waitforufo

If no one is following you, are you a leader?

As part of my retirement I can purchase a lifetime annuity. The cost of that annuity depends on when I purchase it and interest rates when I purchase. I can even purchase this annuity as part of a whole life insurance policy that I pay for with monthly installments. If I live a long time, such an annuity will pay out more than the actual dollars I pay in. The companies that sell me such an annuity or life insurance policy can still make money since they invest the money I give them either as a lump sum or as monthly installments. They can make money due to compound interest. I tire of hearing about how most people get more out of social security then they pay in. Such a calculation never takes into account the future value of an annuity. If an individual and their employer's contribution to social security were simply invested into government savings bonds throughout there life, the vast majority of people would retire with significant wealth. This sum would far exceed what most collect from social security throughout their life. Your suggestion that most put in far less than they take out assumes that the money is invested in a shoe box under their bed. With regard to social security being a tax, this is true only to the extent that you have to pay it or the government will lock you up. These programs are intended to be paid for by the individuals who receive the benefits. That is also how they continue to sell them to the people. In the US a pension is part of an employee's compensation. This means that the employee pays for it over time. This may not be directly apparent but the employee is in effect paid less than if they did not receive a pension. Those that don't work don't get a pension. Also, your pension monthly payment is based on years of service and income during employment history. Perhaps the problem has to do with the word "benefit." With regard to pensions in the US this term has nothing to do with altruism. With regard to pensions (and insurance in general) a benefit is simply compensation for the price paid. You ask about fairness regarding money received based on the lifetime over which benefits are received. First, I don't believe I complained about this point. I was complaining about people not making the same payment for the same monthly benefit regardless of how long one receives those monthly benefits. With regard to any lifetime annuity life expectancy is simply a investment risk acknowledged by all. I hope to live longer while those that sell me the annuity hope I don't. Those the sell the annuity average there risk by selling annuities to many people. By doing so they can lower the cost of the annuity making it more attractive to me to purchase. The government doesn't have to do this since they can force me to pay. The governments also isn't required to invest the money I pay them. That's why social security is a Ponzi scheme. I'm not quite sure how this applies to the topic at hand. Well perhaps in the fact that the I have to choose social security and medicare without my own consent. The government plays the part of both of your farmers. Your right, that is something else indeed.

I have read all the posts on this topic, but still struggle with the concept of “fairness” which is at the core of this topic. Let’s say I’m selling beans. I sell them for the same price per pound to everyone. Is this not fair? Let’s say a rich man and a poor man each purchase five pounds. The price paid by the poor man represents a larger share of his income than it does for the rich man. Does this somehow make my pricing unfair? I don’t see how. Perhaps it would be fair if we each paid of fixed price tax per year once we reached the age of majority regardless of wealth or income. Take the yearly government expenditure, divide by the number of citizens above the age of majority and then send each such citizen a bill. Sounds fair to me. Such a plan I’m sure would lead to much lower taxes. Instead this topic is about a flat percentage per person. In such a system one would divide the yearly government expenditure by the combined income of citizens to determine the flat tax percentage. Each citizen would then pay that percentage of their income as taxation to the government. Such a system in my opinion would be far superior to our current system even though a person with a high income would unfairly pay more than a person with low income. Why do I consider this unfair. because they are both purchasing the same thing. Why do I think it is still superior to what we have now? Well be because those with low incomes would at least be paying something. The fact that they are paying something would again lead to lower taxes. By the way, most flat tax proposals I have seen still include a level of income below which a person would pay nothing. This builds in progressivity. Again tipping fairness against those with high income. With regard to entitlement programs swansont wrote… I have heard this argument often, but I find it completely strange. When one pays for social security, and medicare by payroll deduction they are purchasing personal retirement healthcare and retirement income benefits from the government. In the case of medicare the rich currently pay more for the same benefit than the poor. How is this fair? In the case of social security those that pay more in get more out but this is not a linear relationship to the amount paid. The fairness balance is still against the rich. Fortunately for now there is still an income cap preventing this unbalance from producing more unfairness. I’m afraid this cap will soon be eliminated. The next step will be to reduce the amount paid by the poor until it is zero, proving again the fairness in never much of a consideration. One last though on social security and medicare. Since each citizen is forced to pay under penalty for these benefits, the government better come through. That is why social security is the third rail of American politics. Each citizen is expecting to get what they already paid for.

What is the cause of hatred in the Islamic world towards the US and the West? The answer to that question is simple. Islamic culture and nations have many problems rooted in their traditions and religion. Fixing those problems would be difficult. Scapegoats are much more convenient. What I don’t understand is why some of us in the west are patsies enough to fall for it.

Such a plan might work great if we were willing to occationally nuke our adversaries. Who knows, after killing several million people we just might learn to get along. Somehow I don't think we would have the political will to see such a plan through. Those pesky moral objections might get in the way. So if we shifted to such a plan and someone called our bluff would you be willing to exterminate millions of their citizens? If not, how would such a plan work?

I wonder how such a proclamation would be received today?

I think Keith Olbermann's ratings were down and this gave NBC the excuse they needed to can him. That is a bit premature, he is currently only suspended. Also, it could just be a publicity stunt to get his ratings up. Maybe Keith is in negotiations with Fox News. Now that would be funny.

It was not referring to independent politicians but to independent voters. Independent voters don’t vote based on party but on which person they think is best regardless of party affiliation. They also swing their voting pattern based on current if not immediate circumstances. Ignoring party affiliation ignores the importance of majority in the house and senate. Swing voting based on current or immediate circumstances often gives the winning party the inappropriate impression that they have a mandate to push their favorite policies. Often times such a mandate was not the intention of the voters. In such circumstances the voters simply voted against the losers not for the winners. With regard to the advantages of gridlock, I often agree that gridlock is preferable. But I’m a conservative and conservatives always prefer the status quo over a move to the left.

"In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled nonlinear chaotic system, and therefore that long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible." - IPCC Third Assessment Report

I found this article interesting. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d67ed90a-e505-11df-8e0d-00144feabdc0.html It concludes with... But the election is not over. We will know more tomorrow.

This I agree with. Well, with the exception of the changes that would make you happy. The changes that Republicans want would piss off independent voters as well. Thats democracy for you. Changes generally happen very slowly. Lets not forget that GHWB went along with the Democrats and broke his no new taxes pledge. The Democrats then used this as a weapon against him to put Clinton in office. Ever wonder why Republicans dont make deals with Democrats? Other than the disastrous part I agree with the above. The Democratic party seems to be cobbled together from a diverse group of single issue voters. The Republicans have their single issue voters as well but not as many and most of those are opposed to their counter parts in the Democratic party (e.g. abortion). The Democratic party also seems incapable of dismissing any one of these single issue groups. Take animal rights groups like PETA. Sure you can find individuals in the Democratic party that will call their views extreme, but not the party. This gives the impression that the Democratic party isnt really genuine in expressing its true values. With regard to the disastrous comments I think you are getting a little melodramatic. One mans boon is another mans bane. The tea party in my opinion is a party in name only. There is very little true organization. Generally these are people that feel like they pay for government with little in return. They simply want less taxes and less government regulation. They feel like government regulation has painted the country into a corner. We now have a long list of cant dos that is keeping our economy and country down. They just want it stopped. I agree with the above but throw in with the Republicans. Majority representation in both houses of congress matters a lot. Independents just create gridlock. I would rather have the Democrats have their way for a time to see if their path works out. I dont think it will, but if Im wrong the country is in a better place so Im happy. If I'm right the country sees the error of its way and corrects course. The stimulus and health care are enough. How many trillions does it take before you think its real money? This step forward comment is to my point about not being genuine. I really think those that pretend to support health care know the current bill is unworkable. They really cant wait for it to fail so that they can have what they really want. A single payer system. I personally wish they would have just went nuclear and jammed that through. Too bad they dont have balls. I think people would have hated single payer and tossed it out quick. But we won't know because of the lack of Democratic courage. Another reason to vote the bums out. Stephen Colbert and John Stewart are just pushing their sarcasm stick. My hat is off to them because its been a good payday for them, but I dont take them seriously. Maybe you havent noticed. Things arent going too good for liberals and progressives in Europe lately. I wouldnt give up on America if I were you. I have been just about everywhere and wouldnt trade it. Obviously you havent spent much time with the older generations. The FDR generation, their children, and the Baby Boomers in the main are the bulk of liberals or progressives in America. They go and the county becomes more conservative. Those young people are going to have to pay for all those entitlements. What until they start paying real taxes. Then we will know just how progressive they are. Now here I think your wrong. Like I said above, the Tea party people dont see much direct benefit for the taxes they pay. Its not obvious to them. They see government getting in the way of things they want to do. Like destroying roads on public lands. They see government stopping development that they want that would also create jobs. Maybe you should find a youtube of the LBJ daisy commercial against Goldwater. Both play the game. You just agree with one side.

Which other Republican wars? I don’t recall significant economic hardship after the Gulf War. Perhaps you are referring to the Civil War? Even Obama believes the war in Afghanistan was/is necessary. In fact he has committed as many troops to Afghanistan as Bush. So that leaves the Iraq war. Perhaps your plural on war was a typo?

I completely agree with the above statement. A party line vote was a given from the get go after the 2008 election. If it wasn’t clear after the election it was certainly clear throughout the process. I don’t think it should have been a surprise to Democrats that Republicans want the country going in a different direction. So the Democrats knew they were going to own the bills they created. So why didn’t they just forget about attempting to create bipartisan bills and create bills that would convince independent voters to vote for them? Instead they created lousy bills that became law. Even Democrats and progressives hate them. Now Democrats and progressives are attempting to blame Republicans and Fox news. What a joke. Independents aren’t buying it.

I'm sorry, I just found this funny. Especially the "absolutely no link” part. http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-News/2010/1028/Osama-bin-Laden-threatens-French-troops-France-announces-pullout-from-Afghanistan

The title of this topic is “Why does the catholic church consider birth control immoral?” I’m simply trying to answer the question as I was taught. I’m not trying to argue.

I think the church would counter that people have a choice in having sex or not. Just like eating is natural, the church considers fasting to be a sign of piety, and gluttony to be a sin. Just because you are horny doesnt mean your sex acts are virtuous. The church also considers humans to be fallen. The sign that you are fallen is that you have a strong inclination to sin. They consider it a virtue to resist that inclination.

What I was taught as a Catholic is that God created humans with a specific nature. Human nature if you will. That fertility was part of that nature. To reject fertility would be to reject human nature. This would lead to humans being treated less than human. This would be particularly true of women. Women being treated as property both inside and outside of marriage. Prostitution is an example. Suffragists such as Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton arrived at this conclusion on their own and were decidedly pro-life. The Church holds that sexual abstinence respects the fertility of human nature. If you don’t want to have children, don’t have sex, because humans are naturally fertile. The Church argues the same with regard to the rhythm method of birth control. The rhythm method works naturally with human nature. I did not and do not practice this teaching in my own life, but this is my understanding of Catholic belief.

Bascule, I really recommend that you take a few deep breaths, count to ten, and then just turn them all off. Fox, MSNBC, Huffington Post, Glen Beck, Michael Moore, Michael Savage, and the rest of them. Just turn them off. It doesnt matter which side they fall on. Their goal is the same. That goal is to get your blood up. Thats how all of them make money. If you think Michael Savage is upset about the success of Michael Moore or vice a versa your wrong. They depend on each other. Just turn them off. You see a polarized America because you are polarized. The vast majority of Americans are the same as they have always been. They just want decent jobs, low taxes and freedom. They prefer to be isolationist. The regretfully except that isolationism often doesnt work. listening to those stirring the pot just clouds your reasoning. Complaining about them just focuses more attention on them.

No it really is about finding bin Laden. But please, be my guest, add and adjust away. Im wondering however about this rift you mention. I rift seems to imply some sort of intentional isolation between the two groups. It seems to me that one group does evil and the other group passes the blame onto others (Israel, the US, the West, Juan). You know like saying it understandable that someone should be murdered for drawing a picture or encouraging others to do so. Not shunned or ostracized but murdered. In a culture that cherishes their freedom of speech, even offensive speech, it seems odd that one cant even express fear of a culture that includes a tiny minority that not only condones such murder but has committed it. Even if that person expressing such fear publishes their opinions for a living. Particularly when the majority from that culture turns a blind eye to such murder. Perhaps those comments are best made on your Juan Williams topic. But if there is a rift as you mention, why can't those for peaceful conformity put some effort into stopping those of extremism. Oh yea, because its the fault of others. How dare I suggest otherwise.

That’s just a general region. We need an address. We want to minimize the collateral damage. He must have good run of the mill, fun loving Muslim neighbors. So why is he living so comfortably in their neighborhood? Why haven’t they at least run him out? But I keep hearing from Muslims that the actions of Al Qaeda are also forbidden by Muslim culture. Also consider the proportion of the two situations. The threat against Molly Norris has forced this woman to give up her life. Our government has put this woman in hiding. Her life is in danger. There are people trying to kill her. For suggesting people draw a picture. Now without bin-Laden and al-Zawahri there is no Iraq war, no Afghanistan war, no predator drones over Pakistan, and Juan's not nervous and still has his job. Now on the flip side, all your typical Muslim has to do is drop a dime on bin-Laden or al-Zawahri and we put a hellfire missile through his window from a predator drone. These are men that all but a tiny minority of Muslims admit are evil. Right? You know, all those Muslims that Juan's not supposed to be worried about. Like I said, why is it so hard to find these two men.

So the Juan Williams firing got me wondering. Seeing how we all agree that the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful, fun loving, middle of the road, get along types, why is it so hard to find that Osama bin Laden guy or his best buddy Ayman al-Zawahri. I mean both those guys have to be an embarrassment to all but a tiny minority of Muslims. Right? They have to be somewhere, and at the somewhere they must be surrounded by Muslims. I have also heard plenty of Muslims claim that Al Qaeda acts completely contrary to the teachings of Islam. So how is it that cartoonist Molly Norris had to enter an FBI witness protection type program for suggesting a draw Mohammed day, but bin-Laden and al-Zawahri live peacefully surrounded by Muslims? What am I missing?

Juan Williams irks the left simply by appearing on Fox. By being on Fox Juan gives credibility to Fox’s claim of being balanced. NPR is simply using his benign personal statement as an excuse to punish him, and to set an example to other liberals. NPR is simply saying to other liberals “Don’t go on Fox or you will be Juaned.

buy a motorcycle. You can find good used ones for cheap.

My perception is that this polarization represents only a small minority of the American population. Half of that minority listens to Fox news and their ilk, and the other half listens to MSNBC and their ilk. Both of these media organizations are simply catering to their audience in an attempt to sell the soap they advertize. The majority is not participating in this polarization. The media just wants you to think they are. The vast majority of Americans are tired of the noise and have turned it off. Unfortunately, those revved up by the hype also donate to the political parties. So both parties consider their half of the hysterical minority to be their base. So the majority have lost interest in politics in general. Perhaps cable and satellite TV are to blame. When I was young most cities in the US had about four channels to chose from. In the early evening every channel had news on at the same time for about an hour. That news was all very much the same. The networks tried to attract an audience and advertisers by having the best on screen personality (Walter Cronkite). Now we have many channels. Too many of those channels are 24 hour “news.” Much of that “news” is just opinion. Much of that opinion intended at gathering a audience shrunk by the spread of viewers over more channels. So each media outlet intentionally polarizes their audience in order to make them loyal viewers and purchasers of the products they advertise. Just turn them off. I think the internet by the way is making the above worse. Those already polarized just visit sites that reinforce their polarization. Thankfully most don’t use the internet for news and opinion.

What’s up with all the anger? I simply want different things from government than you do. Mainly I want less government and more freedom. I also wish our government and citizens would celebrate successful people. For example I wish our country had more Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, and Jack Welch types. I’m also thankful to all those wonderful people that provide me with that wonderful chemical, gasoline. It makes my life so much better. Now regarding the above, I respect your opinions, but please provide me a post where you more clearly identify these statements of fact you mention. With regard to the “cycle” I was mentioning the political cycle not a deficit cycle. The deficit is a different matter. Republicans like deficit spending because it stops the creation of large new social programs. Look, no single payer health care. The Democratic solution to every problem is more spending. What did the stimulus buy us? One thing I noticed this year while burning gasoline was that the almost the entire shenandoah skyline drive and blue ridge parkway was repaved. Also the going to the sun road in glacier national park. These three roads prohibit commercial traffic. Also I’m sure the “your stimulus dollars in action” sign makers were rolling in cash. Those suckers were everywhere. How is it better? If it’s so much better why are they wavering companies (McDonalds) and unions (Teachers) out of it. Yes, I really do believe that. I appreciate that not everyone wants to serve their country by the military option but many do. I respect and appreciate their service. Did you ever think that it’s shrinking because government is growing? Less business regulation and less taxes. Now you might think that less regulation got us into this mess by having less regulation on banking. Not so. The government forced banks through regulation to loan money to people that could not afford to pay it back. Then they allowed Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac securitize those bad loans to pawn them off on the world. Thankfully Iceland, Ireland, and Scotland bought up so much of it. Sucker born every minute. Never watch TV news. Never visit the Fox News web site. I am sometimes taken there by hyperlinks. Perhaps you should turn of MSNBC. I do believe you are a middle of the roader. Pick a side it’s more fun. By the way some games aren’t worth playing. If congress puts up a full extension of the Bush tax cuts however, my guess is you will have more than all the Republicans voting for it.