U.S. Politics, 8

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Lev,

No, I mean the money would have been available to them when they retired has it not been spent as general revenue.

[The Progressive]

Lev,

No, I mean the money would have been available to them when they retired has it not been spent as general revenue.

And it's not available to them now, Scot?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Lev,

It would be available to them without SS having to raise additional revenues or lower payments to retires to make all the promised payments.

[The Progressive]

Lev,

It would be available to them without SS having to raise additional revenues or lower payments to retires to make all the promised payments.

Scot,

You do realize that the money contributed to Social Security (irregardless of whether or not it was loaned to the general fund) by your average babyboomer isn't enough for payment if they continues to live for decades after retirement, yes?

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Jeremy Siegel, another Penn finance professor, claims that if someone invested $1 in the beginning of the 1800s, it would have increased to less than $2 by 2006, when factoring in inflation. Stocks, during the same period, would have skyrocketed.

That makes it a phenomenal hedge. It's worth the same now as it was then. Hedge != investment

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Lev,

I believe I've pointed out, a number of times, that the average age of Death when SS was created was higher than the age benefits started when SS was created so, in answer to your question, Yes. That said had the money been put aside and allowed to accrue interest the problem wouldn't be nearly as bad.

[The Progressive]

That makes it a phenomenal hedge. It's worth the same now as it was then. Hedge != investment

And something that would have worth more is an even superious hedge, regardless whether or not you call it "investment" or "tulips".

I believe I've pointed out, a number of times, that the average age of Death when SS was created was higher than the age benefits started when SS was created so, in answer to your question, Yes. That said had the money been put aside and allowed to accrue interest the problem wouldn't be nearly as bad.

And the problem wouldn't be as bad if changes in retirement age and/or lowering of guaranteed payment is enacted, right Scot?

[Commodore]

Stephen Colbert, Defending Immigrant Farm Workers, Takes Show to Capitol Hill :laugh:

LINK

At that point, Conyers thanked Colbert for showing up and asked him to leave the room. Colbert seemed confused. Was Conyers asking him not to speak? No, Conyers said, he was asking him to leave altogether.

"You run your show," Conyers said. "We run the committee."

Colbert said he was there at the invitation of Lofgren and would do whatever she asked. Seeking a moment to think, Lofgren asked Republican Rep. Dan Lungren to speak for a few moments while she decided what to do.

Colbert stayed in place as the other witnesses made opening statements. When Colbert's turn came, Conyers briefly interrupted to say that he was withdrawing his request for Colbert to leave.

Then Colbert began his testimony, which was an in-character schtick based on a one-day visit to an upstate New York farm. "This is America," Colbert said. "I don't want a tomato picked by a Mexican." As the hearing went on, Colbert said things like, "I was a cornpacker…cornpacker is a derogatory term for a gay Iowan."

Groan.

This is a huge mistake. Ridiculing the views of those you are trying to persuade will not help your side get elected.

Implying that people who are concerned about illegal immigration are racists is not clever, it's juvenile and insulting to people that have those concerns (a majority of the public).

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

And something that would have worth more is an even superious hedge, regardless whether or not you call it "investment" or "tulips".

I'm not sure if you know what a hedge is. When you invest, to take on risk of loss in the hope of future gain. You put your money in a hedge because it neither loses or gains. You are afraid of the volatility of the market so you lock your cash up tight to ride out the storm.

[The Progressive]

You put your money in a hedge because it neither loses or gains. You are afraid of the volatility of the market so you lock your cash up tight to ride out the storm.

Here's the thing ......... the goldbugs buy gold because they expect it to gain enough value to beat inflation at least; otherwise they could have just put their money under their mattress. However, historical data points out that there are other instruments (like stocks) that are more effective as hedge because it does a better job at beating inflation.

[Shryke]

Tracker,

Why did Congress raid the SS trust fund in the first place?

For the reason reason they always have:

Because raising taxes is hard or "bad" or whatever your excuse is.

It's easier to shuffle the money around with a few IOUs then to actually raise income to cover expenses.

[Shryke]

Hey, maybe we should consider that gold prices are rising because an entire side of the US political spectrum is feeding that paranoia?

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Here's the thing ......... the goldbugs buy gold because they expect it to gain enough value to beat inflation at least; otherwise they could have just put their money under their mattress. However, historical data points out that there are other instruments (like stocks) that are more effective as hedge because it does a better job at beating inflation.

Dude, you are completely missing the point. Gold does not beat inflation. It almost exactly matches it. If you put your money under the mattress, and there is 3% annual inflation, in 1 year that money will be worth 3% less. If you invest it in gold, in 1 year that gold with fetch 3% more cash. Yes, the stock market would probably have got you 5% in that amount of time, but it might also have got you 1%. People put money in gold to maintain their purchasing power over time.

As an example, an old adage says that 1 oz of gold will buy you a really nice suit. If you look back through history, this is true. 1 oz. of gold has got you a suit for hundreds of years. So, you could invest that money and possibly buy 2 nice suits in a couple years. But, if all you're looking for is to make sure that you can still buy the same suit, you hedge. Gold is the best hedge we've got (a lot better than polar bears anyway).

[Swordfish]

All they had to do was have a stand alone bill and they would have gotten enough GOP members to go along.

They would rather have the political issue than use their majority to affect change. Exactly the opposite of what Obama's campaign was all about.

Attaching contentious social policy to defense authorization bills is as cynical as it gets.

Yep.

This is the same debate we had about the 9/11 medical bill.

[Shryke]

How about Glen Beck? He's got a HUGE scam going on with Gold Line.

It's actually hilarious how scummy that whole set up is.

[alguien]

Yep.

This is the same debate we had about the 9/11 medical bill.

Aye. I thought TDS had a decent (and pretty balanced) take on this:

Are We Run By Assholes?

How does a popular bill not become a law?

[Shryke]

I doubt that the rising price of gold is something you can blame solely on the Republicans.

The whole PIIGS debacle in Europe is just as much of a factor.

No, not entirely certainly. But it's suspiciously similar to the rise in gun sales when a Democrat gets elected.

Paranoid people will be paranoid.

All it tells us it that there's a bunch of people out there nervous about the economy, which is a big "No Shit".

[Shryke]

It can also, at least in the short term, devalue our currency.

Again, it doesn't matter how right or wrong we think it is. If enough people get scared, the price of gold could be $5k/ounce.

How?

[TrackerNeil]

I have a long-term goal to start a gun store which will open up around when the next Democratic president gets elected. It's just hard to know when this will be. I think it will need to be the next Dem that follows a Republican. So maybe a Republican wins in 2016 and wins re-election in 2020. If a Dem wins in 2024, I really need to be ready with my gun shop to take advantage of the run on guns that will inevitably take place.

Good idea. Nevermind that Democratic presidents really don't take away anyone's guns, but as long as the gun maniacs think they do...well, at least someone should profit from insanity.

[Shryke]

Yep.

This is the same debate we had about the 9/11 medical bill.

Nah, this was a slightly different kind of bullshit where the GOP demanded 20 amendments to the bill to try and force a bunch of stuff through. The DREAM act was just Reid's way of telling them to go fuck themselves.

Basically the same thing though.

Also, it's ludicrous to believe the GOP would have voted to repeal DADT on it's own.