst things that we could do would be to expose it to the volatility, fraud, and risk of Wall Street.
I agree with Leo. Besides, if Social Security accounts were handled by Wall Street there'd be a $5 monthly fee to receive a check....
Peter at OurBroker.com
Ah, Ha, Yeah, the $5 check fee would of course be on top of the monthly fees to maintain your account.
I agree with Leo. Besides, if Social Security accounts were handled by Wall Street there'd be a $5 monthly fee to receive a check....
Yes, and in fact, many 401(k) programs are managed by Wall Street, and they do have inappropriately high fees. The fees on most people's 401(k)s are way too high for the level of service they get. There are not very many transactions (lots of buy and hold), the money that's moved around is moved around in volume, and the administration costs are very low. People would be shocked to figure out how much these things can cost them in a bad plan vs. how much they should cost.
People would be shocked to figure out how much these things can cost them in a bad plan vs. how much they should cost.
the skim on 401K plans is horrendous. Wouldn't surprise me that plan providers bribe HR people under the table to choose them.
THOSE WHO WANTED TO invest PART of their SS funds in private mutualy fund
you want to gamble in the stock market, gamble in the stock market.
Social Security is designed to be a pay-as-you-go system between retirees and workers. Since this is a one-directional progression (workers -> retirees) it's a beautiful system, no gambling required.
The compounding interest retirement funds get isn't a free-lunch either. For every saver/specuvestor enjoying compounding returns there is a debtor somewhere chained to the wheel.
Wouldn't surprise me that plan providers bribe HR people under the table to choose them.
They do. It is not a very well-kept secret that companies get kickbacks for these things. It's against the law under ERISA, and I've definitely see companies that could be sued for breach of fiduciary duty.
A ways back, the GOP had a reasonable suggestion to let THOSE WHO WANTED TO invest PART of their SS funds in private mutualy fund/IRA/401k like arrangements, to achieve a superior return versus what the money 'earns' now.
Yes, I remember this proposal, and as I recall it was right before the market took a huge dive as the bubble burst.
Social Security is insurance, it is not an account where you are depositing "your funds". As others have mentioned it could be easily "fixed" to last forever. One of the worst things that we could do would be to expose it to the volatility, fraud, and risk of Wall Street.
Yes, it is a form of insurance and welfare. I would like to opt out and not purchase the insurance. That market dip was a great time to buy, too bad my funds were tied up in SS.
As near as I can follow the linked to article (AngryBear), it doesn't give full credit for the self employed having control of all of their funds, and doesn't base its examples on high enough earners to be of much relevance to me personally.
It too describes SS as insurance (which again isn't quite right - it's not something you apply for and receive when your retirement funds take a nasty turn, like a sudden market dip right before retirement - it's come to be a social welfare program that is most folks' primary plan of how to make it in retirement - that's not "insurance" any more than car insurance is a way to make your monthly car payment).
The Republican and Democratic parties are now essentially polar opposites than what they were prior to 1964 (when the Civil Rights Act was passed). Saying the Democrats of today are racist because they were racist in the 40s is simply not true.
I think the treatment of David Duke by GOP vs. Robert Byrd by Dems pretty much disproves this by itself.
http://www.nytimes.com/1989/02/20/us/winner-in-louisiana-vote-takes-on-gop-chairman.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/29/us/politics/29byrd.html?pagewanted=all
Byrd, former Klan leader, became Dem Senate leader. Odd how having that in your past doesn't disqualify you, but Supreme Court and attorney general nominees in the 1990s and more recently weren't able to shrug off past pot smoking and nanny problems by denouncing this behavior in the present.
Smoke pot, can't be attorney general.
Lead Klan, OK to lead Dems in Senate (on senility and pork alone, he should have been out of the Senate long before he was).
I would like to opt out and not purchase the insurance.
And there is plenty of government spending that I would like to "opt out of", but understanding the nature of government programs that is a pretty silly proposal to make. Ideally they are for the "greater good" and we either all do it together or not at all.
That market dip was a great time to buy, too bad my funds were tied up in SS.
You have no funds tied up in SS. Just like you have no funds tied up in your car insurance.
It too describes SS as insurance (which again isn't quite right - it's not something you apply for and receive when your retirement funds take a nasty turn, like a sudden market dip right before retirement - it's come to be a social welfare program that is most folks' primary plan of how to make it in retirement - that's not "insurance" any more than car insurance is a way to make your monthly car payment).
Yes, it is an insurance and it covers a lot more than retirement. It is meant to insure that children, the elderly, and the disabled do not languish in poverty. You pay into this insurance so that if you ever find yourself elderly, disabled or dead leaving children behind you (or your kids) don't have to eat cat food. If you think that it is OK for American children the elderly and the disabled to --in mass numbers-- live in poverty. It is your prerogative to vote for candidates that want to destroy SS.
Part of the problem is that everyone feels entitled to receiving SS. People whose retirement funds keep them above the poverty line should not be getting checks from SS. Sure, if Bernie Madoff takes off with all their retirement savings they should be able to get SS.
"That market dip was a great time to buy, too bad my funds were tied up in SS."
LOL.
Social Security isn't down 1.25% today, clown.
Nor down 6% over the past 13 years.
>>>A ways back, the GOP had a reasonable suggestion to let THOSE WHO WANTED TO invest PART of their SS funds in private mutualy fund/IRA/401k like arrangements, to achieve a superior return versus what the money 'earns' now.
Let's imagine that Smith gets $50,000 from Social Security, invests the money, and then loses it. Spring forward 30 years and imagine that Smith lives on half of what he would have gotten for Social Security and doesn't have enough money for food and rent. Do we let him starve? That's sure the Ayn Rand approach.
Let's imagine that Smith gets $50,000 from Social Security, invests the money, and then loses it.
It's even worse than that. The influx of money 2006-now would have juiced the economy to even more unsustainable heights.
The problem with our economy isn't that social security is taking 12% of wages off the top.
The problem is the $500B/yr cost of gas ($4000/household), the $1T+ rents being taken in health care ($8000 per household), and the $300B/yr trade deficit with China & Mexico.
If you aren't focusing on these 3 main problems, you are not a serious person.
Not that there are many serious people around now.
The problem is the $500B/yr cost of gas ($4000/household), the $1T+ rents being taken in health care ($8000 per household), and the $300B/yr trade deficit with China & Mexico.
If you aren't focusing on these 3 main problems, you are not a serious person.
Not that there are many serious people around now.
Yes, as the old saying goes, "Penny wise, pound foolish".
The problem is the $500B/yr cost of gas ($4000/household)
I think that number includes commercial usage also, diesel for trucks and gas used for businesses. I don't see how anyone could separate out the gas used by business's from the gas used by homes.
>>>It's even worse than that. The influx of money 2006-now would have juiced the economy to even more unsustainable heights.
This is pretty much how the private pension system works. Money goes into pensions which are controlled by banks and brokerages. The money can only be spent on stocks and bonds with most accounts. The result is a huge amount of cash chasing a limited number of investment choices. That's in part why the stock market has gone up.
I think that number includes commercial usage also, diesel for trucks and gas used for businesses.
"According to the U.S. Department of Transportation and EIA, the average U.S. household purchases a little over 1,100 gallons of gasoline per year. "
That's 140 billion gallons per year to 130M households.
but http://www.project.org/info.php?recordID=383
says there's ~60 billion gallons of production ?
::it is a mystery::
The result is a huge amount of cash chasing a limited number of investment choices. That's in part why the stock market has gone up.
My thesis is that the BB is going to drag the market down. Peak birth year was 1957, so the withdrawals will really get rolling in 2022.
Generation Y has to be the buyers, but they seem to be fucked. Maybe the Chinese will step up as buyers of global equity.
As near as I can follow the linked to article (AngryBear), it doesn't give full credit for the self employed having control of all of their funds, and doesn't base its examples on high enough earners to be of much relevance to me personally.
Ummm. The self-employed have to pay payroll tax too. Are you self-employed? If so, are you dodging taxes?
And high enough earners, like you and me, can do things outside of Social Security too. That doesn't negate the fact that Social Security has a huge return on equity for most people. The average investor probably gets much better return off Social Security vs. their other investments.
It too describes SS as insurance
Yes, why wouldn't it? Compare Social Security to an annuity or a VUL. The latter are clearly insurance right? So why isn't Social Security?
This is pretty much how the private pension system works. Money goes into pensions which are controlled by banks and brokerages. The money can only be spent on stocks and bonds with most accounts. The result is a huge amount of cash chasing a limited number of investment choices. That's in part why the stock market has gone up.
Well, it's also why the stock market has gone down. Institutional investors felt very comfortable chasing illiquid and risky investments in order to gain more yield. Didn't always work.
>>>it's also why the stock market has gone down. Institutional investors felt very comfortable chasing illiquid and risky investments in order to gain more yield.
The stock market would have gone down much more -- and would never have been as high -- had it not been for the constant drip of pension money into the system.
The stock market would have gone down much more -- and would never have been as high -- had it not been for the constant drip of pension money into the system.
It's hard to say. A lot of institutional investment also goes into very safe things like Treasurys.
Also, imagine if pensions weren't reserved like this -- either:
a) the pension amounts would be distributed to people over their lifetime as additional income, and people would engage in more consumption, which would raise stocks, given that a large percentage of our economy is based on consumption; or
b) companies would have to figure out what to do with all this freed capital, and would likely invest it in various things themselves (whether their own business or other ones), which would also raise stocks most likely
"That market dip was a great time to buy, too bad my funds were tied up in SS."
LOL.
Social Security isn't down 1.25% today, clown.
Nor down 6% over the past 13 years.
“Nessuna soluzione . . . nessun problema!„
I love how you cherry pick your dates, clown. You pick the absolute peak without noting that you have - just saying last 13 years. Since the market drop I referred to around the time the GOP prevoiusly floated this idea of PARTIAL privitization, the market is up, and more than my expected return on my SS "investment" is. http://www.google.com/finance?client=ob&q=INDEXSP:INX#
JG1 says
As near as I can follow the linked to article (AngryBear), it doesn't give full credit for the self employed having control of all of their funds, and doesn't base its examples on high enough earners to be of much relevance to me personally.
Ummm. The self-employed have to pay payroll tax too. Are you self-employed? If so, are you dodging taxes?
And high enough earners, like you and me, can do things outside of Social Security too. That doesn't negate the fact that Social Security has a huge return on equity for most people. The average investor probably gets much better return off Social Security vs. their other investments.
As I understand the AngryBear article - did you read it? - he is discounting, i.e., assuming away, the fact that self employed people pay both sides of the tax, and they would have both sides back were they able to opt out, or to the extend they were able to manage part of those funds in a 401k like environment. His writing isn't very clear to me, but that seems to be what he admits. As a admitted left leaner, he is much more concerned with the working and middle class than any impact on high earning self employed business people.
JG1 says
It too describes SS as insurance
Yes, why wouldn't it? Compare Social Security to an annuity or a VUL. The latter are clearly insurance right? So why isn't Social Security
Because everyone who reaches a certain age is entitled to it. And those who pay into it more are not disproportionately rewarded (as those who pay more VUL premiums or buy an annuity are), instead it's a social welfare program where not only am I basically maxed out benefitwise at some point despite disproprtionate contributions, but I won't get any "coverage" under this insurance plan because by the time I get to the point where I'd be eligible under the current rules, they will have changed the rules so I am no longer eligible, so my return will be negative whatever I paid in.
Let's imagine that Smith gets $50,000 from Social Security, invests the money, and then loses it.
You can imagine that, OurBroker, but that was not the proposal, as I stated above. It was to permit a MAXIMUM of a certain relatively low percentage to be self-directed rather than in the "black box".
« First « Previous Comments 193 - 232 of 251 Next » Last » Search these comments
The fatal weakness of the Republican Party is that Republicans want to eliminate Social Security and Medicare.
Millions of elderly people depend on Social Security and Medicare for their survival.
Republicans would be very happy to make the elderly poor eat dog food and go entirely without medical care, because Social Security and Medicare run on tax money, and anything that runs on tax money is GODLESS COMMUNISM to Republicans.
The elderly have been alive a long time (by definition), so they know the score, and they vote in large numbers. They also tend to be racist. I've seen this racism in my own elderly relatives many times. Elderly white people hate having a black president with a Muslim name, and this drives them away from the Democratic Party. They would not have even one tenth as much hatred for Joe Biden as president, even though he's politically the same as Obama.
What it comes down to is whether their hatred for blacks is greater than the hate they will feel when Social Security and Medicare are eliminated by Republicans.
I think I know the answer to that one.
#politics