PDA

View Full Version : College Exam... :)



Matt Gasaway
02-09-2010, 09:31 PM
I have a Political Science 101 exam on Thursday...Anyone want to come take it for me? haha Any takers?

david gibson
02-09-2010, 09:45 PM
I have a Political Science 101 exam on Thursday...Anyone want to come take it for me? haha Any takers?

i'd rather take physics 10001 in its place... ;-)

Matt Gasaway
02-09-2010, 10:00 PM
I'll be taking Physics 2 over the summer...You are more than welcome to come for that if youd like :cool:

JDogger
02-09-2010, 10:02 PM
Physics for poets 411. We met in a bar every second thursday. It was great. Good pizza. $.10 slices, $.15 cups o' beer. 1972. I think we all got an "A". After class we would watch re-runs of the watergate hearings.
The pot never was detected in my dashiki, but my Volvo did get towed.:D

Bummer JD

Matt Gasaway
02-09-2010, 10:20 PM
haha nice...I wish life at Purdue was that easy..I will say I have had a few Building Construction Management study sessions that were along those lines

Buzz
02-09-2010, 10:55 PM
Do you care what score you get?

Matt Gasaway
02-09-2010, 11:03 PM
Im sure any score would be probably better than what I will end up getting haha

BonMallari
02-09-2010, 11:17 PM
what are you doing on line playing on the RTF instead of studying :confused:

road kill
02-10-2010, 06:51 AM
I have a Political Science 101 exam on Thursday...Anyone want to come take it for me? haha Any takers?
You wanna get expelled??:shock:





rk

subroc
02-10-2010, 07:29 AM
answer all questions liberally...

sinner
02-10-2010, 07:54 AM
Tom Tancredo says if you don't pass you don't get to vote!

dnf777
02-10-2010, 08:02 AM
Just remember, if you write cheat notes in your hand....don't raise your hand facing the professor. Works really well I hear....;)

subroc
02-10-2010, 08:10 AM
if you can't bring write cheat notes on your hand, a teleprompter shoud do well.

Matt Gasaway
02-10-2010, 01:44 PM
Lol Jeeez guys I dont check this thread for like a few hours because believe it or not I was studying..Hard to believe I know...And Im getting my back end handed to me about studying? haha Which one of you knows my mom? This isn't fair :)

menmon
02-10-2010, 02:02 PM
I got a B in polical science for having a right-wing view and voicing it, when the prof had the Soviet National Anthem on his voice recorder. It should have been a clue, but I missed it.

So ask yourself is a good grade more important than being right, if you choose to disagree with him. If he quotes Rush and Glen Beck in his lectures, that would be a good indication of what position you should take.

Buzz
02-10-2010, 02:34 PM
I got a B in polical science for having a right-wing view and voicing it, when the prof had the Soviet National Anthem on his voice recorder. It should have been a clue, but I missed it.

So ask yourself is a good grade more important than being right, if you choose to disagree with him. If he quotes Rush and Glen Beck in his lectures, that would be a good indication of what position you should take.

When and why did your view change Sambo?

Do you discuss politics with your wife? Meeting her last Fall, I got the impression that she's a bit more conservative than you are. ;-)

Leddyman
02-10-2010, 03:37 PM
I have a Political Science 101 exam on Thursday...Anyone want to come take it for me? haha Any takers?

The answer is.....It's All Bush's Fault!!!

You should make a 100.

Example
Q: Please discuss the banking system and the opinion of Jefferson about the creation of the federal reserve system.

A: Bush sucks! Teacher says correct. Good answer.

menmon
02-10-2010, 04:08 PM
During Bush's second term. It seems like no matter where I live I'm on the wrong side.

They made me a good Rebublican when I was at Texas A&M and then when I went the University of Chicago, I found them much less conservative than at A&M. Austin Goolsbee (he is one of Obama's economic advisors) was my first econ proffesor there and he and I argued politics all the time. This guy was brilliant and I was full of Rush, but we had fun and drank lots of beers while arguing the subject. Then I went to work on Wall Street and I thought surely they would agree with me about politics there but they didn't, and now back in Texas my view has changed and I'm out of place here too.

The bottom-line is I'm conservative in my own business dealings and when they talk about balanced budget and no deficits, that agrees with how I run my business. However, having been told this before every election and then watch them do the opposite, I don't believe them anymore nor should anyone else. I watched inflation get out of control the last couple years of Bush's administration as he funded two wars and a large tax cut for people that did not need a tax cut, while elderly people were making hard decisions about whether they should by food, medicine or gas, and that is when the more human side of me stepped in and said this is not me.

My view of healthcare is that if we have the money to fight two dumb wars and give tax cuts to people that the extra income does nothing for other than give them more wealth, we can afford to provide healthcare to the less fortunate.

You have Kari's number...she is a military brat and works for an oil company, so you and I will agree that the past adminstration was good to the oil industry, so it is probablly not good policy to speak ill of the devil.

BonMallari
02-10-2010, 04:36 PM
Lol Jeeez guys I dont check this thread for like a few hours because believe it or not I was studying..Hard to believe I know...And Im getting my back end handed to me about studying? haha Which one of you knows my mom? This isn't fair :)

my mother used to call at 6:30 am...and it went like this

me: why are you calling so early

mom: because I know you are at home

me: what if i'm not home

mom: then where would you be sleeping

Mom's always know...you can run but you cant hide ;-)

dnf777
02-10-2010, 05:15 PM
During Bush's second term. It seems like no matter where I live I'm on the wrong side.

They made me a good Rebublican when I was at Texas A&M and then when I went the University of Chicago, I found them much less conservative than at A&M. Austin Goolsbee (he is one of Obama's economic advisors) was my first econ proffesor there and he and I argued politics all the time. This guy was brilliant and I was full of Rush, but we had fun and drank lots of beers while arguing the subject. Then I went to work on Wall Street and I thought surely they would agree with me about politics there but they didn't, and now back in Texas my view has changed and I'm out of place here too.

The bottom-line is I'm conservative in my own business dealings and when they talk about balanced budget and no deficits, that agrees with how I run my business. However, having been told this before every election and then watch them do the opposite, I don't believe them anymore nor should anyone else. I watched inflation get out of control the last couple years of Bush's administration as he funded two wars and a large tax cut for people that did not need a tax cut, while elderly people were making hard decisions about whether they should by food, medicine or gas, and that is when the more human side of me stepped in and said this is not me.

My view of healthcare is that if we have the money to fight two dumb wars and give tax cuts to people that the extra income does nothing for other than give them more wealth, we can afford to provide healthcare to the less fortunate.

You have Kari's number...she is a military brat and works for an oil company, so you and I will agree that the past adminstration was good to the oil industry, so it is probablly not good policy to speak ill of the devil.

Very nicely said. Your conservative roots will be doubted by some here, unless you spew Beckisms and blindly agree with them. Ask me how I know!

menmon
02-11-2010, 09:49 AM
All that guy is about is division and hatred amoung men in order to butter his bread and not better America.

All of his so called facts are taken out of context and spun in an attempt to rally people against the democrats, and they hang on his every word. His audiance does not have to think and he dumbs down the issues while distorting them so that his flock thinks it understands and is able to deliever an opinion no matter how wrong it is.

His cable show has a following of about 5 million viewers and they tune in to be made angry. I have made long time friends mad at me because I don't agree with his bullshit.

Lets compare what is going on in the EMU right now regarding Greece. Do you let them default and kick them out of the union or do you help them sure up their balance sheet?

These are the outcomes: If you help them, the Euro will weaken against all major currencies but there is no systemice fallout; if you don't help them, the Euro looses the burdun or drag on it, but a domino effect will occur amoung the weaker members of the union, thus causing a much more profound negative effect on Europe as these countries default and the systemic risk is much more expensive than helping Greece. The equivilant of out Fed Chairman for Germany supports helping Greece. The German are know for rigid monetary policy, this stems back to when they experienced hyper-inflation, therefore, they except unemployment over inflation. Unlike America, the unemployment of the Great Depression drives our monetary policy, so we are willing to except some inflation for jobs.

My point here is that we have had simular issues in America, such as Calafornia and Glenn Beck spins it as they brought it on theirself so let them fail and ties it to American's paying more tax for the bailout. This works well for him because neither congressional dems or repub are stupid enough to let a state goverenment fail, so he preaches from his soapbox how Obama and the democratic congress have no regard for the hard working american people and if you don't remove them from office, they are going to spend us into bankruptcy. When the truth is just the opposite.

Clearly deficits and debt are bad things, but this is not the time to correct them, because our only way out of this is growth, because if the economy shrinks so does our tax receipts. Think about how much tax revenue would be created if corporate profits increased by 25% and then think about how much would be lost if they shrank by 25%, which they have resently done.

Now I want to correct another fallacy, most small business owners pay little are no federal income taxes, no matter what the marginal rate is, becuase they are able to expense just about every personal expense they have before taxes, and if they are profitable enough to show a profit above that, yes they will pay taxes. However, everyone that makes a salary doesn't have the liberty to expense their cost of living before taxes. So this argument that small businessmen are struggling because of their tax burdun is bullshit too. Small businessmen are struggling because they have too much debt and have lost a considerable amount of cash flow from this economic contraction and their banks have their own problems and are not willing to take addition risk with them. So this aguement that if smallbusiness are given tax cuts they would expand their businesses is bullshit too.

Cody Covey
02-11-2010, 04:16 PM
Please explain to me where you disagree with Rush, Beck and Hannity? Is it the smaller government? No? Okay maybe then its the spending less? Oh wait you said you agreed with that to. Okay maybe its the taxing less and allowing you to keep your own money for how you see fit? Dammit there we go again having more of your own money is good for you. Please explain where you disagree?

Secondly how does a tax cut for everyone equate to a tax cut only for the rich. Last i checked my taxes went down since the Bush tax cuts for everyone.

menmon
02-11-2010, 04:49 PM
The question you need to ask yourself is did your purchasing power go up? I'll answer for you, no, because your heating/cooling bill doubled, food bill doubled, gasoline tripled, etc. There is another way to tax someone and it is called inflation.

Again I know his tag lines as well as anybody and they make people think they diserve them and then angry them when they don't get them.

Do you agree that medicare and social security are a large reason for the deficit and size of the budget? Yes, so lets remove the cap on payroll taxes. That would probablly alleviate the problem, but can't do that, because that is raising taxes, and lets don't forget that you think that you paid for your medicare and social security. You might want check the math on that, because I pretty sure you have not contributed enough to cover feeding and caring for you until you die and quit complaining. If the republicans have all answers why didn't they do anything when they had the chance.

I bet you like and think we should be in those wars in the middle-east, so why don't you start paying for them. Again don't tell me that the deduction from your check every month is paying for them, so again do the math.

And I bet you would say something like, lets quit feeding those bums that are too lazy to work with my hard earned tax dollars. My guess is that there is a disturbing amount of people on this forum that are out work and not by choice. What do say to them? Is your answer get a job bum?

I'm sorry, I can't think the way that idot does, because I have to look at myself everyday in the mirror.

Cody Covey
02-11-2010, 05:24 PM
bad things happen to good people. Thats just how life is. That doesn't mean its governments responsibility to help everyone. I shouldn't be forced to pay for someones health care, food, etc that i have never met and has never met me. If people want to help others fine, just so long as its not the government forcing others to "help"

I hope to never need medicare or SS because i will have been responsible enough to save and pay my own way through retirement, and not rely on the little that people get from SS because they were either not smart enough or (and the more likely case) they were promised they wouldn't need to and now are finding out just how big of a lie that is.

Franco
02-11-2010, 06:15 PM
The bottom-line is I'm conservative in my own business dealings and when they talk about balanced budget and no deficits, that agrees with how I run my business. However, having been told this before every election and then watch them do the opposite, I don't believe them anymore nor should anyone else. I watched inflation get out of control the last couple years of Bush's administration as he funded two wars and a large tax cut for people that did not need a tax cut, while elderly people were making hard decisions about whether they should by food, medicine or gas, and that is when the more human side of me stepped in and said this is not me.



Uncle Bill, you are correct, he does work at IHOP.

No one with an education would make such a crazy statement. Bush may have had many faults but, high interest rates and inflation did not exsist during his administration.

Robbie Coleman
02-11-2010, 06:27 PM
How is Purdues program doing I just graduated from Auburn Building Science

dnf777
02-11-2010, 07:54 PM
Secondly how does a tax cut for everyone equate to a tax cut only for the rich. Last i checked my taxes went down since the Bush tax cuts for everyone.

My federal taxes went down almost unperceptably. However, my local and state taxes went up, our road just got tar-n-chipped instead of re-paved, and numerous user fees for things I've already paid for through taxes have been imposed. They now want to toll I-80. Mabye federal income tax was cut, but the pound of flesh I give each year has gotten bigger over the past several years.

Buzz
02-11-2010, 09:17 PM
My federal taxes went down almost unperceptably. However, my local and state taxes went up, our road just got tar-n-chipped instead of re-paved, and numerous user fees for things I've already paid for through taxes have been imposed. They now want to toll I-80. Mabye federal income tax was cut, but the pound of flesh I give each year has gotten bigger over the past several years.


I heard on the radio the other day that several states are seriously considering converting many paved roads back to gravel instead of replacing with new pavement, because gravel is on orders of magnitude less expensive. The fallout should be interesting.

Blackstone
02-11-2010, 09:33 PM
I heard on the radio the other day that several states are seriously considering converting many paved roads back to gravel instead of replacing with new pavement, because gravel is on orders of magnitude less expensive. The fallout should be interesting.

Well, that could prove good for the economy. There will be more cracked windshield and chipped paint to repair!

Hoosier
02-11-2010, 10:07 PM
All that guy is about is division and hatred amoung men in order to butter his bread and not better America.

All of his so called facts are taken out of context and spun in an attempt to rally people against the democrats, and they hang on his every word. His audiance does not have to think and he dumbs down the issues while distorting them so that his flock thinks it understands and is able to deliever an opinion no matter how wrong it is.

His cable show has a following of about 5 million viewers and they tune in to be made angry. I have made long time friends mad at me because I don't agree with his bullshit.

Lets compare what is going on in the EMU right now regarding Greece. Do you let them default and kick them out of the union or do you help them sure up their balance sheet?

These are the outcomes: If you help them, the Euro will weaken against all major currencies but there is no systemice fallout; if you don't help them, the Euro looses the burdun or drag on it, but a domino effect will occur amoung the weaker members of the union, thus causing a much more profound negative effect on Europe as these countries default and the systemic risk is much more expensive than helping Greece. The equivilant of out Fed Chairman for Germany supports helping Greece. The German are know for rigid monetary policy, this stems back to when they experienced hyper-inflation, therefore, they except unemployment over inflation. Unlike America, the unemployment of the Great Depression drives our monetary policy, so we are willing to except some inflation for jobs.

My point here is that we have had simular issues in America, such as Calafornia and Glenn Beck spins it as they brought it on theirself so let them fail and ties it to American's paying more tax for the bailout. This works well for him because neither congressional dems or repub are stupid enough to let a state goverenment fail, so he preaches from his soapbox how Obama and the democratic congress have no regard for the hard working american people and if you don't remove them from office, they are going to spend us into bankruptcy. When the truth is just the opposite.

Clearly deficits and debt are bad things, but this is not the time to correct them, because our only way out of this is growth, because if the economy shrinks so does our tax receipts. Think about how much tax revenue would be created if corporate profits increased by 25% and then think about how much would be lost if they shrank by 25%, which they have resently done.

Now I want to correct another fallacy, most small business owners pay little are no federal income taxes, no matter what the marginal rate is, becuase they are able to expense just about every personal expense they have before taxes, and if they are profitable enough to show a profit above that, yes they will pay taxes. However, everyone that makes a salary doesn't have the liberty to expense their cost of living before taxes. So this argument that small businessmen are struggling because of their tax burdun is bullshit too. Small businessmen are struggling because they have too much debt and have lost a considerable amount of cash flow from this economic contraction and their banks have their own problems and are not willing to take addition risk with them. So this aguement that if smallbusiness are given tax cuts they would expand their businesses is bullshit too.

Good lord, is ALPHA OMEGA back?

Buzz
02-12-2010, 08:00 AM
Good lord, is ALPHA OMEGA back?

So, was there something in there that you disagreed with, or were you just looking to make a personal attack?:rolleyes:

Marvin S
02-15-2010, 09:25 PM
Do you agree that medicare and social security are a large reason for the deficit and size of the budget? Yes, so lets remove the cap on payroll taxes. That would probablly alleviate the problem, but can't do that, because that is raising taxes, and lets don't forget that you think that you paid for your medicare and social security. You might want check the math on that, because I pretty sure you have not contributed enough to cover feeding and caring for you until you die and quit complaining.

The last time I checked SS was an FDR program, Medicare was an LBJ program & Precription Drugs was a Bush II program. All mandated by the Government &/or structured such that if you do not participate the hospitals are going to pick your pocket.

I participated in SS as a paperboy & as a teen ager enough that it wiped out all my low earning years. Beginning when I graduated from the UW I have always made more than the max, & retired in 93 at age 62. As you are a UC attendee, tell the audience how much would I have had in my account had the government invested in 30 years bonds at the going rate each year, instead of spending it? I believe it would be a very significant amount :cool:.


I hope to never need medicare or SS because i will have been responsible enough to save and pay my own way through retirement, and not rely on the little that people get from SS because they were either not smart enough or (and the more likely case) they were promised they wouldn't need to and now are finding out just how big of a lie that is.

Actually I like Medicare, I'm not sick a lot as we watch what we input. The PD program is something I never expected, we actually pay more for the insurance than we receive in benefits. The only things I have had major was a 6 repair bypass at 65 & a Rotator Cuff last month. Huge bills, bargained down to 10-20%, think of what someone without insurance, capable of paying, will have to deal with.

You have to realize that if you do not sign up there is no buffer between you & the medical people. It can get Very Expensive. :(

menmon
02-16-2010, 10:20 AM
[QUOTE=Marvin S;567638]The last time I checked SS was an FDR program, Medicare was an LBJ program & Precription Drugs was a Bush II program. All mandated by the Government &/or structured such that if you do not participate the hospitals are going to pick your pocket.

I participated in SS as a paperboy & as a teen ager enough that it wiped out all my low earning years. Beginning when I graduated from the UW I have always made more than the max, & retired in 93 at age 62. As you are a UC attendee, tell the audience how much would I have had in my account had the government invested in 30 years bonds at the going rate each year, instead of spending it? I believe it would be a very significant amount :cool:.

You would have lost your ass investing in 30 year treasuries at 32 years of age, because of the loss of purchasing power of the dollar. For example, lets assume you invested in 30 year zero coupon bonds based on a 5% coupon and you paid $227 per bond at inception, thus meaning at age 62 your bonds paid you a $1,000, an actual dollar return of $773 per bond, however, when you take into account inflation at and average annual rate of 3%, you would have had to invest $550 at 32 to have the same buying power, therefore you lost $323 on every bond you purchased do to inflation. You can check my math if you like!

So lets say you invested $227,000 at age 32 to keep the numbers round and simple, you would have a $1,000,000 at age 62. However, your purchasing power is only $412,000 when compared to when you made the investment, a difference in purchasing power is $588,000.

This agument of if the government had left it in a fund and not used it for other things, is bullshit or misleading, because inflation has eaten up most of it. I'm not saying that the government does not waste money, I'm saying that over the years, adjustments of what was being paid in were needed in order to fund it, and they weren't because raising taxes is unpopular and will not get you re-elected. This doesn't even account for people living longer, advances in medicine that are very expensive.

This hard ass thinking of I pay my way and you pay yours is fine as long as you don't need anybody, but get cancer of something equally as bad and pay for it with what you set aside 30 years ago and you might end up a little short, therefore, be thankful that they are taken a healthly chunk of my earnings too, to take care of your non-charitable ass.

Sorry it has taken so long for me to reply, I been playing with my dogs.

menmon
02-16-2010, 10:24 AM
Marvin S

I'm sorry I was a little harsh on my response to you, I was mixing you up with what someone else said too.

Buzz
02-16-2010, 11:13 AM
Sambo, I hate to show my ignorance, but I have a question.

You do an investment at 5%. Inflation is 3%. You gain gross 5% annually. You loose purchasing power on that 5% gain at 3% annually. So, net you gain 2% annually, right?

So, your purchasing power was 227k 30 years ago, but after inflation, your investment account with the $1,000,000 has the purchasing power of $412 back at the time the investment was made, 30 years ago.

Do I have this right? If so, the gain was minimal, but there still was a gain, wasn't there? After 30 years, you have somewhat less than double the purchasing power of your initial investment.

menmon
02-16-2010, 11:37 AM
Buzz your thinking is right on the coupon if its was being paid semi-annually, but wrong on the initial investment that you will not get back for 30 years.

I did the math on a zero coupon to keep it simple, but had the investment been a $1,000 bond with a 5% coupon for 30 years, you would have lost 3% of the coupon earned plus 3% inflation compounded for 30 years on the initial investment when it was paid back to you 30 years later. Your purchasing power of the $1,000 30 years later would be $1,000/1+3%^30 or $412.

Hope this helps

Buzz
02-16-2010, 11:45 AM
Buzz your thinking is right on the coupon if its was being paid semi-annually, but wrong on the initial investment that you will not get back for 30 years.

I did the math on a zero coupon to keep it simple, but had the investment been a $1,000 bond with a 5% coupon for 30 years, you would have lost 3% of the coupon earned plus 3% inflation compounded for 30 years on the initial investment when it was paid back to you 30 years later. Your purchasing power of the $1,000 30 years later would be $1,000/1+3%^30 or $412.

Hope this helps

Ok, I see what you're getting at. Thanks.

menmon
02-16-2010, 11:53 AM
The actual inflation adjusted return would be $228.68 or $7.62 per year or 0.75% annual return. You are right you would make a little bit on it, very little. And if inflation ran higher than 3% on average the return could be negative.

ducknwork
02-16-2010, 12:29 PM
When SS is flat broke when I am ready to collect, how much will I receive?




Nada...


And I will have lost how much out of my paychecks throughout my working years?



A lot...

menmon
02-16-2010, 12:34 PM
SS has been broke (without funds) for a long time and our moms and dads are still getting paid. However, they did not want to pay to make sure it was fully funded either. So don't worry, some how you will get paid back much more than you put in as long as you don't die too soon.

ducknwork
02-16-2010, 12:43 PM
SS has been broke (without funds) for a long time and our moms and dads are still getting paid. However, they did not want to pay to make sure it was fully funded either. So don't worry, some how you will get paid back much more than you put in as long as you don't die too soon.

So where are the funds coming from? More debt?

menmon
02-16-2010, 01:11 PM
It depends how you slice the pie but debt is funding the shortfall of our obligations, and currently SS and Medicare are obligations. So if you don't tax enough with the social security and medicare tax to fund them, you have to turn to other revenue sources, such as federal income tax and if that falls short you have to borrow it.

There are many things that are not funded but no one wants to cut spending or raise taxes. I've always said that if they engaged a war tax to fund the two wars we are in, American's both republican and democrat would say get the troops home, we don't need to be there.

Now I'm going to go back to my argument about taxes...if they can't raise your taxes, they will pay by printing money (this is not borrowing money). This is by increasing the money supply relative to the goods and services, and they do this with fed funds and repos. Right now, the amount of money being held in reserve accounts to cover the expected debt failure is absorbing most of the excess money along with weaker economies holding our dollars. But inflation is much higher than taxes, remember that.

YardleyLabs
02-16-2010, 01:13 PM
So where are the funds coming from? More debt?
Actually, SS has reserves in the trillions (they hold the majority of the national debt) and is generating about $180 billion in surplus this year.

Buzz
02-16-2010, 01:24 PM
Actually, SS has reserves in the trillions (they hold the majority of the national debt) and is generating about $180 billion in surplus this year.

They have reserves on paper, correct?

When the piper comes knocking, there are various ways our government can respond. What do you predict they will do?

menmon
02-16-2010, 01:35 PM
Correct....the accounting is cash disbursements - cash receipts equals shortfall.

There is no fund holding government debt, that is another misleading statement that people use to argue why they should not raise taxes or cut benefits. If we buy debt, it is retired.

Does this sound familar. They used my SS for other things...if they had left it alone we would be just fine.


My earlier post should have proved that if they had left it alone, in other words, not funded the shortfalls, there would be a lot of hungry old people right now.

I'm not advocating they did it right...what I'm saying is they put a good program in place years ago and then failed to fund it with taxes as more people starting living longer and cost of living went up.

Terry Britton
02-16-2010, 02:40 PM
SS has been broke (without funds) for a long time and our moms and dads are still getting paid. However, they did not want to pay to make sure it was fully funded either. So don't worry, some how you will get paid back much more than you put in as long as you don't die too soon.

I think you are partially mistaken. It was funded okay, but congress has gotten its hand in the cookie jar. It would be in much better shape if congress would replace what was taken out of the cookie jar.

YardleyLabs
02-16-2010, 03:46 PM
I think you are partially mistaken. It was funded okay, but congress has gotten its hand in the cookie jar. It would be in much better shape if congress would replace what was taken out of the cookie jar.
I agree with Terry. The entire objective of the reform under Reagan was to place the social security trust fund on a sound actuarial basis. The tax rate was more than doubled over a period of years to create massive surpluses that would build reserves to pay not only current benefits, which had been the case previously, but build up reserves for the future when baby boomers would retire. The problem was that Reagan and every President since him except Clinton, proceeded to spend the social security surplus to fund current activities -- primarily cuts in general taxes. During the entire debate on the Bush tax cuts, the war cry was "Give the people back their money>" At no time was it mentioned that the money being given back was the money reserved to pay future social security benefits which were paid for in advance. Once the tax cuts had been adopted, Bush immediately began his litany about the unfunded social security deficit.

The true unfunded portion of social security was far in the future and not a crisis. The crisis was that the reserves had been spent and massive spending cuts or a rescission of the tax cuts combined with spending cuts would be needed to pay that debt back. Had tax rates simply been left where they were, the social security trust would have been restored during Bush's first term and it would have been relatively easy to adjust payroll tax rates to restore actuarial balance for the long term. Instead, we got tax cuts, a $550 billion unfunded prescription plan, and almost $6 trillion in new debt. And with all that, we still have the original social security funding gap, a much bigger Medicare funding gap, and a budget where social security, Medicare, debt service and defense combined total our entire Federal revenue stream.

menmon
02-16-2010, 03:46 PM
Lets think through that...let just say a fund as you know funds today was created and it earned some level of income and grew over time.

So lets think through this. 100 people start partcipating and set money aside that is suppose to grow and take care of them down the road. As time goes by the cost of living goes up and the fund needs the monies being contributed by the 200 new people now also contributing to the fund to pay for the first 100. Now since the new contributors paid the shortfall of the first 100 people, their money is not staying in the fund and earning interest and now because of modern science the first 100 are living longer than orginally expected. So now they living longer and their cost of living is higher than it was when the percentage of contribution was established. I can keep going on with this, but I think you can see where a fund as you know one would become insolvent over time.

Public entities (US government is a public entity) use a type of accounting called fund accounting and there are budget buckets are funds that monies are committed to fund. So the way they are funded is with taxes and if their expenses exceed their tax reciepts they borrow money.

This is another lie meant to mislead. There has never been a mutual fund type fund for funding the benefits of SS. The real truth is that in years when more money was paid in than needed, these monies either paid other government expenses or paid debt obligations of the government. Once upon a time, the program was overfunded, but it was understood that at some point it would not be as more people retired. Now again as the needs of the program grew and were visable to congress, taxes should have increase to assure funding, unless you wanted to cut the program.

Now your republicans always want to cut benefits and yell the loudest to the voters that nothing is going to be there for you, except at election time, and then they lie to old folks and scare them into voting for them.

See the old folks don't want their benefits cut and the younger working folks don't want their taxes to increase. So they lie and say that the democrats robbed SS fund when there was not any mutual type fund to begin with. They are all guilty of robbing it with inflation and unfunded cost of living increases. But if the democrats try to increase taxes to fund it and increase the benefits to keep pace with cost of living, the republicans call them tax and spenders.

As my smart old daddy use to say, we ain't rich enough to vote republican boy, because we may need these programs one day. The Steve Forbes of the world would rather our mothers and fathers being eating out of dumbster than pay taxes. Think about it, when you start thinking that those few thousands you have in your 401k are going to take care of you in your old age.

Marvin S
02-16-2010, 09:05 PM
As my smart old daddy use to say, we ain't rich enough to vote republican boy, because we may need these programs one day. The Steve Forbes of the world would rather our mothers and fathers being eating out of dumbster than pay taxes. Think about it, when you start thinking that those few thousands you have in your 401k are going to take care of you in your old age.

Things have changed somewhat since your daddy made that statement!

SS is a well intentioned program that has been truly mismanaged. But here is what it does!

It provides a level of income based on your lifetime earnings skewered to give more to the lower wage people than those such as myself. It also provides a level of income to a widow/er with children who loses their source of income. With all the info the bureaucrats have they should be able to keep the program solvent. Anyone who counts on SS as their major source of income is mathematically challenged!

Medicare is a different ball of wax - We pay a monthly premium along with the 1.45% x 2 paid into our account. Those premiums amounted to not quite $3,200 last year. Though we have had some procedures over the years I believe we have more than covered out of pocket costs. Again, it's a management problem.

Now if our input into the system during the '80's were now to be cashed in, it would be considerably more than what you state. I believe T Bonds were doing 9-15% during that time. It was only when Clinton's boy Rubin started selling to the Chinese that interest rates were driven down. If this country was financing it own debt our politico's would not be spending like we actually had money.

The problem does not lie with the average joe getting his SS check, it lies with the non earners let into the system & the public employee retirements we are bering asked to fund. JMO

menmon
02-17-2010, 09:03 AM
Never in the history of the US Treasuries have any of them paid a coupon of 9-15% Hoverever during the Bush 1 years and the early Clinton years, you may have earned that type of return as rates went down and the principal value of your treasuries went up.

Obviously we have a lot of people not working that don't want to work either. However, we have a lot of people that want jobs and there are not any for them. Given this, a country of our means should take care of those that want or can't take care of themself or won't take care of themselves. When you look at the US budget only a small fractual goes to wellfare programs, but that is what people yell the loudest about since it hits close to home, i.e., the bum getting by and not working for it, while you are working and paying taxes and they are not.

Let's look past that for a minute. That wellfare money makes itself into the pockets of businessmen, such as farmers, food merchants, clothing merchants, oil companies, and everything in between. Albeit the government gives it to the orginal receipant, the profits these companies make on it are taxed, and if you take Freedman's aurgument for trinkle down economics and his example of a pencil maker and all the people that are involved in bringing a pencil to market, for every dollar that is spent, numerous people touch it and pay taxes on it. The velocity of it is mind blowing.

Given how families are spread out these days, people don't have traditional family to turn too, and I don't have a problem with my tax dollars helping someone in distress. I get a lot for my taxes, i.e, great highways to drive to field trials, great airports to fly in getting to a trial, great parks to train and compete on, safe food to eat, public education, higher education, safe drugs, safe buildings to work in, and on and on. However, that low income earner never uses all these interstates or airports, they don't own any property that needs books and records kept on, etc., etc., so I should pay more because I use more.

I don't like paying taxes, and I agree that there is waste in the system. But I have no problem taking care of the less fortunate because I've been blessed. However, an illness in my family or some other unfortunate tragedy, such as an earthquake of Hurricane or Bernie Maydoff can change my life in a heartbeat, and I might need some charity myself. Hopefully I never have to burdan anyone, but I know it could happen.

Marvin S
02-17-2010, 11:28 AM
Never in the history of the US Treasuries have any of them paid a coupon of 9-15% Hoverever during the Bush 1 years and the early Clinton years, you may have earned that type of return as rates went down and the principal value of your treasuries went up.

Obviously the 8 3/4 of May 17 & the 9 1/8 of May 04-09 that I owned were figments of my imagination ;-). But I keep the WSJ's 1st edition of each year & here it is from 1 January 2000 under the heading Treasury Notes, Bonds & Bills, page C13:

11 3/4 of Feb 01, 13 1/8 of May 01, 13 7/8 of Aug 01, 15 3/4 of Nov 01,
14 1/4 of Feb 02, 11 5/8 of Nov 02
10 3/4 of Feb 03, 10 3/4 of May 03, 11 1/8 of Aug 03, 11 7/8 of Nov 03
12 3/8 of May 04, 13 3/4 of Aug 04, 11 5/8 of Nov 04
12 of May 05, 10 3/4 of May o5
10 3/8 of Nov 04-09,
11 3/4 of Feb 05-10, 10 of May 05-10, 12 3/4 of Nov 05-10
13 7/8 of of May 06-11, 14 of Nov 06-11
10 3/8 of Nov 07-12
12 of Aug 08-13
13 1/4 of May 09-14, 12 1/8 of Aug 09-14, 11 3/4 of 09-14
11 1/4 of Feb 15, 10 5/8 of Aug 15

In the interest of space I did not list the High 8's & 9's that were also shown. But I think you get the message. I also owned several callable Muni's with a 7 to 8% coupon that were called just when interest rates tanked. Taught me a valuable but expensive lesson. In today's environment I would not buy a muni regardless of the terms & coupon!!!:o


Obviously we have a lot of people not working that don't want to work either. However, we have a lot of people that want jobs and there are not any for them. Given this, a country of our means should take care of those that want or can't take care of themself or won't take care of themselves. When you look at the US budget only a small fractual goes to wellfare programs, but that is what people yell the loudest about since it hits close to home, i.e., the bum getting by and not working for it, while you are working and paying taxes and they are not.

Let's look past that for a minute. That wellfare money makes itself into the pockets of businessmen, such as farmers, food merchants, clothing merchants, oil companies, and everything in between. Albeit the government gives it to the orginal receipant, the profits these companies make on it are taxed, and if you take Freedman's aurgument for trinkle down economics and his example of a pencil maker and all the people that are involved in bringing a pencil to market, for every dollar that is spent, numerous people touch it and pay taxes on it. The velocity of it is mind blowing.

Given how families are spread out these days, people don't have traditional family to turn too, and I don't have a problem with my tax dollars helping someone in distress. I get a lot for my taxes, i.e, great highways to drive to field trials, great airports to fly in getting to a trial, great parks to train and compete on, safe food to eat, public education, higher education, safe drugs, safe buildings to work in, and on and on. However, that low income earner never uses all these interstates or airports, they don't own any property that needs books and records kept on, etc., etc., so I should pay more because I use more.

I don't like paying taxes, and I agree that there is waste in the system. But I have no problem taking care of the less fortunate because I've been blessed. However, an illness in my family or some other unfortunate tragedy, such as an earthquake of Hurricane or Bernie Maydoff can change my life in a heartbeat, and I might need some charity myself. Hopefully I never have to burdan anyone, but I know it could happen.

I'll boil your obvious willingness to help others with someone else's money down to this: I do not have any problem with a hand up but don't talk to me about a handout. I've seen some pretty rough times, but managed to work that out on my own, without stealing from someone, but by relying on the tools I was given to work with. Did I have people take advantage of my circumstances, probably, but they have to live with that as I put that all behind me when it happened.

Julie R.
02-17-2010, 01:13 PM
The problem does not lie with the average joe getting his SS check, it lies with the non earners let into the system & the public employee retirements we are bering asked to fund.

And let's not forget that in addition to allowing non-earners into the system, our government's promoting a sweeping entitlement mentality that encourages these non-earners to breed and churn out more of their ilk that grow up to believe they're not only entitled to a lifetime on the dole, but free day care, late model cars, flat screen TVs, cell phones, high speed internet and 3 hots and a cot whether or not they're in prison.

menmon
02-17-2010, 04:02 PM
Those are not US treasuries......those coupons sound like B grade corporates not US treasuries

In the early 90s the 30 year treasury got as high as 8%, and I bought a lot of them and sold them when rates went to 3% and if the 30 year gets north of 7% again I will by a bunch more.

Dude I spent a large part of my career on the high yield desk at Merrill Lynch in NYC...I was a Distress Securities Analyst...and I dated a 5 yr note trader during that period until she sold me short. You don't know what you are talking about.

Marvin S
02-17-2010, 06:39 PM
Those are not US treasuries......those coupons sound like B grade corporates not US treasuries

You have my reference down to the page - check it out for yourself. I am literate ;-)!


In the early 90s the 30 year treasury got as high as 8%, and I bought a lot of them and sold them when rates went to 3% and if the 30 year gets north of 7% again I will by a bunch more.

Subtract the maturities from 30 & you will find this started in '71 through '85. While I would probably extablish a small position @ 7% I expect rates to return to the area I have quoted in post 51, making me :D.


Dude I spent a large part of my career on the high yield desk at Merrill Lynch in NYC...I was a Distress Securities Analyst...and I dated a 5 yr note trader during that period until she sold me short. You don't know what you are talking about.

& you're bragging about being employed by one of the firms that brought the system down, not much of a recommend :razz:. But I'm reasonably sure I know what I am talking about, enough so that I would be willing to make a wager - you name your poison, Buzz can hold the stakes. Winnings get donated to a charity of the winners choice :o.

Goose
02-17-2010, 07:30 PM
Actually, SS has reserves in the trillions (they hold the majority of the national debt) and is generating about $180 billion in surplus this year.

Once Goose finishes his breakfast he promptly goes out in the back yard for his morning pooh. Of course I never pick it up because it counts as dog food reserves...kinda like the social security reserves.

I thought keynesian witch doctors didn't include the 'special' bonds held by social security in the national debt?

Here's a question...what's the difference between the US debt owned by the Japanese or the Chicoms and the 'special' IOU's owned by us in the social security lock box?

Anybody?

menmon
02-18-2010, 08:32 AM
Marvin S

I owe you an apology. From about 1980 - 1985 the yield on the 30 treasury was above 10% and as high as 14.5%. Best I can tell, there were not that many long term treasuries issued during that period and the ones that were for the most part have been retired. I'm guessing that Marvin is still holding a few.

Again, I apologize, but my points regarding SS I still stand behind.