LastPommerFan

It's actually an exceptionally good predictor of charity, something like +25% to the likelihood and amount of giving. I don't have time to look up the studies, but Pew and Hoover Institute have both done extensive and regular looks into this phenomenon.

You're in what I would refer to as the "transition screw-job"

In a weird timing event involving the structure of the sales contract for the house, and some significant new sales from my Wife's company, our account will not be moving in the traditional direction this week. I'm going to have to think long and hard for a post on thursday.

Moving into the new house today. (we have pro movers taking care of the big stuff on thursday, so I'll have to come up with something else to complain about.)

Because Basketball.

Dedication.

There is no "maybe".

Way to totally miss my Nate Silver joke and veiled swipe at nFreeman.

In 2033 the income will cover 77% of outlays and the projected reserves will be depleted, but until Nate Silver starts his economics blog, we're relying on economists projections, and they're the only people on the planet with worse models and predictive accuracy that meteorologists. This could just as easily be nothing, or something that the next president will have to deal with in their second term. In all likelihood, insolvency event will occur during the next recession or at the latest, the one after that (real recession, not "oh god the gdp models shrank in the first quarter again because we suck as seasonal adjustments" recession). So the best part is we won't be in a strong economic position to actually deal with the problem. ~or~ GMI and Single Payer will get enough support over the next 10-15 years to become a reality and neither SS nor Medica** insolvency will actually become an issue because both will be replaced.

Neo, That is the way social security has always been funded. It was always funded with today's premiums funding yesterday's promises. The very first person who received monthly benefits from SS retired just 3 years after the system was created. She had paid $24.75 into the system. She received monthly benefits for 36 years, totaling over $22,000. That is the system from day one. And child mortality rates have decreased in proportion to birth rates. It's a bad statistic to take by itself. Sure, there are fewer children being born, but far more of them are surviving into adult hood, so our answer lies elsewhere. Weave hit the nail on the head. Real wages being depress has destroyed the system. Think of all money a person earns beyond $118,000 as hidden from SS. SS only taxes the first $118,000, so every penny after that is like it was never earned as far as SS is concerned. On top of that, imagine all income derived from ownership (dividends, etc.) as invisible to SS. The higher percentage of the GDP that is passed through profits to owners, the less real money is available for SSI. Now, imagine a scenario where aggregate wages below $118,000 have remained flat, while the population has grown. Sure, GDP has grown too, but almost all the growth has either been captured by wage-earners earning more than the cap, or by owners receiving the improved profits of corporations. So our population has increased, but the base through which we fund our safety net has increased only in the untouchable shadows. This is the reality of SSI today.

The teardown was over last summer. The team got better this year, believe it or not. Barring some injuries at the end, we could have easily blown the tank.

I can get mine at 60 too, but it gets reduced for each year before 65. So I'm waiting. I plan on living forever, so there's no Rush.

I haven't paid into the fund in 3 years, and from what I understand, no one is now, they froze everyone out. But as you know, it's at 112% funding at even the most conservative projection. Those bastards are sending me my $600/mo the day I turn 65.

in the words of our illustrious leader, "nonsense". I am required to book the current actuarial expense of the future costof all the bargained pension obligations of my employees today. I pay for it today out of today's margins. I get a report in the mail once a year with the value of the General Electric pension fund, and it's projected ability to pay the obligations currently levied against it, including my paltry pension that they will owe me in 35 years. GE could never make a dime again, and my pension is still coming, because it was already paid for. SS is not the same. SS isn't even similar to an underfunded pension fund, SS no longer has a reserve fund at all. I will pay out of my pocket to the retirees of Kodak/Bethlehem/State Police/etc. far more than they ever paid in. I will never receive what I will pay in, even if they find a way to make it solvent, especially if that solution involves raising or eliminating the FICA cap. That said, I still think it's fair, every American earns it by living and working as they can until they turn 62/65/67 whatever the age is now. Medicare is an even bigger handout, most of today's retirees won't even come close to covering their costs with what they paid in. Unemployment was hovering around 15%, they were desperate to reduce the size of the working age population. It was this or some some giant international conflict involving all of the largest armies in the world and heretofore unseen weapons of mass destruction.

#WhiskeysPicks Johanson - Couture - Girgensons - O'Reilly Letang - Ellis - Leddy - Kronwall Pominville - Vanek - Zuccarello - Strome

Does someone want to look into this? I definitely won't have time this week as I am moving to a new house. :-D

Social Security old age benefits are not a pension plan. The payments we make when we work today, pay for today's retirees. There is no guarantee implied in the plan (in fact, right on SSA's website they say something to the effect of "we won't be bale to pay you in full if you retire after 2033). Social Security is the way we pay old people to not work. That is how it started, that is how it still works. This "payed in" and "earned it" are the marketing lines to sell it to the American people, but hardly anyone under 35 that I've meet expect to receive social security as part of their retirement plan. The public relations nature of direct assistance programs were very purposefully changed by Reagan's team in the 80s with the introduction of the "Welfare Queen". By focusing on the minimal, marginal fraud and abuse in the system they were able to create a lot of energy behind reducing and eliminating direct assistance benefits. I don't think it would be hard to draw a strong link between this and the degradation of the family as a cohesive unit for people living under the poverty line.

It doesn't really matter if we think he'll end up as a 4th liner, if 1 other GM would like Johann on his team, he is an asset.

1935? The original social security act:

It's hard to get my head there with the record of the team over the last few years, but this video does a pretty good job of reminding us why we watch this team play this game in this league:

Wait, are you trying to say that there are societal benefits to the redistribution of resources through Government? I'm not buying it. Even as I read this post through my scratch resistant lenses.

1- It will be the de facto center within 5 years, and that's great 2- ODB 3- 6 years 4- 20% 5- Poles with willows.

:lol:

I acknowledge that there is a small, marginal subset of people who truly believe that the societal redirection of resources through government is a real negative and that it's abolition would lead to improvement for all. But this is a VERY small group. Most have not thought through macro economics enough to reach this conclusion based on personal assessment. My statement was toward the large majority who are anti-individual welfare because they simply don't like the types of people they perceive are the majority of recipients (by type I mean race, location, gender, etc.) or don't want to pay for anything that isn't a one-step obvious link to their own benefit (greed). The continued references to a non-existent "Welfare Queen" essentially proves my point. But those people are largely spouting the purposefully manufactured arguments of those seeking to retain more of their own power (resources). [all of these statements are generalizations, obviously on an individual level mileage may vary]

Bumping in an attempt to redirect the Bylsma Thread :)