Y2HH

QUOTE (Tex @ Dec 21, 2010 -> 09:40 AM) It's hard to put the cat back in the bag, but if somehow SS could be the fall back, or second source of retirement income, I'd be more comfortable with a private option. It stopped being the "safety net" a long time ago for the majority of Americans. I think it is still very much the safety net for the majority of Americans. I know many senior citizens that would have NO income with out it, and that number will merely grow. A majority of Americans are in debt (not via mortgage debt or student loan debt), but outright debt. They will have no savings when they retire aside from SS.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 21, 2010 -> 09:35 AM) It's an all-or-nothing thing by nature, and it would harm way more than it would help while enriching a very small handful of people. Sounds like a pretty terrible idea to me. Exactly, like I said, it would benefit people like myself. But for all the others who try, fail and lose everything...then what? It would cause more potential problems than it would solve. For the good of the many, this needs to be left alone, despite the fact that it would benefit me.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 21, 2010 -> 08:50 AM) This is an interesting discussion topic - how money in Social Security should be invested. I've always been on the fence on this topic, because I see really good arguments for any number of methodologies, ranging from the current status quo, all the way to full-on privitization. Probably something in between is a good idea. I actually supported W's general idea on this, to allow for elective choice in investment of social security money. This can be harder to explain on line than in person, unfortunately, but I'll give it a try. The #1 reason why privatization of Social Security is a bad idea is because I'd estimate that 95% of the American public have no idea how to invest, not even in something like a 401k. They don't understand what a cost basis is, how it works, and most take more aggressive routes regardless of other options. Also, most have no idea how mutual funds or indexes work, or what they've even invested in or why. They read a 1 page Morningstar report and made the decision to invest in THAT fund because Morningstar rated it 4 stars+ and right in the middle of safe and aggressive. Bad idea. Now add in the "pay for advice" givers that would inevitably come out of the woodwork, showing that their clients have made more money on average than traditional Social Security gains in the past 5 years. While 5 years sounds like a really great investment track record for most Americans, it's not, but it would be enough to gain the trust of many. Enter the first bull market and they'll have their way when they show impossibly huge gains over the past 12 months, people will want to jump on that bandwagon and start investing in mutual funds making such gains. Fast forward a decade or two, everything looking wonderful...and one big crash can wreck it all. Look at the 2000's, the lost decade of investment, for example. In the end, many would or could end up with nothing and now you have a REAL problem on your hands as they've blown their safety nets...and we now have to enact NEW entitlements because we can't, as a civilized nation, just let our elders rot in poverty due to poor decisions, con jobs, or otherwise. Privatization of Social Security would benefit me, for example -- but I'm not the majority I'm worried about. I know how to invest, and you may know how to invest, so it would benefit you, too...but most people do NOT know how to invest, and we would wind up with more people losing than winning. In this case, we cannot end up with more losing than winning...not with Social Security. In the end, the SAFEST investment is the exact investments that Social Security is allowed to make right now, and I think it needs to remain that way, because IMO, this is one safety net we cannot afford to mess up even more...and opening it up would do exactly that for the majority.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 21, 2010 -> 08:45 AM) The price goes up in the recurring cost, because that's the REAL cost of doing that job. But you then don't have the pension overhead issues. Seems like your argument makes a case FOR privitization of social security, not against it. Your concerns are about mismanagement of a future cash flow scenario - if the money is invested in the markets, you don't have that risk. Instead, your risk and reward is tied to the success of the businesses in this country (or whatever investment assets you choose). And when I say outsourcing, I don't mean help desks in India. I mean, generally, private business taking over operations where they can and should. No, I'm against privatization of social security, no where did I make a point that shows otherwise. I think a 401k is better than a pension, but I do NOT think a 401k implementation on social security is a good idea in ANY way.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Dec 21, 2010 -> 07:53 AM) Good God. What is up with this headline at Huffington? Getting something like that isn't a major victory. That's one of the basics that you automatically get signed no matter who the President is. I don't care if the opposition party is being big dicks about it but I don't consider this a "major victory". This reminds me of that old Chris Rock bit where he talks about people who say s*** like "I take care of my kids". No s***. You're supposed to take care of your kids. You want a cookie? Well, it's a major victory for the people...but for one party or the other, I agree...you get that done regardless of politics.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 21, 2010 -> 08:38 AM) Public workers do get a lot more than private workers on average...if you fail to control for education and for experience level. If you look at the average pay that you would get for the same job for a public position versus a private position, the differences vanish, and it winds up being a question of the exact type of work you're really doing. The "Public workers are overpaid!" meme is another of those things Fox News loves to harp on, that ought to tell you how accurate it is. I think the big equalizer here is that the bottom end salaries of public workers tend to be higher, but the top end is FAR lower, if you can get that far in the private sector, anyway. And I'm not talking about millionaire executives, but managers, etc. Their reputation also has a lot to do with reading things every other day about people like Todd Strogers 2nd cousins friend who was making 120,000 a year and stealing 20,000 contracts, etc. While I made up that specific story, Strogers been involved in a NUMBER of things like this, as have many MANY others in the public sector. While they're in the minority of most public workers, it's all you read about these days, so it's starting to sound like it's "everyone".

QUOTE (Tex @ Dec 21, 2010 -> 08:28 AM) The numbers I heard showed higher support the further from combat you were and reduced to less than 50% for units in combat. These numbers could be fuzzy depending on who was asked in the military. I'm sure there are many out of the hundreds of thousands of troops that do not care, but if you happen to grab the wrong sample size, the numbers could/would look much differently. Back to my original point, it shouldn't matter...but it does.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 21, 2010 -> 08:18 AM) Outsourcing the job to the private sector consistently proves more expensive as well in terms of actual budgeting. It's another of those political games...you get to be nice to a contributor and you get to take the salary officially off your books, but when you do the real math, the price goes up significantly. I somewhat agree with Balta on this one, but have a few observations (don't I always?) in regard to a few things mentioned here. One of the historic benefits of government jobs (public works, etc.), was two fold. 1) Job security. 2) Pensions. Speaking on the latter, we see what they've done with Pensions, how they've abused them, stolen from them, or bastardized them to the point they're paying out far more than they've made back via poor investments or otherwise. Example, due to very poor investments, the Chicago Police pension has made less money in the past decade then your Social Security did. This is one of the BIG reasons I'm against privatization of Social Security, and should serve as a warning to those who think it's a good idea. At the very least, with a 401K, you get to decide which funds to put your money into from a variety of choices. Those who pay into pensions do not get to decide...their money is invested as someone else sees fit, and whether that works out in the long run depends on that performance. In the case of the Chicago Police, their investments LOST money...and now they have no way to make up for the loss aside from cutting new officers off of the pension system. Social Security needs some work, however, it should never EVER be privatized for this very reason. On outsourcing. If done properly, it can be a benefit to cost savings in many ways, from training to insurance to pay level, however, more often than not, it's not done properly. The only thing they care is the immediate short term cost savings, but never considered the possible future implications. See examples, Microsoft, Dell, HP, etc. Done improperly, it can become cumbersome, more expensive and devastating to your companies reputation. As a non business user, having to speak to someone from China/India named "Chad", who barely speaks English (communication barrier), and is clearly reading simple instructions off of a script that may help Grandma, but do nothing but waste my time makes me look for alternatives the next time I'm ready for purchase. This also falls over into business decisions where I happen to work...having a bad Dell experience has caused me to move two different companies away from anything Dell related. Their poor decision to outsource actually cost them hundreds of thousands of dollars due to my repeated bad experiences.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 20, 2010 -> 07:26 PM) Which is why one might take a larger survey. ANd perhaps graph the data. Good point, I'll concede that.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 20, 2010 -> 05:52 PM) So really, all you are saying is, inflation for Y2HH appears to be going up, in his/her experience. That's been my personal experience, so it's the only experience I can draw upon, regardless of what some graph shows should be happening.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 20, 2010 -> 04:28 PM) Well, you're making pretty declarative statements like "prices ARE rising" and calling me and NSS idiots and retards. That sounds like you're saying we're wrong, and this sounds like a backpedal. Allow me to amend my statement. Prices around me ARE rising. I'm happy you live in a far away land where everything is now cheaper, which means you have more free cash to spend, since you're saving it on everything else. Oh, and I do apologize for calling you a retard and an idiot, or anyone else. I wish I hadn't. It's why I stopped posting here last time, and it's creeping back...I'll be more careful. I love these sorts of discussions and disagreements, but sometimes they rile me up.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 20, 2010 -> 05:15 PM) Let me have some fun with anecdotes. I track my grocery expenses very closely. In 2008, I hit about the end of a 2 year runup of milk prices: CA ran a multi-buy deal, where you buy 2 and you get a better price. On average, I was paying nearly $5. By the end of 2008, that amount had been cut more than in half. In 2009, it went up slightly, but no where near the amount that it was. Strikingly, this is amazingly similar to the "including volatile commodities" part of that graph; including food and fuel costs. A big spike followed by a huge decline. Now, I don't think that we were suffering from the worst deflation in history based on my milk prices, and I don't think that we suffered from the worst inflation in history based on my milk prices. But I wrote this just to illustrate...what your anecdotes tell you is different from what other people's anecdotes tell them. But this is kind of my point when it comes to finance/economics. It affects you differently, regardless of some national study, just as it affects everyone differently. If I were buying all my goods and services on a nationalized "average price", maybe then the graph would mean something to me, but I'm not. I'm buying where I live, around where I live, and where I live prices are up, across the board, for everything I do. I simply cannot apply that graph to MY life, nor my area, because my experience isn't matching up with it.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 20, 2010 -> 04:11 PM) That logic doesn't actually follow...it could be that a very small minority thinks that way but that minority is exceptionally vocal or exceptionally politically powerful. I'll give you that.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 20, 2010 -> 04:18 PM) You do realize that that is really bad reasoning, right? That individuals are susceptible to all sorts of unintentional biases, and that humans are known for having very high rates of false positives for pattern recognition? I'm not saying I'm right and you, anyone else here, or that study is wrong. This is merely my observation and how it's affected me, and the people around me. In my experiences that graph is bulls***. However, you may find the exact opposite. This is why some economists are saying inflation is on the rise, others claim it's steady, and others even say deflation is coming. If it were as simple as looking at a graph, they'd all come to the same conclusion, but they aren't.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 20, 2010 -> 03:33 PM) I'll try this one more time. You make claims of something happening. The data provided by other people contradict it. Your response so far: data is bulls***. Now... will you show any data or explanation whatsoever to counter it? Doesn't need to be a graph or a study, even just a financial or economic description of examples or reasons. Something. Anything other than "its there, you're all blind". When it comes to finance and economics, especially in how it affects me/my family, I tend to prefer the "think for myself method" rather than reading what others claim and taking it at face value, so long as they attach a study or graph. I get that this board is obsessed with fact checking, white papers, studys, graphs, and polls, and in some cases I see this as applicable, and I see it as necessary, especially when it comes to science. But economics and finance are not an exact science, especially now, in an era where 97% of the money out there isn't on paper, but on a computer. When it comes to finance and it's effects on people from the top down, I do tend to quickly dismiss things that don't match with the reality around me. Graph says inflation is 0. World around me says otherwise. Call it me being naive, or ignorant, and dismiss it if you will...doesn't affect me either way. I can see what's going on out there, it's not very hard to do, either. You should try it once. I see prices rising across the board on everything from gasoline, to milk, to bread. I see people taking pay cuts for new jobs or to keep their current jobs. I see the costs employers are covering in terms of 401k's (matching), and/or healthcare/dental care falling, meaning they're covering less and having you make up for the difference. I see the value of the dollar (while on a recent rise), still worth far FAR less than it once was. I don't need nor require a book, graph, study or paper to prove this to myself...and I really don't care if you believe what I say or not. I'm attaching no studies, no graphs, nor citing any books or financial white papers to prove this to you. If you believe prices are remaining the same, that inflation doesn't exist, and the stimulus money is sitting on the sidelines and they haven't pumped trillions into the economy in order to "stimulate growth", go ahead and keep believing that.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Dec 20, 2010 -> 02:33 PM) There is an inherent flaw in this argument, its trying to determine what a "typical" person is. While it sounds good to call it an inherent flaw, I don't think it is. If it was a flawed argument, this entire ordeal wouldn't be an issue, and we wouldn't be talking about it. The fact that this is an issue (gays in the military), shows that the typical person does think like this, be it from peer pressure or otherwise.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Dec 20, 2010 -> 03:34 PM) I think part of this problem is that there are a number of people, and you yourself seem to admit to this, that are more than willing to subscribe to the most over the top stereotype of what gay people are and aren't. It's the equivalent of me thinking that all straight people are like the guys and girls from Jersey Shore. I do think most people are more than willing to accept the stereotype of what gay people are, what they look like, etc, all based on a vocal minority of them, and that's part of the problem. While most people in the world have been exposed to other straight people, many societies, religions, etc., are against, or at least claim to be against homosexuality. However, what you say does hold water, look at how many foreign people view Americans in a very generalized stereotypical fashion...it's the same exact thing IMO. No, we aren't like Jersey Shore, and no, gays are NOT like they're usually portrayed by the flamboyant crowds on TV, either.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 20, 2010 -> 02:31 PM) Same as with TV, except in this case it's probably the monopoly on infrastructure that allows them to force you to pay for all the channels rather than actual law. Hopefully soon TV loses that stranglehold -- and I think they are. The only thing missing now is sports contracts and the ability to stream them to things like apple tv, roku, etc.

I have Sirius, but I guess they're the same thing now. I really love the service, but I dislike their channel options. I wish I could just pick and choose from the list of all the channels they have, exactly which ones I want, and only pay for those. No matter which package you choose, you end up having a majority you never want to listen too, or never will listen too.

QUOTE (bmags @ Dec 20, 2010 -> 02:03 PM) Whatev, the KC Fed chief has been crying about inflation his whole career. It's probably why he his where he is. This is my point. I've heard and read about so many financial experts claiming all manner of things about inflation, why it will rise, why it should be rising, why it's not rising and we are actually headed for deflation, etc. Many different opinions on it, but none seem to really "know", they're all just good at making "guesses". I've just come to the conclusion that I don't know and that it makes no sense to me. But I guess it does make sense, at least I've been told that by a quite of a few of you now. So I guess I'm just too stupid to understand! Either that, or I'm actually smart enough to admit that what's going on out there makes no sense and I'm not sure what to make of it.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 20, 2010 -> 01:57 PM) It makes perfect sense, as Balta said and for other reasons. But yet again, you fail to show any data at all to back up a claim that flies in the face of all the data that is provided. Ho hum. If it were that simple, you wouldn't have people claiming that inflation is going to run wild "soon", as they've been saying for a few years now, and this is coming from financial "experts" in the field with plenty of "data". But you fail to realize that, I guess. So let's pretend as if none of these things occur or have been occurring, because it makes explaining it away easier...even though it's not. If it were this simple as posting some simple data, the ENTIRE economic world would agree on whether inflation will rise, fall or remain exactly the same. But I've read many DIFFERENT opinions on what is happening and what will happen.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 20, 2010 -> 01:45 PM) A portion of the tax cuts in it, absolutely. The exact same thing will happen with much of the upper income tax cuts in the recently passed 3rd stimulus. You've hit upon exactly why upper income tax cuts are a poor response to the current crisis. I'm not a fan of the upper income tax cuts, but I'm also not a fan of our tax system, either. I know, very unrepublican of me.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 20, 2010 -> 01:17 PM) Yes, it does. All of that money is sitting on the sidelines. So the hundreds of billions of stimulus is unspent and sitting on the sidelines?

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 20, 2010 -> 01:05 PM) Again, this was said when units were racially integrated. And see what happened? There was still racism, there were bad things, but as time went on, the bad things slowly abated. Now, the problems from it are much more rare. I see no reason why this won't be the same. Because this isn't a simple skin color thing...this goes deeper than skin color. Not to say that skin color was simple for everyone, either... For example, and I'll risk being called the homophobe here for the sake of my example, and in this example, I'm trying to see this through the eyes of a person who has almost NO exposure to gay people other than what they've heard or see on tv, radio, internet, etc. Sight unseen, if given the choice of going into a battle (guns blazing, bullets flying), with a typical gay man, or a typical hillbilly from Wisconsin, I'm taking the typical hillbilly, and skin color of either be damned. Why? I'm not sure. For all I know the hillbilly is a 45 pound weakling that can't handle pressure, but I'd sooner take my chance with him than a gay man. Why? I think part of this problem comes from the perception that the openly gay crowd has gone out of their way to project over the years. They do NOT represent what I consider the "common gay man", however, they represent a very vocal minority (walk through boys town and see what I mean, for example), and for most people who haven't been around gay people for a lot of their lives, they don't know what these "common gay men" are like...all they see are the flaming ones on TV wearing short pink shirts and going on the show project runway with their over the top "gay" voices. That's their only real exposure to them, so that's how they think they ALL act. I think in a way this is some of what Tex is saying, but I'm taking it a bit further and into more detail. The fact that people actually know what I'm talking about when I talk about having a "gay voice", should say something about their image. What's with that, anyway? :/ To me, like Tex said, it's the difference in being allowed and being accepted. Over time, I'm sure it'll get better as what I consider the normal gay people will diffuse the image portrayed upon all gay men will diminish.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 20, 2010 -> 01:07 PM) Eh? Inflation has been pretty tame in the past three years. Or, if you mean people have been saying it will happen for 3+ years, that's still correct. No one is saying it was going to happen while still deep in the recession, they are saying it will happen during the recovery, which is only just now starting to take some baby steps. And this is the part that makes no sense. I'd love to be able to make sense of inflation data right now, but I simply cannot. What tied inflation to reality has completely become unwound and makes NO sense anymore. They've borrowed so much and printed so much paper money in the last few years that inflation should have skyrocketed, but it hasn't. Why? It makes no sense. Then I see charts showing it's at almost 0%, but across the board, in every way, prices have gone up while wages have mostly remained flat or even gone down (and forget about including the people who lost their jobs). While I'd love to make sense of it all, I just cannot do so...so when I see charts showing one thing, but have experienced the exact opposite...it's impossible for me to agree with.