OT: Look at this shit

"Scott" <pugetsounddiver@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:cBaje.49$oI2.4103@news.uswest.net...
> And they still cant figure out why they lose elections to drunken AWOL
coke
> snorters.
>
> http://www.moveonpac.org/savetherepublic/
>
>
>

I do find it interesting that there are minorities protesting in favor of
the filibuster.
I mean, it has a time-honored tradition of blocking::
anti-lynching legislation (Democrats)
anti-poll-tax legislation (Democrats)
civil rights (Democrats)

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/...er_Cloture.htm
Wow! they changed the rules in 1917!
And zowie! again in 1975!

And the Republic stood. The sun rose, the stars continued to shine....

Dennis

"Dennis (Icarus)" <nojunkmail@ever.invalid> wrote in message
news:67fac$428d48cd$18d638f7$22048@KNOLOGY.NET...

> I do find it interesting that there are minorities protesting in favor of
> the filibuster.
> I mean, it has a time-honored tradition of blocking::
> anti-lynching legislation (Democrats)
> anti-poll-tax legislation (Democrats)
> civil rights (Democrats)
>
>
http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/...libuster_Clotu
re.htm
> Wow! they changed the rules in 1917!
> And zowie! again in 1975!
>
> And the Republic stood. The sun rose, the stars continued to shine....

And We still have guns.

And they still cant figure out why they lose elections to drunken AWOL coke
snorters.

http://www.moveonpac.org/savetherepublic/

"Scott" <pugetsounddiver@gmail.com> wrote:

> And they still cant figure out why they lose elections to drunken
> AWOL coke snorters.

As it has been said, there's the crooked party and the stupid party.


The reason that this is all so pathetic is because if they want to vote
on these judges (or anything else, for that matter) that the minority
currently opposes, all it takes is 60 Senators to decide to override the
filibuster and get on with business...no changing of the rules or
traditions need apply.

But once again, we have a 'Nuclear' policy being attempted by a narrow
majority instead of them accepting the fact that they are merely a
narrow majority instead of a broad mandate.


FWIW, the whole Social Security 'savings account' bit is YA lie, for it
has never been against the law to choose to save more than you make.

What gets dang scary about the SS debate is that with United Airlines
now also being allowed to bail out of their employee's pension plan, the
rest of US businesses have a strong fiscal motivation to duplicate that
cost cut for themselves, even though it is being done by purposefully
breaching their (literal and social) contracts with their employees (and
probably while keeping their golden parachutes for their executives).

Uncle's either going to have to step in to take over all of industry's
Retirements & Pensions, which means that the SSA has to grow by more
than tenfold, or grow a pair and stop pension fund nonsense now.

Unfortunately, either way, the cost to the individual taxpayer has
already gone up. Since we're already running a deficit, a tax increase
(IMO, a big one, probably around +20%) is mathematically inevitable.

Which means that its better for us little guys to save on our own with
our existing "post tax" income because the "pre tax" savings plan that
they may trying to tempt us with today is going to get whaled on.


-hh

Whoops!

I meant to say "Spend less than you make", since what you don't spend
is what you're able to save.

Although perhaps it might be better to say "Spend A LOT less than you
make", since US personal savings rates hit a huge slippery slope
roughly ten years ago, and dropped from their historical average of 8%
to now under 1%.

The Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco has a pretty good bar chart
to illustrate:
http://www.frbsf.org/education/activ...2002/0202.html

Note that the chart is only thru 2001 and that 2002-present have all
been worse than 2001...under 1% per annum.. For March 2005, our savings
rate was 0.5%, which is actually an increase from last November, when
it hit an incredibly low 0.3%. Thse numbers are generational lifetime
historical lows.

What all of this means is that most of us need to do more than simply
saving 8%...we need to also make "catch up" payments for having skipped
over the past decade. Simplistically, you'll need to save around 16%
for the next decade just to have a chance of catching up.


-hh

"H Huntzinger" <{NOSPAM-rm_to_reply}rec-scuba2005@huntzinger.com> wrote in
message
news:{NOSPAM-rm_to_reply}rec-scuba2005-E0B52B.06534020052005@news.giganews.com...
<snip>

> FWIW, the whole Social Security 'savings account' bit is YA lie, for it
> has never been against the law to choose to save more than you make.

I'd love to know how to save more than I make. Could you give me
instructions?

I can easily see saving less than I make and I can stretch to see saving the
same amount as I make, but saving more?

"-hh" <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote in message
news:1116602161.646643.303840@g47g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
> What all of this means is that most of us need to do more than simply
> saving 8%...we need to also make "catch up" payments for having skipped
> over the past decade. Simplistically, you'll need to save around 16%
> for the next decade just to have a chance of catching up.

Realistically, it'd have to be more than that to make up for lost interest.


I'd say around 18-20% should more or less do the trick.

"Chris Guynn" <chris.guynn@gmail.com> wrote:

> "-hh" <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote in message
> news:1116602161.646643.303840@g47g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
> > What all of this means is that most of us need to do more than simply
> > saving 8%...we need to also make "catch up" payments for having skipped
> > over the past decade. Simplistically, you'll need to save around 16%
> > for the next decade just to have a chance of catching up.
>
> Realistically, it'd have to be more than that to make up for lost interest.
>
>
> I'd say around 18-20% should more or less do the trick.


I ran some quick KISS numbers at 18% and they suggested 14 years until
you get caught up.

However, since an 18% savings rate would be around $500/month to figure
out how to pay out of the average guy's ($41K/year) budget, its IMO
pretty unlikely that a zero saver would be able to jump this high
straight away...even if he were to trade in the big leased SUV and give
up diving.

And for scuba divers, since demographically we're of higher income, this
"monthly savings bill" would generally be even higher.


-hh

"H Huntzinger" <{NOSPAM-rm_to_reply}rec-scuba2005@huntzinger.com> wrote in
message
news:{NOSPAM-rm_to_reply}rec-scuba2005-74F0A1.08232121052005@news.giganews.com...

> However, since an 18% savings rate would be around $500/month to figure
> out how to pay out of the average guy's ($41K/year) budget, its IMO
> pretty unlikely that a zero saver would be able to jump this high
> straight away...even if he were to trade in the big leased SUV and give
> up diving.
>
> And for scuba divers, since demographically we're of higher income, this
> "monthly savings bill" would generally be even higher.

That all depends on how we want to live when we're old and decrepit. I
spend a lot on myself today because I'm young and virile and want good
memories to last for the time when I'm sitting in a little retirement
trailer in Florida watching the starfish crawl. All I'll need then is
enough to cover my slip fee, medical expenses which Medicare doesn't cover,
and a little food and booze. If Social Security doesn't cover it all, I can
set aside a portion of my current income. But why should it be a larger
portion than the average guy, unless I want to golf?

"H Huntzinger" <{NOSPAM-rm_to_reply}rec-scuba2005@huntzinger.com> wrote in
message
news:{NOSPAM-rm_to_reply}rec-scuba2005-E0B52B.06534020052005@news.giganews.c
om...

> Which means that its better for us little guys to save on our own with
> our existing "post tax" income because the "pre tax" savings plan that
> they may trying to tempt us with today is going to get whaled on.

Another thing that baffles me is there are people who have very good
retirement incomes, independant of Uncle Sugar, and dont want the pittance
from SSA, but the SSA wont let them opt out and use the money for people who
need it more. SS funds are nothing more or less than a bank account
legislators dip into as they please, for whatever vote buying pork project
they want to put on.

My family has been here in the US since the early 1600's.

To a man, we retire when they shovel dirt on our coffin.