finknottle
-
Posts
2,652 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by finknottle
-
-
Look, this is not a serious proposal. It is *not* intended to pass.
I think Obama is officially in full campaign mode, and that their strategy is to look to Truman's unexpected victory. Barring a miraculous economic recovery, he is gambling on the economy and the jobs situation still being in the tank in 14 months. He wants to run against a 'do nothing' congress that refuses to pass the measures he claims will turn things around.
For that to work, however, he has to make sure that his proposals don't get adopted lest he find himself in November defending another failed stimulus. Best way to keep Congress from considering it is to make it DOA with measures he can also use to paint the Republicans as protecting the rich.
-
Right because it's either one or the other. There's no way they could spend more money without losing money?
What is the scenario where spending an additional $20 million in salary earns the team more than $20 million in additional profits?
Maybe attendence increases 13,000 a game. That's about an additional 100,000 tickets sold. $2 million in profit? $4 million at the most. So where does the other $16 million come from? Luxury boxes from all the Fortune 500 companies in Buffalo? Selling an extra million jerseys? I just don't think there is alot of room for revenue growth.
-
Which introduces another wrinkle that is popular with those running defined benefit plans. What happens when your calculations say that you haven't put away enough to end up with $50,000 at retirement time? Simple --- just fudge the assumed rate of return on your pension assets! That's been happening for years at the government level.
It also shows an unintended consequence of pensions and government regulation. What happens to a company in a bad economic downturn and in which the stock market drops 20%? Just when they need their cash the most to get through the slow-down, the value of their pension funds drop requiring them to shore that up instead.
-
Sure there are liabilites in the future...but do you have to pay for them all today? Isn't this a budgeting issue?
I am not arguing that the post office doesn't need some fixing, but some of you (maybe not you) are acting as though this issue is caused by the postal employees, who I would argue, do a terrific job, by and large. To pretend that exclusively privatizing postal services will make the service better doesn't really ring true. The post office is self sustaining, and it seems this requirmentr of funding pensions 75 years into the future, for employees that aren't even born yet, is a sure fire way to destroy something that works. What is happening with that money, in the mean time? I seriously doubt it all sitting tidily in some vault somewhere, waiting to be paid out...I would bet it is being borrowed for other government programs.
KD in CT answered this at length, but let me clarify the key point: 100% funded doesn't mean what you think, and the money isn't just sitting there. 100% funded means you have invested enough money now so that it is estimated to grow into enough money later. In other words, if you expect to cut a $50,000 pension check in 20 years, paying $5,000 into the pension fund now makes it 100% funded. That $5,000 isn't sitting in a vault, it is busy becoming the required $50,000.
In some sense it's like a 401k - a certain amount of your money is set aside for your retirement. The difference is that investing involves risk. With your 401k, your money might grow slower or faster than you expect. With a pension, you get what you expect, and the company gains or loses on the investment.
-
I watched it all. Overall impressions:
1. Loaded questions. Perry: Texas executes more than any other state. How do you sleep at night knowing you might execute an innocent? Santorum: You claim Catholicism guides your political life. How do you reconcile caring for the poor with the Republican Party? Perry: We've established your state has the worst schools in the country. How do you reconcile cutting the education budget? Etc. Also, lotsa questions intended to start fights. Huntsman: Your political advisor said the Rep Party is full of cranks and the other candidates are crazies. Who on this stage do you think is crazy? Other than some predictable friction, the candidates were generally restrained.
2. Almost no questions that had anything to do with the Obama Administration.
3. Stacked format. Candidates were Perry and Romney in the center, trailing out by poll standing. Distribution of questions reflected that (eg 20 to Perry, 5 to Santorum), the exception being Huntsman on the far end, who got as many as Paul/Bachman at 10. They made it a 2-person show.
4. Most patronizing moment: the MSNBC questioners, who otherwise posed all the questions, chose to introduce some guy from Telemundo to ask the 10 immigration questions. If this were not enough, on introducing him the host said "Hi, how are you my friend?" Weird.
Individually (based on performance, not my ideological preferences):
Romney; I think he did very well again, made no mistakes, had a few moments of passion.
Perry: Came off ok in the first debate, not as smooth as the rest, but ready to take on every candidate. Shaky in the latter half discussing the bigger issues.
Gingrich: Made the most of his 5 questions, absurd as they were (In the forward to Perry's book you called him a fine economist. How do you respond?) He is hands-down the best debater.
Huntsman: Came off better than I expected, polished and more forcefull than previously. But other than the previously-mentioned question was served nothing but softballs.
Bachman: Was ok, but largely ignored by the questioners. Fading fast.
Santorum: Solid performance again. Of all the candidates, he does the most to stay relevant despite being ignored.
Cain: Solid performance, but now completely invisible. Ignored by the panel.
Paul: As usual, what starts as reasonably-given answers devolved into off-putting rants. Oddest moment: insisting that he could get the price of gas down to a dime. How? By going back to the gold/silver standards, a silver dime would be worth about 3 bucks...
-
For 75 years?
401k's are the defacto pensions today, and they are 100% funded - the money goes in now, and it is what it is.
But for those few companies that still offer a pension component, I believe the requirements vary by the size of the company, with 50 years being the norm. Though to be honest, I'm not sure I understand the significance of that window - how many current employees can be expected to be drawing a pension 75 years from now? Or 50, for that matter? The key parameters appears to be the investment requirement and the estimated return. There is a complicated formula based on the difference between the company assets and the projected outlays, with an estimated rate of return for money set aside now. The amount of pension money invested (under those assumptions) must close the gap within some percentage over that period.
-
"Rolando lays out the real root of the problem: "The problem lies elsewhere: the 2006 congressional mandate that the USPS pre-fund future retiree health benefits for the next 75 years, and do so within a decade, an obligation no other public agency or private firm faces. The roughly $5.5 billion annual payments since 2007 — $21 billion total — are the difference between a positive and negative ledger."
Don't know about you, but my pension is by law 100% funded - it's called a 401k. If you are refering only to a traditional pension, private firms offering them are also required to pre-fund.
-
Don't look at it as $500 million down the drain.
Look at it as $500 million to employ 1,000 worker for two years. That's what people call a stimulus.
-
or was that just a Buffalo Stampede
Earthquake in Virginia, 5.8
-
yup-long tremor
I am in Virginia and I felt it.
I kid you not.
-
If I have my dates right, Nix and Gailey own this team about 18 months after the Obama Administration admits it owns the economy.
-
Although it's not really an option here, it's worth mentioning what they do in rugby.
First, in rugby a touchdown (worth 5) isn't scored until you touch the ball down on the ground (leaving open the dramatic possibility of being pushed back or out of bounds).
Second, the extra point (worth 2) is a sort-of unopposed drop-kick from the 22. But that's not the interesting bit.
The interesting bit is that the spot of the kick on the 22 isn't from the center of the field (making it easy), but rather from where the ball was touched down in the endzone. That means you really prefer to score in the middle of the field, because if you score in the corner you are kicking from the 22 close to the sideline. In addition to being a much farther kick, the angle of the goal posts is so narrow that you practically need to curve the kick in. In all, it introduces much more excitement and drama. If you are down by 7 in the closing minutes, diving into the corner of the endzone may or may not be enough...
-
Shame on PBS for running another agenda-driven piece using research that had already been debunked.
The original study had set out to show how unenlightened US wealth inequality was, and they used Sweden as a comparison. Unfortunately, Sweden's data didn't serve their purpose. So instead, they compared US wealth distribution to Sweden's income distribution to get the inflammatory pie charts they needed for the survey.
Had they used accurate pie charts, it would have looked something like this:
http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/03/25/swedish-inequality-datapoint-of-the-day/
-
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/61315.html
Big boost for the Bachmann candidacy. Ron Paul comes in a close second.
Biggest loser IMO was Huntsman. 69 votes total
Not that any of it matters. I never quite understood what the big deal with the Iowa Strawpoll was
Don't think of it as an election, think of it as a job fair. If your strategy for the nomination involves Iowa, you need to fight for the Iowa activists. The straw poll weeds out weaker candidates, freeing up their operatives to sign on with the candidates they think can win.
-
It boggles the mind that little people who mean NOTHING to these big, greedy companies still defend them.
If you have a pension or a mutual fund, then as a shareholder you probably do mean something to them. That's where the money they make goes - it's returned to the people who choose to invest in them.
-
Yeah, I know. Fox should really be ashamed of how they ran that debate. They aren't, but they should be. It was very MTV-ish. Tons of misquotes/out of context quotes, gotcha questions, and then the focus on the cat-fight. The only thing it was missing was a Snookie sighting.
Your take was was almost identical to mine, though I'm perhaps more charitable to Santorum. Whiney, yes. But I was impressed with his taking on the unpopular topics of compromise and the neccessity of raising the debt ceiling. I was prejudiced against him when this all started, and he has risen a bit in my estimation. I don't think he has a chance, but there is a little more depth to him than I had been led to believe.
I too was astonished at the level of gotcha's and instigation by the moderators. They were generally more focused on challenging the records (not neccessarily a bad thing in itself) than encouraging a debate about ideas.
-
Did anyone see the Iowa Republican debate last night? I missed it just curious what the cliff notes were from those who saw it. thanks
I have this goofy thing about watching all the debates closely. I score the candidates on each question on
1. did they evade or actually answer the question
2. did they come off as presidential
3. did I personally like the answer.
I find doing it that way quite interesting.
Anyway, to your question of impressions. I thought Romney did fine. He was uncomfortable and rushed at the beginning, but settled down into his reassuring adult persona. A competant defensive night.
Bachman held her own, but lacked the spark of her NH debate. She engaged heavily with Pawlenty and Santorum on her congressional achievements, and I think the back-and-forth slowly diminished her. She solidified her appeal as a fighter, but thats about it. Not much offered in the way of ideas.
Pawlenty was more agressive and perhaps a bit better than in the past, but I think came off as too much of a politician with the deadly tint of desperation.
Huntsman was better than I expected, but left no lasting impression.
Santorum came off rather well, but grew to seem whiney about not getting time. He had some fireworks with Paul over Iran.
I think Paul came off badly again, speaking a mile a minute and always ending his answers in a rant. On content, I don't see how anybody can support his foreign policy views (though clearly many do).
Cain was ok, but a non-entity. He had little time, and lacked the magic of the SC debate.
I was most impressed with Gingrich. Almost without exception, he hit every question out of the ball park with an interesting and seeming genuine and uncalculated answer. If he had any media love at all, he would be a very formidible contender.
The debate itself was heavily skewed towards the economy, suprising on the eve of the Iowa straw poll. Social issues accounted for only 10% of the questions, and of those half were merely gotcha questions (such as asking Gingrich if he really thought muslims were commies). There were really only about 5 legit social questions, revolving on whether marriage was properly a federal or state issue.
Highlights of the night were Cain saying (in response to his adding alligators to Obamas claim that the repubs wanted a moat on the border) that this country really need to learn to take a joke, Gingrich going after the media on gotcha questions, and Gingrich blasting the idea of super comittees.
-
Ok, fair to who exactly?
And WTF does fair have to do with our economic system. Isn't fair a rather subjective thing anyway?
Don't ask me, ask the Left who has made demanding that the wealthy pay their fair share in taxes a mantra. And that's the point of this thread: an opportunity to let their advocates spell out exactly what that means.
Do you support Obama's calls for the wealthy to pay their fair share? If so, what number is fair? Or are you rejecting his calls as devoid of meaning?
-
You need to do one of several things...
1. Pay back into the system that allows you to make $500K or the system that allows you to make $500K will fall apart.
2. Come up with a better system and start your own country.
3. Move to a country which is using a better system.
Good luck!
Untill you take a position on what fair share actually is, I can only assume from your postings that you will always define it as 'more,' regardless of whether they pay 50%, 80%, or 99% of their income.
-
I find this funny. It's the same ol' crap. If it wasn't for the guy making the decisions (making $400k) the other guy wouldn't be anything. People have to remember the guy making $400k also isn't doing the down and dirty work which in many cases keeps a company moving. Same thing can also be said that the guy making $400k can also be the one who F's over other workers by making bad decisions.
And what if I live and work overseas? Why is the US demanding my money in excess of what I pay the local government?
-
here's an answer: a sliding scale percentage ( the current progressive tax scheme would do minus the bush tax cuts) of disposable income. after paying a median rent/mortgage, buying food and transportation and without loopholes
The current progressive tax scheme *with the Bush tax cuts* is still a sliding scale precentage of disposable income. The 'after paying' stuff is accounted for by the personal deduction.
The question remains - if I earn $500k, what is my fair share of taxes? How much should I be allowed to keep?
Here's a separate question: If I am single and earning 200k, I am told I am rich and need to pay my fair share through higher taxes. But what if I earn 200k because I am busting my butt for a few years working 80 hrs a week at two 100k jobs, trying to get ahead and save for the future? Am I still considered rich and therefore not paying my fair share?
-
Life is unfair. Whoever told you it should be was lying to you.
You pay back into a system that allows you to thrive so that that system can exist. The system is much more than just you - it includes everyone. The yield of this very complex system is a certain percentage of rich, a certain percentage of poor and a full spectrum in between. A better system might produce fewer poor people, reducing the need for relatively higher-earners like yourself to pay back into that same system which allows you to do so well. Tweak or change the system or suck it up and quit crying about what's fair and unfair and what ought to be.
In Soviet Russia, you would have other things to cry about.
How about answering the posters question? It is fairly straight forward.
If I earn a million dollars, say, what is my 'fair share' as a percentage of my income? How much of that money is it fair for me to keep?
-
I blame the Tea Party.
-
I just want everyone to think about this just for a second. If we were to go back to the gold standard, meaning that the value of the dollar would be pegged to gold, then that would mean that the value of the dollar would largely depend on the amount of gold that is mined. Meaning gold supplies would dictate the value of the dollar. Does that make sense?
And so the value of the dollar would be dependent upon the will of the gold mining nations. How does that sound?
Gold mining production (2009):
1. China - 320,000 kg
2-6. South Africa, Australia, Russia, US, Peru - about 200,000 kg.
Might as well go to the oil standard.
Nobody got rich in this Country on their own???
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
You might as well claim that there is *nothing* that a person does completely on their own, that the very phrase 'completely on their own' is meaningless in an inter-connected universe.
It may win points in a debate on formal logic, but makes discussion pretty useless.